Who will win the Democratic nomination for president?

[PyramidHead]

Leaving this forum is the best decision I have ever made, but I would return like a stray cat to a back porch just to see the conniptions everyone will have when nobody is left for the media to prop up, after they tried and failed to push Beto (dropped out), to push Harris (dropped out), to push Warren (tanking), to push Buttigeig (won't last until Super Tuesday), and is now somehow rallying behind Klobuchar, who has only ever polled in the single digits and has nothing to her name except popularity in a state that has gone blue since Nixon, and when Biden finally shoots blood out of the entire right side of his face on national television while calling Tulsi Gabbard "Aloha Thatcher", every centrist lump of oatmeal is going to to have to contend with the political conflict that has always been the most important one of our generation despite their unwillingness to acknowledge it: fascism versus socialism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Leaving this forum is the best decision I have ever made, but I would return like a stray cat to a back porch just to see the conniptions everyone will have when nobody is left for the media to prop up, after they tried and failed to push Beto (dropped out), to push Harris (dropped out), to push Warren (tanking), to push Buttigeig (won't last until Super Tuesday), and is now somehow rallying behind Klobuchar, who has only ever polled in the single digits and has nothing to her name except popularity in a state that has gone blue since Nixon, and when Biden finally shoots blood out of the entire right side of his face on national television while calling Tulsi Gabbard "Aloha Thatcher", every centrist lump of oatmeal is going to to have to contend with the political conflict that has always been the most important one of our generation despite their unwillingness to acknowledge it: fascism versus socialism.

PH: very glad that you came back! To me, the most concerning aspect regarding most Socialists that I know is their total disregard for conflicting opinions. You say it yourself, that everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist. The implication here is that fascist do not deserve accommodation or any rights in a socialist system. This is why true socialism is so dangerous. It's end goal is really a dictatorship within itself. It's similar to a cult. Capitalism has no such disadvantage. Socialists have value and rights within a capitalist system. Socialist societies can't tolerate different opinions and freedoms. It's a great irony!

 

[Harry Bosch]

My gut tells me that Biden is the safest choice to beat Trump. But my heart is more with Amy and/or Buttigieg.

I initially favored Klobuchar. The comments about how hard she can be on staff concerned me. Perhaps I missed it, but I never heard her address this. I suppose most people would blow this off as a minor issue but I see it as a failure of leadership. You're never going to get the best work out of your people by berating them. If someone is not living up to your expectations, it's fine to fire them but you should never create an atmosphere where people dread coming to work.

I hope Buttigieg can overcome the attacks from the left. It will prepare him for the attacks from the right if he makes it that far. Good training.

I don't know who will be in the Oval Office come 2021 but I bet it will still smell of old people.

What initially attracted you to Klobuchar? I've yet to hear her say anything unique. She strikes me as the stand in for if Biden and Buttigieg drop out.

I like her simply because she's such a straight shooter. My sense is that she's a great leader.

 

[PyramidHead]

Leaving this forum is the best decision I have ever made, but I would return like a stray cat to a back porch just to see the conniptions everyone will have when nobody is left for the media to prop up, after they tried and failed to push Beto (dropped out), to push Harris (dropped out), to push Warren (tanking), to push Buttigeig (won't last until Super Tuesday), and is now somehow rallying behind Klobuchar, who has only ever polled in the single digits and has nothing to her name except popularity in a state that has gone blue since Nixon, and when Biden finally shoots blood out of the entire right side of his face on national television while calling Tulsi Gabbard "Aloha Thatcher", every centrist lump of oatmeal is going to to have to contend with the political conflict that has always been the most important one of our generation despite their unwillingness to acknowledge it: fascism versus socialism.

PH: very glad that you came back! To me, the most concerning aspect regarding most Socialists that I know is their total disregard for conflicting opinions. You say it yourself, that everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist. The implication here is that fascist do not deserve accommodation or any rights in a socialist system. This is why true socialism is so dangerous. It's end goal is really a dictatorship within itself. It's similar to a cult. Capitalism has no such disadvantage. Socialists have value and rights within a capitalist system. Socialist societies can't tolerate different opinions and freedoms. It's a great irony!

