2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[mister d]

Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are all viable alternatives.

Come on. Explain to me how Buttigieg is a viable presidential candidate based on anything tangible.

[govmentchedda]

His Bernie 60's diss last night should be completely disqualifying.

[mister d]

HE MEANT THE COLD WAR!!!

[Steve of phpBB]

I know what you were responding to. But your characterization of flaws, and which ones are "major," is pretty skewed. His age, health, and refusal to release medical records isn't just a problem. It's a major flaw.

Even if, god forbid, he made accurate statements about Cuba’s literacy efforts.

For the first couple of days, I read about Sanders' comments but didn't watch them, and I believed, based on y'all's statements, that all Bernie was mostly just praising literacy efforts. Then last night I played the clip. He wasn't "praising Cuba's literacy efforts." He was praising Castro. He was explaining why the Cuban people haven't risen up against Castro. The only implication is because they are happy with life under Castro.

Plus, if you're explaining, you're losing. The Dems won't get rebuttal time each time the Republicans run an anti-Sanders commercial. So even if that was all he was doing, the quote is out there. And if Sanders is the nominee, it's going to be in everyone's face, along with quotes about how the justice system is racist, and how no one knows how much single payer will cost.

And yeah, his head-to-head numbers against Trump are still about as good as Biden's or Bloomberg's, but Sanders hasn't faced the advertising blitz yet. How popular do you think he'll be after an onslaught of ads combining his positions on Medicare for All, tax increases, covering all illegal immigrants, and decriminalizing illegal entry? I have to imagine that most people who are in favor of all those positions are already supporting him, or fit within the 25-30 percent of the electorate that identifies as liberal.

Plus, and I don't know how much this particular study has been vetted, his chances against Trump may depend on record-high turnout among young voters. Maybe that will happen, maybe it won't.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rates-data

[Steve of phpBB]

Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg are all viable alternatives.

Come on. Explain to me how Buttigieg is a viable presidential candidate based on anything tangible.

He's a clean-cut, reasonable-sounding, moderate alternative to Trump. Basically a younger version of Biden or Bloomberg without their baggage.

I am not saying he *should* be a viable alternative.

[Jerloma]

IOW, while the media sucks, all this pearl clutching about "the establishment" is utter and complete bullshit.

Is it false to say that it's been established that rich people run the country and also own most politicians and almost always have an agenda to make themselves richer? Do you think getting big money out of politics is a reasonable solution to income inequality? If so...think of that as anti-establishment and it probably won't trigger you so much.

[mister d]

He's a clean-cut, reasonable-sounding, moderate alternative to Trump.

This describes greater than 1 in every 100 people across the country.

[Shirley]

Or maybe Bernie keeps growing more popular in these primaries (2020 and 2016) because when more people hear him speak, they actually like what he has to say and believe in his principles. By all standard descriptions of what's supposed to work in these elections, he should have gotten immediately trounced each time, but it hasn't worked out that way. Maybe it's time to reassess that commonly accepted understanding of what voters want. It seems like 2016 should have already done that, but I guess not.

[Nonlinear FC]

Taking this all a step further, and sort of riffing off of the Harris comment:

It's fucking astounding to me that anyone paying attention to/interacting with Biden the last 2-3 years didn't see this coming like a freight train.

* - Everyone on the planet knew Bernie was coming, and coming strong. He used his network for good in 2018, after building a very strong national coalition/operation in 2016.

* - To "combat" that movement you needed a sharp, energetic, relatively young (probably) candidate capable of building their own national movement. From all accounts very early in Iowa, Biden simply wasn't going to be that guy. And that's just from an effort standpoint, not even getting into the fact that the guy sounds like he needs a cookie and some apple juice to get him through the next few sentences. And that's EVERY TIME I see him speak the last 2 years.

*- So, I'll just reiterate, rather than (incessantly) arguing about whether or not the DNC is out to get Bernie, folks should really be pissed at the DNC for (once again) not getting their shit together to pick a horse capable of building a national coalition to defeat Trump.

I'm not saying Bernie can't win. I'm voting for Warren whenever the primary is here in MD, and I'll gladly pull the trigger for Bernie in November. But, HOLY SHIT are we making it hard on ourselves with Bernie. It's going to be an absolutely brutal 6-8 months.

[Steve of phpBB]

He's a clean-cut, reasonable-sounding, moderate alternative to Trump.

This describes greater than 1 in every 100 people across the country.

That's kind-of my point. He appeals to people because he's "normal". Plus, like Obama gave people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening black man, Buttigieg will give people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening gay man.

[Steve of phpBB]

*- So, I'll just reiterate, rather than (incessantly) arguing about whether or not the DNC is out to get Bernie, folks should really be pissed at the DNC for (once again) not getting their shit together to pick a horse capable of building a national coalition to defeat Trump.

The problem is that the DNC doesn't get to pick a horse. There is no "establishment" in that sense. There's individual candidates and donors and staffers and voters.

[tennbengal]

I mean, Trump was unelectable also...

[mister d]

He's a clean-cut, reasonable-sounding, moderate alternative to Trump.

