All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Theleviathan]

If the argument is that any candidate is going to galvanize anyone it’s a bad sign.

It’s really not wise to compare 2016 to 2020 because the dynamic is different. Last year it was clear long time establishment candidate vs a clear single progressive. Now it’s two progressives, a person trying to be the middle man, an establishment figure, a centrist, and two businessmen angling for progressive and centrist lanes.

Also he won. So if it’s a bad sign for him, it’s an awful sign for everyone else

I said the turnout is bad for everyone. Each primary has it's own context. Biden doing poorly in South Carolina is much worse for him than, say, California. If Bernie has South Carolina even with Biden, or significantly closes the gap with black voters - you'll call that a win regardless of where Biden sits at the end of the night. And you'd be right.
So don't play games here. Stripping away context is convenient for you, but that's not going to fly with me as a legit counter.

None of this gets to the issue though. Bernie and his supporters are making the argument that excitement and energy are needed to win. Shouldn't that be evident in the primary process? Who else is in the race has zero to do with that argument. Why does a couple extra people running result in these energized folks staying home? That doesn't make sense. There were less very liberal primary voters (who overwhelmingly voted for Sanders) and there were less people 18-44 (who also overwhelmingly voted for Sanders) He's holding the groups he promises to hold, but part of the argument is turnout and so far we have two primaries that show a decrease rather than an increase.

And he will NEED an increase to beat Trump. Hell, he might just to avoid a contested convention.

[worstblogever]

OH WBEeeeeeee-

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Gov...ate-funds.html

He also sponsored legislation to declare Tennessee a "sanctuary to bear arms", and another bill he sponsored aimed to have Tennessee declare the Washington Post and CNN as "fake news from the media wing of the Democratic Party".

Micah Van Huss is some bats***, all right. He's been around since 2012, but he's going off the deep end, and fast.

[Theleviathan]

Not to mention voter suppression among students that make some of the liberal voters.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...all-it-n892906

Whatever voting problems exist, they existed in 2016 as well. So comparing apples to apples (the best we can), the turnout is still lower.

[Billy Batson]

Whatever voting problems exist, they existed in 2016 as well. So comparing apples to apples (the best we can), the turnout is still lower.

That specific thing happened in 2018.

[Malvolio]

OH WBEeeeeeee-

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Gov...ate-funds.html

Maybe he could submit a bill counting unborn fetuses as 3/5 of a human being.

BTW, my bad for taking those early returns with Warren in third and Klobuchar in fourth as the final tally.

[Theleviathan]

That specific thing happened in 2018.

Fair enough, it tracks with 2008 as well. I know that finding excuses for trends that aren't positive is what people do. I guess I'd prefer instead, if Bernie is our nominee, to find ways to make the turnout happen. Bernie won't win if he can't turn out first-time voters and young people in droves.

I'm sure you'll find all sorts of excuses going forward if that's the case, but maybe (call me an optimist) you might concede that those numbers need to reverse going forward? If New Hampshire really is the product of that law, alright, but then Nevada better look different. And every other primary. If that "energy" doesn't show up to the polls than it's useless to all of us.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I said the turnout is bad for everyone. Each primary has it's own context. Biden doing poorly in South Carolina is much worse for him than, say, California. If Bernie has South Carolina even with Biden, or significantly closes the gap with black voters - you'll call that a win regardless of where Biden sits at the end of the night. And you'd be right.
So don't play games here. Stripping away context is convenient for you, but that's not going to fly with me as a legit counter.

None of this gets to the issue though. Bernie and his supporters are making the argument that excitement and energy are needed to win. Shouldn't that be evident in the primary process? Who else is in the race has zero to do with that argument. Why does a couple extra people running result in these energized folks staying home? That doesn't make sense. There were less very liberal primary voters (who overwhelmingly voted for Sanders) and there were less people 18-44 (who also overwhelmingly voted for Sanders) He's holding the groups he promises to hold, but part of the argument is turnout and so far we have two primaries that show a decrease rather than an increase.

And he will NEED an increase to beat Trump. Hell, he might just to avoid a contested convention.

