The Swamp

I wish there was some nickname they could stick on Trump and use it in every tweet and comment, but of course it would be called "petty and mean," despite it being what trump does to everyone.

I call him Dummy Donny assuming that'd be as creative as he'd be if his name wasn't Donald.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:36 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:28 pm If you're writing those "vs Trump" polls off as inside the margin of error and you're ignoring Dem polls with Sanders leading, what are you basing any of this on? Just a gut feel that someone bland is the way to go, despite bland Dems failing over and over in recent history?

Yup. While Bernie might turn off some off the middle of the road voters, the support that he's garnered from those more likely NOT to vote in a typical election is what helps the Democratic party from top to bottom.

Sure, that's possible. But the other side gets to vote, too. I think Sanders will garner more opposition from those more likely not to vote as well, which will help the Republican party from top to bottom. (This is what those political science studies appear to suggest - negative partisanship is a really fucking strong force.)

I think those negatives about Biden or Buttigieg or Klobuchar are pretty trivial in an election against Trump. No one is going to care if Klobuchar was mean to some staffers. And just like I don't put much stock in head-to-head polls at this point, I also don't put much stock into how candidates within a multi-candidate primary poll among certain sub-groups. At any rate, I can't see how any of those negatives compare to "Sanders wants to raise your taxes to give money to illegal aliens, so he can make the US more like Cuba which he likes better."

Just in the past couple of days, Buttigieg landed the endorsement of the Salt Lake City mayor, Salt Lake County mayor, and Salt Lake County Attorney (DA). (As well as that coveted endorsement of my Rockefeller Republican sister.) I really do think Buttigieg or Biden or Klobuchar - or even fucking Bloomberg - will bring out more than enough moderates to overcome any weaknesses they may have among minorities.

Not sure about that "punt minorities to appeal to the undecided moderates" calc really works. The country was "only" 61% white back in 2010.

NEW: 73(!!!)% of Democrats Don't Pick Reeling Sanders

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:08 pm I wish there was some nickname they could stick on Trump and use it in every tweet and comment, but of course it would be called "petty and mean," despite it being what trump does to everyone.

Agent Orange, Orange Julius Caesar, Mango Mussolini, Tangerine Idi Amin, King Mierdas. All were brought up by Larry Wilmore.

There's plenty like that. But in the spirit of Low Energy Jeb or Little Marco? Fat Donny would work. But most Democratic politicians don't have senses of humor in that fashion or could never go low like that. Their voters do, though.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:17 pm

NEW: 73(!!!)% of Democrats Don't Pick Reeling Sanders

BREAKING: Bernie Sanders plunges to farthest spot from the bottom. All others surging to top.

Interesting data from that NBC poll:

But if you assume that a Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar voter would prefer Buttigieg, he's really at 98%.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:01 pm But if you assume that a Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar voter would prefer Buttigieg, he's really at 98%.

I get the sense I'm supposed to feel mocked by these posts. Is it for believing that 27% isn't a majority? Is it for being concerned that someone who's too liberal to even get half the Democratic Party to put him in their top two isn't likely to pick up enough of the moderate vote needed to win? Or maybe it's for being legitimately terrified for the thousands or millions of immigrants, women, gays, minorities, and people needing healthcare who will suffer if Trump wins?

You weren’t, it was a media commentary, but maybe now a bit after that post?

Also, Pete did it again:

Then last week, Buttigieg wrote an op-ed in a major South Carolina newspaper saying his campaign has "proudly partnered with local businesses," citing Diane's Kitchen in Chester and Atlantis Restaurant in Moncks Corner. But when ABC News reached out to the entrepreneurs about these new partnerships, they only remembered welcoming Buttigieg's campaign as customers, not forging any sort of partnership with the candidate.

"I stand for what I stand for and I didn't say I had a partnership," Diane Cole, the owner of Diane's Kitchen, told ABC News on Friday, Feb. 14.

After being asked by ABC News about Cole's reaction, the campaign sent a series of messages to Cole trying to persuade her to change her position so it would more closely match the language Buttigieg used in his op-ed.

One version misspelled her name.

Yeah, I see what you mean about how the press is so bad to Bernie. Especially MSNBC and the likes of Rachel Maddow. She just called Sanders - and I shit you not - the “clear and overwhelming favorite” for the nomination.

BECAUSE HE FACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:15 pm

Just in the past couple of days, Buttigieg landed the endorsement of the Salt Lake City mayor, Salt Lake County mayor, and Salt Lake County Attorney (DA). (As well as that coveted endorsement of my Rockefeller Republican sister.)