This describes greater than 1 in every 100 people across the country.

That's kind-of my point. He appeals to people because he's "normal". Plus, like Obama gave people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening black man, Buttigieg will give people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening gay man.

You’re referring to Obama the US Senator, correct?

[Johnnie]

This is the truest shit I've read about Bernie.

"What makes Bernie Sanders so threatening to the Democratic establishment is that he stands for what millions of Democrats thought their party stood for all along"

All these rich establishment fucks who run things are afraid that he'll come in there and destroy it and, God forbid, help people who aren't rich.

Because let's face it. Bloomberg almost said the quiet part out loud: Mike Bloomberg appeared to say he 'bought' 21 Democrats their seats in Congress in a cringeworthy debate gaffe

And he paid for crowd noise at the debate.

You'd think the Democratic establishment would call out this behavior, right? Nope. They won't. Cowards.

This is so fucking gross. The only viable strategy for the establishment is to make sure ALL people running stay in and siphon delegates from Bernie to keep him from getting 1,991. Steyer will probably drop and endorse Bernie. Warren will eventually drop because her votes need to go to Bernie and she knows it. But Bidklobigieg and their financier Bloomberg? Staying in until the end.

They want a brokered convention. They need a brokered convention. And they're using that shitheel billionaire Republican to finance it. And once it happens, Biden is going to then be coalesced around by the moderates that stayed in.

And the establishment wins. And then loses to Trump. Because a second Trump term is worse than a progressive Democrat winning a first term.

I'm fully ready to eat my words and say "I was wrong" if this doesn't turn out. But after South Carolina, there's literally no reason for Klobuchar and Buttigieg to remain in. None. Only white people like them. And they will finish 4th and 5th behind Steyer according to the latest polls.

[Steve of phpBB]

He's a clean-cut, reasonable-sounding, moderate alternative to Trump.

This describes greater than 1 in every 100 people across the country.

That's kind-of my point. He appeals to people because he's "normal". Plus, like Obama gave people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening black man, Buttigieg will give people the chance to feel good about themselves for voting for a nonthreatening gay man.

You’re referring to Obama the US Senator, correct?

Yes. The one who coasted to election when his opponent dropped out and ran for President after two years in office.

(Thank you, Seven of Nine.)

[mister d]

Yes. The one who coasted to election when his opponent dropped out and ran for President after two years in office.

If your point is that Obama's resume fell somewhere between unqualified and just barely qualified, I've got no argument.

[Giff]

I mean, Trump was unelectable also...

But that side wins elections for a big reason because they line up behind the nominee no questions asked. If the left could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Joe K]

I mean, Trump was unelectable also...

So was Obama!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ryclinton1

From that link:

Barack Obama faced questions about his ability to deliver a Democratic victory in November today after his failure to knock out Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

With the protracted campaign entering its final phase, Clinton won the primary with 55% of the vote against 45% for Obama, a majority achieved by decisive wins among white men and women, Catholics and low-income households. ...

Clinton, who has won most of the primaries since February 3, is expecting to take a majority of the remaining nine contests. But, more importantly, her campaign team believes the big success in Pennsylvania was to plant doubts about his chances against John McCain.

"Obama is unelectable," one of her advisers said yesterday.

Her team is hoping this argument will sway the 300 superdelegates - members of Congress and others with automatic voting rights in choosing the candidate - who have still to declare their support.

[Steve of phpBB]

And the establishment wins.

This is another Sanders trope that needs to stop. I'm pretty sure Sanders is on the ballot in every state. If a majority of Democrats vote for him in the primaries, he will get a majority of the delegates. If he doesn't, it means that a majority of Democrats favored someone else. There is no "establishment," just millions of Democrats who don't prefer other candidates, either for ideological or practical reasons.

(The article doesn't say Bloomberg paid for the crowd, or even cite any evidence of it.)

[mister d]

1. The DNC is absolutely "the establishment".
2. The price ensured Bloomberg fans would make up the audience.

Up for your own assessment if 1 and 2 are intentional and related.

[Johnnie]

"There is no establishment."

Jesus Fuck.

[Steve of phpBB]

I mean, Trump was unelectable also...

So was Obama!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ryclinton1

From that link:

Barack Obama faced questions about his ability to deliver a Democratic victory in November today after his failure to knock out Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary.

With the protracted campaign entering its final phase, Clinton won the primary with 55% of the vote against 45% for Obama, a majority achieved by decisive wins among white men and women, Catholics and low-income households. ...

Clinton, who has won most of the primaries since February 3, is expecting to take a majority of the remaining nine contests. But, more importantly, her campaign team believes the big success in Pennsylvania was to plant doubts about his chances against John McCain.

"Obama is unelectable," one of her advisers said yesterday.

Her team is hoping this argument will sway the 300 superdelegates - members of Congress and others with automatic voting rights in choosing the candidate - who have still to declare their support.

Yes, an adviser for a rival candidate called him unelectable. While that established, nationally known candidate was losing to Obama in a one-to-one race, thus providing evidence of Obama's electability.