Your taxes are going up, cry more

 

[Harry Bosch]

Leaving this forum is the best decision I have ever made, but I would return like a stray cat to a back porch just to see the conniptions everyone will have when nobody is left for the media to prop up, after they tried and failed to push Beto (dropped out), to push Harris (dropped out), to push Warren (tanking), to push Buttigeig (won't last until Super Tuesday), and is now somehow rallying behind Klobuchar, who has only ever polled in the single digits and has nothing to her name except popularity in a state that has gone blue since Nixon, and when Biden finally shoots blood out of the entire right side of his face on national television while calling Tulsi Gabbard "Aloha Thatcher", every centrist lump of oatmeal is going to to have to contend with the political conflict that has always been the most important one of our generation despite their unwillingness to acknowledge it: fascism versus socialism.

PH: very glad that you came back! To me, the most concerning aspect regarding most Socialists that I know is their total disregard for conflicting opinions. You say it yourself, that everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist. The implication here is that fascist do not deserve accommodation or any rights in a socialist system. This is why true socialism is so dangerous. It's end goal is really a dictatorship within itself. It's similar to a cult. Capitalism has no such disadvantage. Socialists have value and rights within a capitalist system. Socialist societies can't tolerate different opinions and freedoms. It's a great irony!

Your taxes are going up, cry more

You are assuming that Trump will lose in 2020. I hope that you are right. Trump losing would probably make me cry! For joy!

 

[TV and credit cards]

My gut tells me that Biden is the safest choice to beat Trump. But my heart is more with Amy and/or Buttigieg.

I initially favored Klobuchar. The comments about how hard she can be on staff concerned me. Perhaps I missed it, but I never heard her address this. I suppose most people would blow this off as a minor issue but I see it as a failure of leadership. You're never going to get the best work out of your people by berating them. If someone is not living up to your expectations, it's fine to fire them but you should never create an atmosphere where people dread coming to work.

I hope Buttigieg can overcome the attacks from the left. It will prepare him for the attacks from the right if he makes it that far. Good training.

I don't know who will be in the Oval Office come 2021 but I bet it will still smell of old people.

Yes, I was bothered by this also. I'll do some research on this and get back to you. However, I will say that there is a double standard on women. I've found that guys in leadership positions who are stern and demand excellence are favored. When women do and act the same, they are called cold blooded and heartless. I'll bet that some of the charges against her were greatly exaggerated. But I'll check...

Secondly, I'm also disturbed that there aren't more bright younger people interested in politics on the left. I think that we are in trouble there.

There may very well be a double standard. But regardless of gender, only the best leaders should ascend to this position. He/she should not only have an effective administration who give 100% every day but the president should be able to coax by carrot or stick the opposition into compromise. Something we can see in Nancy Pelosi in the USMCA agreement and her dealing with a recalcitrant Mitch McConnell.

My gut tells me that Biden is the safest choice to beat Trump. But my heart is more with Amy and/or Buttigieg.

I initially favored Klobuchar. The comments about how hard she can be on staff concerned me. Perhaps I missed it, but I never heard her address this. I suppose most people would blow this off as a minor issue but I see it as a failure of leadership. You're never going to get the best work out of your people by berating them. If someone is not living up to your expectations, it's fine to fire them but you should never create an atmosphere where people dread coming to work.

I hope Buttigieg can overcome the attacks from the left. It will prepare him for the attacks from the right if he makes it that far. Good training.

I don't know who will be in the Oval Office come 2021 but I bet it will still smell of old people.

What initially attracted you to Klobuchar? I've yet to hear her say anything unique. She strikes me as the stand in for if Biden and Buttigieg drop out.

At the time I was likely just searching for someone other than Biden who might work toward uniting America again. I had a negative attitude toward Biden due to his advanced age and up until recently, what I thought were terrible performances during the debates. He seemed nearly incapable of focusing his thoughts during the first couple debates but seems to have settled in now.

 

[Politesse]

The Party has chosen Biden, and the public will comply. Everyone who you'd expect to know has treated him like a sure thing from day one. He'll run, Trump will win, and little will change.

 

[Politesse]

My gut tells me that Biden is the safest choice to beat Trump. But my heart is more with Amy and/or Buttigieg.

Why? Of the remaining candidates for the primary, I think Biden is one of the most likely to lose to Trump. He's a gaffe machine.Trump would run him over.