Well of course. I don't know the actual affiliation of these politicians, but judging by SLC by their name their either Republicans repulsed by Trump or right-leaning Democrats. I'm a little surprised because of his sexual orientation and the Mormon church, but also because he is the establishment (i.e. rich fucks that don't want to pay taxes) candidate of choice, but the only way Trump is losing Utah is if Brigham Young was running against him.

I'm sure you're aware that in 2016 "Didn't vote" would have won in a landslide. The Democrats don't need moderates as much as they need inspired voters. Obama won because he got minorities inspired. Bernie has the young vote and seems to be gaining among the minorities. There are more than a few "just blue" that'll go Bernie because he's got a D by his name, it seems that (sadly) there are more that would protest not voting if he's robbed of the nomination just because the establishment doesn't want him as the candidate.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:07 pm Yeah, I see what you mean about how the press is so bad to Bernie. Especially MSNBC and the likes of Rachel Maddow. She just called Sanders - and I shit you not - the “clear and overwhelming favorite” for the nomination.

Some mark 02.18 as a day that MSNBC came around to somewhere near reality, or perhaps it's just so Trump starts a foreign investigation into Bernie.

You wanna lose South Carolina with a quickness? Fuck around in Charlamagne the God's hometown.

Jesus Christ, Mayo Pete.

Can't believe I'm just seeing these now.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:43 pm BECAUSE HE FACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!

Yes. Of course he is. And Rachel described him the way he factually is. Which I was led to believe people like her were refusing to do.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:10 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:15 pm

Just in the past couple of days, Buttigieg landed the endorsement of the Salt Lake City mayor, Salt Lake County mayor, and Salt Lake County Attorney (DA). (As well as that coveted endorsement of my Rockefeller Republican sister.)

Well of course. I don't know the actual affiliation of these politicians, but judging by SLC by their name their either Republicans repulsed by Trump or right-leaning Democrats. I'm a little surprised because of his sexual orientation and the Mormon church, but also because he is the establishment (i.e. rich fucks that don't want to pay taxes) candidate of choice, but the only way Trump is losing Utah is if Brigham Young was running against him.

I'm sure you're aware that in 2016 "Didn't vote" would have won in a landslide. The Democrats don't need moderates as much as they need inspired voters. Obama won because he got minorities inspired. Bernie has the young vote and seems to be gaining among the minorities. There are more than a few "just blue" that'll go Bernie because he's got a D by his name, it seems that (sadly) there are more that would protest not voting if he's robbed of the nomination just because the establishment doesn't want him as the candidate.

Would “didn’t vote” win for the Dems or the Republicans?

Is there any actual data to back up this inspiration theory? I mean, it’s logical that a more inspiring candidate will bring out more voters of that party. But is there data to suggest that candidate won’t also inspire more extra voters on the other side?

Edit: Is there data to suggest that this report is so clearly wrong?




The SLC officials I mentioned are all Democrats. They’re the moderates who make up the largest part of the national electorate.

Counter-point:

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:01 pm But if you assume that a Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar voter would prefer Buttigieg, he's really at 98%.

I get the sense I'm supposed to feel mocked by these posts. Is it for believing that 27% isn't a majority? Is it for being concerned that someone who's too liberal to even get half the Democratic Party to put him in their top two isn't likely to pick up enough of the moderate vote needed to win? Or maybe it's for being legitimately terrified for the thousands or millions of immigrants, women, gays, minorities, and people needing healthcare who will suffer if Trump wins?

I’ve alluded to my view that Sanders is the best candidate on foreign policy and this video clip is exactly why. Steve’s anti-Sanders argument bolded above includes the premise that the Democrats need to back a moderate candidate to avert potential suffering. But there are nearly 2 million innocent people in Gaza who have suffered tremendous deprivation and oppression and roughly 80 million innocent people in Iran who have had to live for decades under burdensome sanctions and the threat of war. You can add in a host of other countries where the bipartisan US policy has involved oppressive sanctions or even warfare. That suffering sure as hell didn’t start with Trump and will continue indefinitely absent a president who shows a willingness to buck the foreign policy establishment. And Sanders is the only candidate talking seriously about addressing that suffering.

That's kind of backwards Joe. You lift sanctions when the country has proven some sort of market change. You use sanctions to force people into that change and not threaten you or their region with nukes.

