All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

Wow, this is the second time James Carville has unloaded on Sanders and Sanders' supporters in a week -



Edit - Says "I'm not interested in being in a cult".

He also seemed to be talking about how Bennet was going to do in South Carolina...

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/75612...ntial-campaign

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet Ends 2020 Democratic Presidential Campaign

[Mister Mets]

Interesting that Warren is in single digits in Massachusetts, where she has a regional edge, after placing third in Iowa, and that Klobuchar is a strong third in New Hampshire, after placing fifth in Iowa, where she's the one with the regional edge.

I know other factors come into this (strong debate performance, experience minded establishment Democrats looking for a Biden alternative, a good electability argument) but it's an unlikely outcome.

I wonder what the race is going forward.

Sanders won New Hampshire but barely. And he's shown an inability to sway anyone outside his base.

Klobuchar may be rising too late to get the campaign infrastructure necessary for Super Tuesday or the Nevada Caucuses.

Buttigieg is clearly a top-tier contender, but he's still a small-city mayor.

I don't see a path forward for Warren if she got fourth place in a neighboring state.

Biden's taken big hits, but there isn't an obvious alternative choice to win South Carolina.

Bloomberg is waiting with more money than any candidate ever to see how everything shakes out.

[Theleviathan]

Elections always tend to be an uphill climb for the left because, generally speaking, we have strong principles that we end up tying ourselves into knots trying to uphold, whereas the right quite openly doesn't have any, but aren't afraid to bring the hammer down on any minor inconsistency we display. Trying to reciprocate won't work, because conservatives don't care about getting caught contradicting themselves. Centrists just combine the worst of both sides, because they don't have any principles and so aren't appealing from a policy standpoint, but at the same time will shy away from fighting dirty and so tend to be pretty ineffective at implementing their agenda also. Obama sure could make some great speeches but ended up getting caught up in legislative quagimres time after time because he wouldn't stake out a strong position and would always give ground too easily even when he had leverage he could apply. Today's centrist candidates have all the wishy washy-ness and none of the charisma, so why should we bother giving them the time of day?

This paragraph is so off-base I'd almost think it satire.

[aja_christopher]

"Moderate" Democrats just had one of the most popular presidents of the modern era win election twice and more recently won midterm elections in historical fashion.

Yet people will come here and try to argue that Democrats "don't win" when in reality political power tends to go in cycles as democratic voters tend to get fed up with whomever is in power.

More relevantly, if Democrats "don't win" then they wouldn't have just won the midterms by such a large margin.

The irony is that said individuals keep claiming they can help the Democrats not lose by promoting a candidate who lost to a moderate in the last election, and progressive politics that failed to win votes in the most recent midterms.

[Tazirai]

You've already given out more info than I've heard from most supporters of Sanders.

I lived in England for a year, so I saw firsthand how convenient and efficient their system is compared to ours. Conversely, I also experienced governmental health care via family military benefits in America as well, along with student health care programs in college, living-wage health care plans while working during the summers, corporate health care programs while working in management at a Fortune 500 company, and COBRA costs while unemployed due to injury.

Where I can see the value -- and problems -- inherent in each of these systems, the average American voter doesn't have any real insight to the benefits of expanded health care services outside of maybe government workers and the ACA. It doesn't help that a large part of said American public sees such social services as "handouts" for African-Americans and "illegals, something which often causes them to vote against their own interests in that respect.

It would be one thing if I saw a clear plan for how Sanders will pay for these programs but the truth is that we are basically being told that it will work out without anyone specifying exactly how it will work out. I'm not a fatalist with regards to most issues, but I likewise don't believe in assuming you can get things done without knowing how to do so, especially when you are attempting to overhaul something as immense as the health care system, or college tuition, or any other governmental program.

It's not that I believe that it can't -- or shouldn't -- be done.

I just don't believe in investing that much trust in someone without a plan or record of success with regards to similar legislation.

No matter what we tell you you don't care. So we stop trying. Because no matter what you say the same thing. That we don't give you the information. It's just not true.

[Tazirai]

I'm convinced Chuck Todd doesn't understand elections. He's making the same reductive talking points people said about Trump when he was winning. It's a flawed methodology because elections are more complicated than that.

Chuck gets paid to not understand.

[Tazirai]

Exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Democrats are the WORST at fighting.

[aja_christopher]

No matter what we tell you you don't care. So we stop trying. Because no matter what you say the same thing. That we don't give you the information. It's just not true.

Don't lie about people just because you disagree with them.

I asked you repeatedly for Sanders plan. After dodging for a while, you finally posted a link that didn't explain anything more than the estimated 4% tax increase and corporate tax increases that had no real numbers behind them, nor any explanation of how said legislation would be passed through Congress.