He won. There’s 7 plus candidates in the field the field that got votes. It’s different than 16. He just won in a state that a over a month ago he wasn’t leading in and edged out the person who was. He just took the lead in national polls

Every argument you made a applies more to every other candidate who got less votes, is not leading nationally, who either ate a massive loss (Warren and Biden) or who have massive negatives with POC’s (Buttigieg Klobuchar). Right now if you are asking who is the best positioned to win, its Bernie by a lot. He’s surging at the correct time, his chief progressive rival is becoming non viable, the two surprise candidates have the equivalent of disqualified in the South and the primary rival in Biden has just eaten embarrassing losses and lost the lead for the first time while the two billionaires are siphoning off support in the South and the Klobuchar and Buttigieg are doing that to him in the North. If you are looking for someone who has the stars aligning, its him. It’s not close either. Buttigieg was winning Iowa and NH decisively not long ago, he didn’t get the boost he wanted and now has to go to places he is going pretty bad in. Same with Klobuchar though you can at least argue she didn’t lose the wind of a surge

[Theleviathan]

He won. There’s 7 plus candidates in the field the field that got votes. It’s different than 16. He just won in a state that a over a month ago he wasn’t leading in and edged out the person who was. He just took the lead in national polls

Every argument you made a applies more to every other candidate who got less votes, is not leading nationally, who either ate a massive loss (Warren and Biden) or who have massive negatives with POC’s (Buttigieg Klobuchar). Right now if you are asking who is the best positioned to win, its Bernie by a lot. He’s surging at the correct time, his chief progressive rival is becoming non viable, the two surprise candidates have the equivalent of disqualified in the South and the primary rival in Biden has just eaten embarrassing losses and lost the lead for the first time while the two billionaires are siphoning off support in the South and the Klobuchar and Buttigieg are doing that to him in the North. If you are looking for someone who has the stars aligning, its him. It’s not close either. Buttigieg was winning Iowa and NH decisively not long ago, he didn’t get the boost he wanted and now has to go to places he is going pretty bad in. Same with Klobuchar though you can at least argue she didn’t lose the wind of a surge

Can you at least try an honest argument? Buttigieg is also surging, also had his chief rival become non-viable. Now, does Bernie have the inside track? I'd say yes. The wildcard is black voters and we don't know what they'll do with Bernie, Klobuchar, or Buttigieg. None of them are strong in those demographics. Bernie does well with young black voters, but has never polled well with the majority of black voters. So it's anyone's guess what those voters do from here.

In any case, You turned this into a complete strawman though so I'm not indulging that any further. The Bernie supporter argument has been about voter turnout, energy, and getting people out that sat out 2016. Two primaries in...that argument isn't evident. He might win the nomination behind what he does turn-out, but the current signs are all that he's doing none of the things necessary to make it matter in the general. That will have to change or four more years of Trump, which already was a daunting task to overturn, looks all but impossible to avoid.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Can you at least try an honest argument? Buttigieg is also surging, also had his chief rival become non-viable. Now, does Bernie have the inside track? I'd say yes. The wildcard is black voters and we don't know what they'll do with Bernie, Klobuchar, or Buttigieg. None of them are strong in those demographics. Bernie does well with young black voters, but has never polled well with the majority of black voters. So it's anyone's guess what those voters do from here.

In any case, You turned this into a complete strawman though so I'm not indulging that any further. The Bernie supporter argument has been about voter turnout, energy, and getting people out that sat out 2016. Two primaries in...that argument isn't evident. He might win the nomination behind what he does turn-out, but the current signs are all that he's doing none of the things necessary to make it matter in the general. That will have to change or four more years of Trump, which already was a daunting task to overturn, looks all but impossible to avoid.

I was honest.

1. Buttigieg was surging and leading in Iowa and NH a month or so ago. That was his strongest position. Not now. Back then if you said he’s lose NH and tie Iowa, you’d have to consider it a disaster because he had far less support and his campaign is front heavy and dependent on those (unlike Sanders). Meanwhile Sanders just surged to take a tie and a win the first few states and is now leading nationally (a spot Buttigieg is in single digits in)

2. Between Sanders, Klobuchar and Buttigieg, two have non existent black support. Sanders is at 17% in South Carolina, Buttigieg is at 5% and Klobuchar is at 2%. I’ll let you in on a spoiler, only one of them is going to have a shot at a top 3 placement there. Bernie at least has some black support.

Prove your work and show specifically where I strawmanned, because I don’t think you can.

[Celgress]

Utah lawmakers halt efforts to recall, censure Romney over Trump impeachment vote: Instead, they'll offer a resolution to thank Trump for all he's done for the state.

