All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

If FDR, JFK and LBJ saw the disunity and discord within the Democrat party, they would be rolling in their graves.

FDR would not give a ****. He forced the Democratic Party to move to his will based on his tremendous popularity and forced through things that people today would think are impossible and they because the stickiest and most important government programs in many people's lives. Oh and it brought about the golden age of Democratic dominance which only ended during the rise of the neolibs in the 80's and 90's.

JFK wouldn't give a **** either to be honest. He was a Kennedy first and a Democrat second. It wasn't about fanataticsim to a party to that family ever, if anything it was about getting the reverse dynamic where the party would be fanatic over the family legacy.

And LBJ did whatever he wanted and didn't really care who he lost in the process

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

This doesn't actually demonstrate that progressive candidates will do better.

Is there any argument that Kerry should have won given the fundamentals of 2004 (George W Bush was a wartime President given a lot of credit for how he handled 9/11; Republicans had only held the White House for one term.)

Biden's main issues in the '88 and '08 primaries weren't due to a preference for other types of candidates.

From my vantage point, the strongest argument in favor of nominating moderate candidates is they're the types who swung the House back to the Democrats and won some major statewide elections.


The Iowa caucus is notoriously difficult to poll, because the vote at the beginning can change, but the later polls consistently showed Sanders in first place.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...731.html#polls

The bigger surprise was Mayor Pete.

Not really. Pete had an Iowa only strategy for months and he actually was leading in it until the last couple of weeks when Sanders started his surge. We were even talking about on here. Let's call it effectively tie. Sanders did what was expected and Pete who was always doing well, was able to siphon Biden voters who wanted an alternative to him to get the wind to put him on even pace with Sanders.

The bigger surprise in Iowa was that Biden drastically underperfomed. Not just lost. His team was literally stunned by how little support there was for him. Going forward that's the big take away because Biden was already struggling for money and donors are now looking at other people because he shook their confidence. Now other candidates are starting to cutting into states where Biden was supposed to be playing prevent defense on. Biden needs strong decisive wins in the South to have a chance at winning one. It can't be small splits. He should be scared out of his mind that Nevada is basically a toss up right now and Steyer and Sanders are starting to make moves in South Carolina. If he has anything less than a dominant win there, it's over for him.

[The Overlord]

Listen, you never once took any of the things I said to heart and responded intellectually. So I wont indulge you in conversation until you do more than these little whatabout rants.

Every (EVERY) thought about winning 2020 is a theory for obvious reasons. You asked what Buttigieg and Bidens argument is. I answered. To support that you can look at these facts: no left wing politician has won the Presidency in a century. Bernie himself got his ass kicked in every key swing state except WI and Mi 2016. His current poll numbers struggle in those same states. 2018 candidates who won the House were almost entirely moderates, especially those in swing states.

Bernie has to find a lane to win in those key areas. In fact, that's exactly what his rural/urban thing was about. That was a (wise) general election strategy.

And when is the last the Dems tried to run a left wing candidate against the GOP in the general?

I will note that I think Bernie has the best chance of recapturing the Rust Belt workers who Hillary lost in 2016 and have you seen any articles on how Bernie could beat Trump?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...mplate=amphtml

It just seems people criticize Bernie for losing to Clinton in the primary, but when I bring up the major loss Biden had in the 1988 primary, I got crickets.

I would be happier if the criticism against Bernie is handled more even handily and other candidates being weak in similar areas is not ignored.

[PaulBullion]

Past that...

That bit about the Christians that Sanders wasn't going to get because he is a Jew?

Hilarious.

Keep those coming.

You completely missed the point on that one. It will definitely be one of the smears Russian bots will use against him, and it will land on target with some people. Have you looked at what passes for Christian in the US these days?

[PaulBullion]

No one cares about the Rogan endorsement.

Look at any recent poll that shows the candidates LGBTQ support. Sanders still runs circles around Pete.

Look at the polls your link cited. Bernie's favorability among African-Americans didn't crater. What the writer of that article didn't mention was he was comparing the 1st choice for nominee. Bernie and Biden's fall can be explained by Bloomberg's rise.

Bernie's favorability among African-Americans is still almost the same. The writer had to omit information to make it look like Sanders was losing support.