For example China, Vietnam and more recently Cuba show this change. Iran and North Korea have not.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:20 am That's kind of backwards Joe. You lift sanctions when the country has proven some sort of market change. You use sanctions to force people into that change and not threaten you or their region with nukes.

For example China, Vietnam and more recently Cuba show this change. Iran and North Korea have not.

I disagree with this premise in many cases, as I think sanctions mainly impose suffering on innocent people and often harden support for their governments. I don’t think 80 million Iranians should be deprived access to needed medicine or to safe commercial air flight because we don’t like their leaders.

ETA: that’s before we even get to the hypocrisy point of the US allying with governments like Saudi Arabia that are just as bad.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:50 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:20 am That's kind of backwards Joe. You lift sanctions when the country has proven some sort of market change. You use sanctions to force people into that change and not threaten you or their region with nukes.

For example China, Vietnam and more recently Cuba show this change. Iran and North Korea have not.

I disagree with this premise in many cases, as I think sanctions mainly impose suffering on innocent people and often harden support for their governments. I don’t think 80 million Iranians should be deprived access to needed medicine or to safe commercial air flight because we don’t like their leaders.

ETA: that’s before we even get to the hypocrisy point of the US allying with governments like Saudi Arabia that are just as bad.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm all for lifting sanctions but Iran has to show something. It has to have a free economic system. Saudi Arabia, for all it's warts, has such a system. They allow foreign businesses whereas Iran is hindered by government requirements.

When sanctions were lifted in 2016, did Iran's economy rebound? Did relations improve? Did we see Starbucks or KFC go into the Iranian market? Were entrepreneurs allowed to open their own businesses? No, because there is no mechanism for it. These have to be shown first before sanctions can be lifted.

I use Vietnam again.. they instituted Doi Moi, a socialist-oriented market economy in 1986. And once the US was comfortable with that, they lifted sanctions in 93.

In case we see anyone in here make an abrupt change in their posting-style on Bloomberg, it might be this:

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:06 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:18 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:01 pm But if you assume that a Biden/Bloomberg/Klobuchar voter would prefer Buttigieg, he's really at 98%.

I get the sense I'm supposed to feel mocked by these posts. Is it for believing that 27% isn't a majority? Is it for being concerned that someone who's too liberal to even get half the Democratic Party to put him in their top two isn't likely to pick up enough of the moderate vote needed to win? Or maybe it's for being legitimately terrified for the thousands or millions of immigrants, women, gays, minorities, and people needing healthcare who will suffer if Trump wins?

I’ve alluded to my view that Sanders is the best candidate on foreign policy and this video clip is exactly why. Steve’s anti-Sanders argument bolded above includes the premise that the Democrats need to back a moderate candidate to avert potential suffering. But there are nearly 2 million innocent people in Gaza who have suffered tremendous deprivation and oppression and roughly 80 million innocent people in Iran who have had to live for decades under burdensome sanctions and the threat of war. You can add in a host of other countries where the bipartisan US policy has involved oppressive sanctions or even warfare. That suffering sure as hell didn’t start with Trump and will continue indefinitely absent a president who shows a willingness to buck the foreign policy establishment. And Sanders is the only candidate talking seriously about addressing that suffering.

Again, though, I think you're looking at this backwards. Sanders can't do shit for the people of Gaza unless he's elected. Seeing a video of him calling Israel racist does not increase my confidence in his ability to get elected. Do you have data suggesting that Sanders calling Israel racist makes him more likely to be elected? Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine the American electorate likes the English-speaking white-looking Holocaust victims more than they do the terrorists who did 9-11 and want to wipe Israel off the map.

My objections to Sanders' candidacy are not based on a belief that he wouldn't be a good president. My objection to his candidacy is based on my belief that he will lose.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:28 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:50 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:20 am That's kind of backwards Joe. You lift sanctions when the country has proven some sort of market change. You use sanctions to force people into that change and not threaten you or their region with nukes.

For example China, Vietnam and more recently Cuba show this change. Iran and North Korea have not.

I disagree with this premise in many cases, as I think sanctions mainly impose suffering on innocent people and often harden support for their governments. I don’t think 80 million Iranians should be deprived access to needed medicine or to safe commercial air flight because we don’t like their leaders.

ETA: that’s before we even get to the hypocrisy point of the US allying with governments like Saudi Arabia that are just as bad.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm all for lifting sanctions but Iran has to show something. It has to have a free economic system. Saudi Arabia, for all it's warts, has such a system. They allow foreign businesses whereas Iran is hindered by government requirements.