LOL, Trump won't be grateful for this. I see him appealing directly to the people so he can attempt to bypass these lawmakers. I hope for their sakes they are secure in their support otherwise Trump might politically massacre them all to get at Romney.

[Tami]

I'm probably going to get some flack for this, but I started thinking about Sander's young supporters and the phrase that came to mind is "The Entitlement Generation".

I can't see Sanders young supporters supporting him as a person. I see them supporting him as an 'Ideal', a dream of being able to get everything without paying for it, without working for it. education, Healthcare, etc. They don't want to pay taxes anymore than anyone else does, so they aren't thinking in terms of who will pay for his promises. They are not far from the time when their parents took care of them financially, so now they want to Govt to do so tot eh same degree their parents did.

Okay, you can yell and scream at me now.

Edit: Okay, soem idealists might not be thinking fo themselves, but of some larger goal of Social Reform for the poor and so on. But the rest, I'm not so sure they are so altruistic.

[Iron Maiden]

Trump says military may consider discipline for ousted aide Vindman

The same military he overruled in it's lawful punishment of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher for war crimes? But now Trump longs for Vindman to face discipline for ratting on him about Ukraine. Hilarious!

This is shameful. I don't see how anyone serving in our armed forces can be a Trump supporter...but I know there are a sizable number of them that will support him in spite of this

[Celgress]

I'm probably going to get some flack for this, but I started thinking about Sander's young supporters and the phrase that came to mind is "The Entitlement Generation".

I can't see Sanders young supporters supporting him as a person. I see them supporting him as an 'Ideal', a dream of being able to get everything without paying for it, without working for it. education, Healthcare, etc. They don't want to pay taxes anymore than anyone else does, so they aren't thinking in terms of who will pay for his promises. They are not far from the time when their parents took care of them financially, so now they want to Govt to do so tot eh same degree their parents did.

Okay, you can yell and scream at me now.

A great summation of what many Sanders' supporters want naked Communism (or even something akin to an unrestrained "Nanny State") with themselves as the primary beneficiaries of other people's work & wealth.

And yes, you are in for a world of hurt Tami for daring to point out the obvious.

[Theleviathan]

I was honest.

1. Buttigieg was surging and leading in Iowa and NH a month or so ago. That was his strongest position. Not now. Back then if you said he’s lose NH and tie Iowa, you’d have to consider it a disaster because he had far less support and his campaign is front heavy and dependent on those (unlike Sanders). Meanwhile Sanders just surged to take a tie and a win the first few states and is now leading nationally (a spot Buttigieg is in single digits in)

2. Between Sanders, Klobuchar and Buttigieg, two have non existent black support. Sanders is at 17% in South Carolina, Buttigieg is at 5% and Klobuchar is at 2%. I’ll let you in on a spoiler, only one of them is going to have a shot at a top 3 placement there. Bernie at least has some black support.

Prove your work and show specifically where I strawmanned, because I don’t think you can.

Jesus man. Bernie didn't "surge" to a win in New Hampshire. That was always his state. Second, I acknowledged Bernie's limited (but still significantly better than the other two) support among black voters.

You strawmanned by turning the entire conversation into something I wasn't saying. Go back and read what my observation was: Bernie and his supporters have been touting how he will bring energy and progressive out that have shunned elections. Has that happened? (Fact: No. It has not) Does it need to? Yes, I believe it does. After two primaries the "Why Bernie can beat Trump" argument is not holding up. It had *$%^ing zero to do with Pete Buttigieg. That's why you strawmanned and you still are. It's convenient to talk about something else rather than the actual numbers I posted and what that means for what Bernie and his supporters have told us.

So, back to what my actual point was: will we see this progressive energy and when? So far, it hasn't been there. All I care about is winning in November, not some BS rant you want to go on about Buttigieg or Sanders dominant 1.8% victory or some other ****. I want to dig into the exit polls and see that trends are not favorable for anyone. Most notably not the guy who we were promised would march out all these heretofore unseen voters to surge over Trump.

[Iron Maiden]

All 4 quit now yikes. I am curious if the judge will comment in the ruling

RE: The Roger Stone sentencing. Surprised there's not been much discussion on this. Once again this shows that Trump's lap dog A/G Bill Barr is more concerned with things that Trump tweets out while he's tweeting at 1:30 am then, I don't know, the increase in gun violence maybe? Or how about checking into Trump's history of ties to the mob?

The judge still may accept the recommendation that the prosecutors take from the predefined guidelines. I hope she does.