1. His support DID crater. Cut in half in the same poll before and after Rogan.
2. That shows people did care about the Rogan endorsement. As many, very vocally, said. Please do not ignore black and gay people.

[Theleviathan]

And when is the last the Dems tried to run a left wing candidate against the GOP in the general?

I will note that I think Bernie has the best chance of recapturing the Rust Belt workers who Hillary lost in 2016 and have you seen any articles on how Bernie could beat Trump?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...mplate=amphtml

It just seems people criticize Bernie for losing to Clinton in the primary, but when I bring up the major loss Biden had in the 1988 primary, I got crickets.

I would be happier if the criticism against Bernie is handled more even handily and other candidates being weak in similar areas is not ignored.

Yes, Biden hasnt primaried well and so far he is flopping. But once again you did a "whatabout". Knock that off please.

That article was all fluff and little substance. Sanders, or anyone else for that matter, does need to reverse the rust belt. All available evidence shows that to be a challenge for Bernie.

[PaulBullion]

Bernie did not do so much worse in Iowa. He won the popular vote by 1000s.

The reason he is tied with Pete is because Biden under performed and his voters went to Pete. In the 1st count Bernie and Warren were ahead of Pete.

Your first sentence explains why I am wrong.
Your second sentence makes exactly the point I made, just in other words.

Give me one good reason why I should still engage you here and not put you on ignore instead?

[PaulBullion]

Poorly? You know Mayor Pete and Bernie are pretty close in terms of results:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...anada-51366831

It's not like Mayor Pete won in a landslide.

Meanwhile Biden came in fourth, how is that for electability?

Is the phrase "did so much worse in Iowa than predicted before he embraced Rogan" really so hard to understand? People keep reacting to something I did not say. He did not do horribly bad, but he definitely underperformed. And it was only polls after the Rogan embrace that started hinting at it. I cannot prove causality, but are you really denying a correlation that is very easy to prove?

Or are you just trying to win an argument that is only in your head, because the one that is actually there you cannot win?

[The Overlord]

Yes, Biden hasnt primaried well and so far he is flopping. But once again you did a "whatabout". Knock that off please.

That article was all fluff and little substance. Sanders, or anyone else for that matter, does need to reverse the rust belt. All available evidence shows that to be a challenge for Bernie.

Is it Whataboutism to compare and contrast Bernie to other people running in this primary? That's kinda the point of a primary, you have to compare and contrast the candidates.

All this talk about Whataboutism seems like an excuse to complain about Bernie and not put other candidates under a similar microscope. If you do not vet Biden or Buttiege by ignoring them, then what do you do when Trump pulls all the stops against them? I see far more complaints about Bernie from your side on thread than I do about Biden or Buttiege, are they getting a free ride here? When is the last time a non Bernie supporter brought up their flaws and weaknesses>

You demand a well-detailed plan on how Bernie can win, but your defense for Biden or Buttiege is a tired moderate win Swing States argument that failed last time.

I have do not have a detailed fool proof plan on how Bernie will beat Trump, but least I am not trying to repeat a strategy that failed last time.

Is the phrase "did so much worse in Iowa than predicted before he embraced Rogan" really so hard to understand? People keep reacting to something I did not say. He did not do horribly bad, but he definitely underperformed. And it was only polls after the Rogan embrace that started hinting at it. I cannot prove causality, but are you really denying a correlation that is very easy to prove?

Or are you just trying to win an argument that is only in your head, because the one that is actually there you cannot win?

The polls also said Biden would be in second in Iowa, clearly the polls are not always correct.

Underperformed based on what metric, was it supposed to be a landslide for Bernie? Unless he does terrible in New Hampshire, he is still in this race.

I think Rogan stuff is overblown, yes Rogan is an idiot, but guess what, in this election, you will have reach out some people with boorish opinions on a lot of issues, you can't just win with people you like.

[PaulBullion]

I'm not making up wild conspiracies here. The GOP is supporting the Sanders wing in plain sight.

GOP-affiliated PAC pays ads for more left-wing candidate in Democratic primary for US Senate seat in North Carolina to harm more moderate "establishment candidate"

(CNN)The first significant ad buy for state Sen. Erica Smith, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in North Carolina, appears to be backed by Republicans.