When Boomers call Biden "the most electable", it's a dog-whistle for "he is an elderly white man", and therefore none of the things that make someone unelectable. It's not a description of his actual electoral history, which fairly dismal.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

My gut tells me that Biden is the safest choice to beat Trump. But my heart is more with Amy and/or Buttigieg.

Why? Of the remaining candidates for the primary, I think Biden is one of the most likely to lose to Trump. He's a gaffe machine.Trump would run him over.

When Boomers call Biden "the most electable", it's a dog-whistle for "he is an elderly white man", and therefore none of the things that make someone unelectable. It's not a description of his actual electoral history, which fairly dismal.

Do you have any evidence that they mean that?

Isn't Sanders an elderly White man?

That he is an elderly White man doesn't make him none of the things that make a person not electable. Being White and old hurts the people who say he's not the right candidate precisely because he's White and old. But additionally, an elderly White man can be one of the things that make a person not electable, like a criminal or someone who engage in one of a number of behaviors that result in a career-ending scandal.

Moreover, Obama was no elderly White man when elected, so being mixed-race or being middle-aged does not make a person not electable, either, clearly, so why focus on Biden? Maybe because of things other than being an elderly White man, like not being too much to the left (let alone a self-described socialist), or being reasonably popular with Black voters, or even not being gay if they reckon that's a problem for many voters (which being old and White of course does not guarantee at all), and so on?

 

[Politesse]

When Boomers call Biden "the most electable", it's a dog-whistle for "he is an elderly white man", and therefore none of the things that make someone unelectable. It's not a description of his actual electoral history, which fairly dismal.

Do you have any evidence that they mean that?

Isn't Sanders an elderly White man?

That he is an elderly White man doesn't make him none of the things that make a person not electable. Being White and old hurts the people who say he's not the right candidate precisely because he's White and old. But additionally, an elderly White man can be one of the things that make a person not electable, like a criminal or someone who engage in one of a number of behaviors that result in a career-ending scandal.

Moreover, Obama was no elderly White man when elected, so being mixed-race or being middle-aged does not make a person not electable, either, clearly, so why focus on Biden? Maybe because of things other than being an elderly White man, like not being too much to the left (let alone a self-described socialist), or being reasonably popular with Black voters, or even not being gay if they reckon that's a problem for many voters (which being old and White of course does not guarantee at all), and so on?

Sanders is a "socialist", also a no-no.

And they made the exact same argument about Obama and Biden when the two were running against each other, it just didn't matter as much because Biden was polling in the singles at that point.

Those were also different times... white nationalists had a lot of rage but very little political sway twelve years ago, nothing like the juggernaut they have become.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When Boomers call Biden "the most electable", it's a dog-whistle for "he is an elderly white man", and therefore none of the things that make someone unelectable. It's not a description of his actual electoral history, which fairly dismal.

Do you have any evidence that they mean that?

Isn't Sanders an elderly White man?

That he is an elderly White man doesn't make him none of the things that make a person not electable. Being White and old hurts the people who say he's not the right candidate precisely because he's White and old. But additionally, an elderly White man can be one of the things that make a person not electable, like a criminal or someone who engage in one of a number of behaviors that result in a career-ending scandal.

Moreover, Obama was no elderly White man when elected, so being mixed-race or being middle-aged does not make a person not electable, either, clearly, so why focus on Biden? Maybe because of things other than being an elderly White man, like not being too much to the left (let alone a self-described socialist), or being reasonably popular with Black voters, or even not being gay if they reckon that's a problem for many voters (which being old and White of course does not guarantee at all), and so on?

Sanders is a "socialist", also a no-no.

And they made the exact same argument about Obama and Biden when the two were running against each other, it just didn't matter as much because Biden was polling in the singles at that point.

Those were also different times... white nationalists had a lot of rage but very little political sway twelve years ago, nothing like the juggernaut they have become.

Yes, Sanders is a self-described socialist and a leftist on many issues, but Sanders is an old White man. You said "therefore none of the things that make someone unelectable.", and my point about Sanders is that of course being an old White man does not imply one is not one of those things that make a person not electable, or even one of those things you believe that the people you accuse believe might make a person unelectable. As for Obama, no, "they" did not make the same argument. Some people made that argument. Others did not. You are accusing a lot of people - namely, all Boomers who say that Biden is the most electable of the bunch -, but with very little evidence. But even some of those who made that argument about Obama v. Biden, now have seen that Obama did win, so they may well realize that being mixed-race does not make a person not electable.