I mean, JFC. Obama was running after a disastrous Bush presidency. And he presented himself as moderate in his positions. (I am unaware of any position he took that was more liberal than Clinton in 2016). And he ran against a candidate whom 62% perceived as conservative. And when he lost his lead, Lehman Brothers collapsed and he got it right back.

Trump was only considered unelectable by folks who (like me) didn't pay attention to the fact that the electorate considered him moderate, or (like me) didn't think that would matter because he was so odious.

Just because Trump upset Clinton does not mean that facts about the American electorate no longer have any meaning. I've seen Burt Hooton hit a grand slam off Tom Seaver, and I've seen Barry Bonds get struck out by Joe Borowski. That doesn't mean I'd take Hooton over Bonds as a hitter, or Borowski over Seaver as a pitcher.

I get Sanders' appeal. I saw Sanders' speech after his Nevada win. It was like the Jesse Jackson speech I saw in 1988 - he checked every box on the liberal wish list. And it is thrilling to see and hear a candidate say a bunch of stuff you agree with. And then you go online and find that everyone there agrees with you too. So clearly, this candidate is obviously the right choice, and if people oppose him, it must be because they are part of an establishment, or in the pocket of corporations, or just looking to protect their own power.

But that is simply not accurate. Liberals are not a majority in this country. They just aren't. There has to be a reason for the moderates to vote for Sanders, and I don't think "he says really liberal stuff" is going to do it.

[Steve of phpBB]

1. The DNC is absolutely "the establishment".
2. The price ensured Bloomberg fans would make up the audience.

Up for your own assessment if 1 and 2 are intentional and related.

I'm not sure if Point 2 is accurate. https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21153769/ ... te-tickets

But yeah, the DNC is in a conspiracy to elect Bloomberg. That's why they put him on a debate stage to get pummeled by the others.

[Joe K]

There is no "establishment," just millions of Democrats who don't prefer other candidates, either for ideological or practical reasons.

The whole point of superdelegates is to use their own judgment as to whom the Democratic Party should nominate. They are a useful check on the process.

[mister d]

I've never said the DNC is conspiring for Bloomberg.

[Steve of phpBB]

There is no "establishment," just millions of Democrats who don't prefer other candidates, either for ideological or practical reasons.

The whole point of superdelegates is to use their own judgment as to whom the Democratic Party should nominate. They are a useful check on the process.

Yes. There are 771 individual superdelegates, each with one vote, who don't even get to vote if a candidate gets a majority of the regular delegates. They don't decide who runs, who drops out or stays in, who the voters vote for, who gets into the debate arena, or who gets favorable media coverage.

[Pruitt]

[Steve of phpBB]

I've never said the DNC is conspiring for Bloomberg.

Hm. Sorry if I misunderstood. What did you mean when you suggested a connection between the DNC being the establishment and debate prices ensuring the audience was filled with Bloomberg fans?

[mister d]

Bloomberg fans are rich people and rich people are very anti a certain candidate who the DNC is also very anti.

[mister d]

(I assume we're all being straight up here and admitting the DNC, whether or not they're "the establishment", is firmly anti-Sanders.)

[Steve of phpBB]

(I assume we're all being straight up here and admitting the DNC, whether or not they're "the establishment", is firmly anti-Sanders.)

I would certainly assume so.

[Brontoburglar]

we all can also admit that Sanders creates the "establishment is against me!" narrative with his own actions of being an independent, right? I know this conversation has been had in this conversation that goes in circles, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. no shit the leaders of the group you don't want to identify with until you have/need to aren't going to be super-thrilled with you

[Brontoburglar]

double post

[mister d]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

[Brontoburglar]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

sure, and rhetoric around that point would be much more useful and far less whiny

[Steve of phpBB]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

It could be that, or it could be that he has been shitting on the Democratic Party for years. Regardless of anyone's position on any particular issue, why on earth would they not be hostile to him?

[mister d]

Why on earth wouldn't they be hostile to the person they'll rely on more than anyone else in 2020, regardless of whether he gets the nomination.

[Steve of phpBB]

Why on earth wouldn't they be hostile to the person they'll rely on more than anyone else in 2020, regardless of whether he gets the nomination.

Are you suggesting that the effort Sanders puts in to defeating Trump is conditioned on how he feels he's being treated by the DNC?

[Joe K]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

It could be that, or it could be that he has been shitting on the Democratic Party for years. Regardless of anyone's position on any particular issue, why on earth would they not be hostile to him?

Do you think the DNC is hostile to Bloomberg? Do you think it should be? Keep in mind that he ran for office as a Republican, campaigned for Bush’s re-election, had a bunch of Democrats arrested at the 2004 GOP Convention, accused Obama of stoking racial tension, and as recently as 2018 backed a number of GOP congressional candidates. Because some of your posts today make me think you’d prefer Bloomberg as the nominee to Sanders even if Sanders gets the plurality of delegates.

[mister d]

Are you suggesting that the effort Sanders puts in to defeating Trump is conditioned on how he feels he's being treated by the DNC?

It probably should be, but I think history proves its not. But pretty amazing you can even frame it that way, isn't it?