It's not about hating Sanders -- it's about wanting to know the facts about how he's going to win the general, and how he's going to finance his policies.

The link you provided didn't answer my questions and neither did you -- you just went back to claiming people "hate" Sanders just for asking for a real plan.

Just be honest -- the reason you can't answer the question is because even Sanders isn't clear on what he's going to do.

-----
"Supporters like Sanders and Warren argue that Medicare for All would not create new health care spending, but rather would simply shift current spending — and, potentially, ultimately reduce overall spending and save money. Estimates vary as to whether there actually would be savings, and how big those savings would be."

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/29/77439...dicare-for-all

[numberthirty]

Chuck gets paid to not understand.

Minor Grumble...

How did that guy wind up with Meet The Press?

[Tazirai]

Interesting that Warren is in single digits in Massachusetts, where she has a regional edge, after placing third in Iowa, and that Klobuchar is a strong third in New Hampshire, after placing fifth in Iowa, where she's the one with the regional edge.

I know other factors come into this (strong debate performance, experience minded establishment Democrats looking for a Biden alternative, a good electability argument) but it's an unlikely outcome.

I wonder what the race is going forward.

Sanders won New Hampshire but barely. And he's shown an inability to sway anyone outside his base.

Klobuchar may be rising too late to get the campaign infrastructure necessary for Super Tuesday or the Nevada Caucuses.

Buttigieg is clearly a top-tier contender, but he's still a small-city mayor.

I don't see a path forward for Warren if she got fourth place in a neighboring state.

Biden's taken big hits, but there isn't an obvious alternative choice to win South Carolina.

Bloomberg is waiting with more money than any candidate ever to see how everything shakes out.

This is false 100%. You guys see what you want instead of looking at the full data.

He won WOMEN.
He won Minorities.
He won Rural areas.
He won Major Cities.
He won Iowa, but Pete got the positive press. You think if Pete didn't that silly ass media push, he wouldn't have gotten stomped?

Bernies biggest weakness is older white voters.

Media is going to try to place this as a loss. As Bernie ran against 400 Democrats. There were TWO when he ran last time.
The winner is the winner, and that's Sanders.

He should have won larger. But I take the last week as a Push for Pete.

Turnout was much higher, by 18%, but it should have been higher.


Here's the numbers.

[Tazirai]

Minor Grumble...

How did that guy wind up with Meet The Press?

Because Chuck likes to ask the questions his bosses want him too. Not the questions that help people understand reality.

[numberthirty]

This is false 100%. You guys see what you want instead of looking at the full data.

He won WOMEN.
He won Minorities.
He won Rural areas.
He won Major Cities.
He won Iowa, but Pete got the positive press. You think if Pete didn't that silly ass media push, he wouldn't have gotten stomped?

Bernies biggest weakness is older white voters.

Media is going to try to place this as a loss. As Bernie ran against 400 Democrats. There were TWO when he ran last time.
The winner is the winner, and that's Sanders.

He should have won larger. But I take the last week as a Push for Pete.

Turnout was much higher, by 18%, but it should have been higher.


Here's the numbers.

Also worth noting that he had better "Younger Voter..." turnout in Iowa.

[aja_christopher]

This is false 100%. You guys see what you want instead of looking at the full data.

Bernie Sanders
9 25.7% 70,570

Pete Buttigieg
9 24.4% 66,918

-----
How is that not "barely" a win for Sanders -- it's you who are seeing what you want to see.

You're not being reasonable in this discussion -- I'll give Sanders credit for doing well in both Iowa and New Hampshire, but they definitely weren't remarkable victories for him, and the going will most likely on get more challenging for him from this point on, just as it did last time against Hillary.

Sanders might win but pretending he's the overwhelming choice of most voters because he won Iowa and New Hampshire is premature to say the least.

[Tami]

2020 Delegate Count and Primary Calendar

In the end, what counts are the Delegates

2020-02-12 2020 Delegate Count.jpg

[Theleviathan]

This is false 100%. You guys see what you want instead of looking at the full data.

He won WOMEN.
He won Minorities.
He won Rural areas.
He won Major Cities.
He won Iowa, but Pete got the positive press. You think if Pete didn't that silly ass media push, he wouldn't have gotten stomped?

Bernies biggest weakness is older white voters.

Media is going to try to place this as a loss. As Bernie ran against 400 Democrats. There were TWO when he ran last time.
The winner is the winner, and that's Sanders.

He should have won larger. But I take the last week as a Push for Pete.

Turnout was much higher, by 18%, but it should have been higher.


Here's the numbers.

The hell you get your facts from? Sanders didn't win women so I doubt all of this. Plus, you have a track record of blatant falsehoods.