Faith and Power, a new political action committee with ties to Republicans, formally launched on January 29 and spent more than $1.9 million to influence the Democratic primary, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission and the Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group.
The television and radio ads aims to boost Smith over Cal Cunningham, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and has raised significantly more money.
"Who's the Democrat for US Senate endorsed by progressives and unions? Erica Smith," says the ad's narrator. "Who's got the courage to vote for 'Medicare for All'? Erica Smith. The number one supporter of the Green New Deal? Erica Smith again."
"Erica Smith is one of us -- a high school educator, engineer, state senator and ordained minister," adds the narrator. "Vote Democrat Erica Smith for US Senate, the only proven progressive."

They are definitely not doing this to move America to the left, chillun.

[numberthirty]

You completely missed the point on that one. It will definitely be one of the smears Russian bots will use against him, and it will land on target with some people. Have you looked at what passes for Christian in the US these days?

The ones that would not vote for any Democrat?

Yeah, I might have heard something about that.

It went a little something like -

"Since We Were Never Going To Vote For Any Democrat To Start With, The Fact That We Won't Be Voting For Sanders Based On His Being A Jew Isn't Much Of A Negative For Sanders..."

[PaulBullion]

The ones that would not vote for any Democrat?

Yeah, I might have heard something about that.

It went a little something like -

"Since We Were Never Going To Vote For Any Democrat To Start With, The Fact That We Won't Be Voting For Sanders Based On His Being A Jew Isn't Much Of A Negative For Sanders..."

You do realize that voter turnout is a factor in elections?

If not, let me explain real quick:
In our polarized society, elections become less and less about getting people to switch party. It's about getting your people to get out and vote, and their people to stay home.

That is where social media election influencing leverages: Cause disappointment in the Democratic candidate by digging out skeletons, taking voting history details out of context or just plain making up lies.
On the other hand, get GOP leaning voters who have many reasons to be disappointed in Trump energized by demonizing the Democratic candidate, using similar tools.

[Celgress]

I really like what I heard from Pete Buttigieg last night. He was calm, coherent and on message. I'm at the point I hope he wins.

The big loser, IMO, was Joe Biden. He was angry, incoherent and scatterbrained.

[4saken1]

The irony of this was that we know for a fact (the receipts are there) that the Democrats and the DNC were dying for Trump to be the nominee because they thought he would be the easiest label and campaign against. The reality was, he was probably the one person that had such support that you could never really find that one thing that would keep him down for good and he was the one person they were incapable of beating. If it was Jeb Bush you would have ran against the Bush dynasty vs the more favorable Clinton dynasty, if it was Cruz you would have an unlikeable hard right conservative that even his own party can't stand, if it was Rubio you'd have a poor debater who melts in the limelight. etc. She likely wipes the floor with any of them in the midwest and it's game set match.

Arguments from the far left make it seem as if the Clinton campaign actually chose Trump to be their Presidential opponent. The evidence of this, which somehow has been received as rock solid proof for the Sanders crowd, is some leaked memo showing Hillary spit balling an idea about it. Was this idea even carried out on any major scale? If so, do we honestly think that it had anything to do with Trump winning the nomination?

Secondly, there is the misperception that Trump beating Hillary was a foregone conclusion. She had a strong lead over him for the majority of the race. Had the Election been held a couple of weeks earlier, she would have won. Had Comey stated things a little differently, or not said anything at all, she likely would have won. Had more of Sanders followers shown up in key states, she likely would have won. Had Sanders followers not continued to campaign against her right up until the Election, she might have won. They would have done this no matter who she was running against, and they continue to **** all over every other candidate who is running in 2020. This is why a large percent of fans of other candidates probably won't be voting for Sanders in 2020 if he gets the nomination. It will be interesting to see whom supporters of other candidates will gravitate to once they start dropping out of the Primary. I think Sanders probably won't be absorbing much of it, and will struggle to gain anything higher that the low 30s.

[PaulBullion]

I think Democratic Socialism, globally, is an awesome and effective movement.

Why does it attract mostly **** knuckles and horrible assclowns in the US?

EQQmF2eWsAE7QlW.jpg

EQQmF2cW4AAdQ7n.jpg