 

[Elixir]

I voted "someone else" but there was no chance to specify as requested (or I missed it).
My vote is for Bloomberg, and is rooted in pure red white and blue cynicism and American honor for huge piles of cash.
He could possibly come to realize that he only really needs a nest egg of $10-20 billion to live out his life in relative comfort, and therefore might decide to dump some 30-plus billion into his own campaign. If form holds, that should do it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Although Biden does look to be the most likely, I would like to remind people of one of the quirks of the 2008 Republican primary.

Everyone assumed Guiliani was a major contender until actual votes were actually cast. Then it was revealed that his plan to win the nomination by collecting absolutely no delegates wasn't actually a good plan.

 

[Derec]

Although Biden does look to be the most likely, I would like to remind people of one of the quirks of the 2008 Republican primary.

Everyone assumed Guiliani was a major contender until actual votes were actually cast. Then it was revealed that his plan to win the nomination by collecting absolutely no delegates wasn't actually a good plan.

Bloomberg seems to me a much better analogue to Giuliani. Both are former NYC mayors and both plan to sit out the early states. Bloomberg is even so arrogant to think he doesn't need to appear in the debates. Debate qualifications are linked with e

Biden is playing the normal political game. And while he is weak in Iowa and New Hampshire, he is currently the prohibitive favorite in South Carolina, which is part of the "early states".

 

[Derec]

I voted "someone else" but there was no chance to specify as requested (or I missed it).
My vote is for Bloomberg,

Bloomberg is one of the choices in the poll.

and is rooted in pure red white and blue cynicism and American honor for huge piles of cash.
He could possibly come to realize that he only really needs a nest egg of $10-20 billion to live out his life in relative comfort, and therefore might decide to dump some 30-plus billion into his own campaign. If form holds, that should do it.

There is a saturation effect in these things. If people see too many ads they are more likely to be annoyed than inspired.
Bloomberg shot himself in the foot by not seeking donors and thus not appearing in any debates before Iowa. He is also writing off all of the four early states.
His entire strategy is that Biden will fall and nobody, not Mayor Pete, not Mad Hatter Amy, nor anybody else will be able to fill the void. Imagine the situation where Bernie does well, and somebody is needed to come to the rescue.

Given how crazy this race has been so far, exactly that might happen.

 

[Derec]

Yes, Sanders is a self-described socialist and a leftist on many issues, but Sanders is an old White man.

He is also straight and cis-gendered. So he is about the worst thing one can be according to the Wokeocracy.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, Sanders is a self-described socialist and a leftist on many issues, but Sanders is an old White man.

He is also straight and cis-gendered. So he is about the worst thing one can be according to the Wokeocracy.

Do you know what the root of the suffix "ocracy" is?
You're mis-using it, unless you think people favoring Sanders' agenda are ruling you.

 

[Derec]

Do you know what the root of the suffix "ocracy" is?
You're mis-using it, unless you think people favoring Sanders' agenda are ruling you.

I do know it, of course. The term was partially tongue-in-cheek. Partially only, as they control much of the academia and the media. Hell, Sanders wasn't even part of it initially. They assimilated him like the Borg assimilated Picard to become Locotus of Borg.

 

[Elixir]

Do you know what the root of the suffix "ocracy" is?
You're mis-using it, unless you think people favoring Sanders' agenda are ruling you.

I do know it, of course. The term was partially tongue-in-cheek. Partially only, as they control much of the academia and the media.

Yeah, it's a travesty that they have any voice at all. God forbid they ever get into power over industry, government, education or healthcare - we could end up like Norway. But thank god and prayz Jeebus for the patriotic Republicans guarding our stock markets, corporate profits and most of all, our American Ideals. Oh wait, that's redundant...

 

[Derec]

Yeah, it's a travesty that they have any voice at all. God forbid they ever get into power over industry, government, education or healthcare - we could end up like Norway. But thank god and prayz Jeebus for the patriotic Republicans guarding our stock markets, corporate profits and most of all, our American Ideals. Oh wait, that's redundant...

Norway's current prime minister is a conservative.