I think this crystallizes the point on which you and I reasonably disagree. As you point out, the actual justification for sanctioning Iran (but not Saudi Arabia) isn’t about human rights or political freedom. It’s about the extent to which these countries’ economies allow Western governments to benefit economically. Because if the issue really was human rights there’d be no reason whatsoever for us to ally with Saudi Arabia. And as a basic principle, I think it’s unjust for the United States to impose economic sanctions that cause suffering for the Iranian people because we’re upset that Iran doesn’t let Western governments profit off of its oil resources.

And he's too old. Ideally he would have guided his fanatical support to another progressive.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:34 am Again, though, I think you're looking at this backwards. Sanders can't do shit for the people of Gaza unless he's elected. Seeing a video of him calling Israel racist does not increase my confidence in his ability to get elected. Do you have data suggesting that Sanders calling Israel racist makes him more likely to be elected? Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine the American electorate likes the English-speaking white-looking Holocaust victims more than they do the terrorists who did 9-11 and want to wipe Israel off the map.

My objections to Sanders' candidacy are not based on a belief that he wouldn't be a good president. My objection to his candidacy is based on my belief that he will lose.

While the bolded part is obviously true I’m willing to take that chance considering that everyone else running won’t do shit for the people of Gaza even if they are elected. And I don’t think politicians should support immoral governments like Netanyahu’s out of fear of losing elections. Moreover, I think as a Jewish politician who lost family members in the Holocaust, Sanders has credibility in criticizing Israel’s right-wingers.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:36 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:28 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:50 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:20 am That's kind of backwards Joe. You lift sanctions when the country has proven some sort of market change. You use sanctions to force people into that change and not threaten you or their region with nukes.

For example China, Vietnam and more recently Cuba show this change. Iran and North Korea have not.

I disagree with this premise in many cases, as I think sanctions mainly impose suffering on innocent people and often harden support for their governments. I don’t think 80 million Iranians should be deprived access to needed medicine or to safe commercial air flight because we don’t like their leaders.

ETA: that’s before we even get to the hypocrisy point of the US allying with governments like Saudi Arabia that are just as bad.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm all for lifting sanctions but Iran has to show something. It has to have a free economic system. Saudi Arabia, for all it's warts, has such a system. They allow foreign businesses whereas Iran is hindered by government requirements.

I think this crystallizes the point on which you and I reasonably disagree. As you point out, the actual justification for sanctioning Iran (but not Saudi Arabia) isn’t about human rights or political freedom. It’s about the extent to which these countries’ economies allow Western governments to benefit economically. Because if the issue really was human rights there’d be no reason whatsoever for us to ally with Saudi Arabia. And as a basic principle, I think it’s unjust for the United States to impose economic sanctions that cause suffering for the Iranian people because we’re upset that Iran doesn’t let Western governments profit off of its oil resources.

Yes this is what the US cares about. If it were about human rights, the US would sanction China. They are only sanctioning China more now because they are 'cheating' economically.

If Bernie is going to promote sanctioning or not sanctioning countries based on political freedom and quality of life, that ship has long sailed. And besides, if you removed sanctions from Iran (such as in 2016), is the money going to improve people's lives anyways with no structure in place to do so?

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:44 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:34 am Again, though, I think you're looking at this backwards. Sanders can't do shit for the people of Gaza unless he's elected. Seeing a video of him calling Israel racist does not increase my confidence in his ability to get elected. Do you have data suggesting that Sanders calling Israel racist makes him more likely to be elected? Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine the American electorate likes the English-speaking white-looking Holocaust victims more than they do the terrorists who did 9-11 and want to wipe Israel off the map.

My objections to Sanders' candidacy are not based on a belief that he wouldn't be a good president. My objection to his candidacy is based on my belief that he will lose.

While the bolded part is obviously true I’m willing to take that chance considering that everyone else running won’t do shit for the people of Gaza even if they are elected. And I don’t think politicians should support immoral governments like Netanyahu’s out of fear of losing elections. Moreover, I think as a Jewish politician who lost family members in the Holocaust, Sanders has credibility in criticizing Israel’s right-wingers.

The liberal Jewish community would agree.

Unfortunately the Netanyahu-worshipping, Adelson sponges who kneel at the altar of Trump will be just as intransigent as they are now.

Credit where it’s due, this is a great anti-Bloomberg ad by Biden:

Buttigieg must have been furious about that Bloomberg-Obama ad.

The one limb I'll go out on is there is no way that Bloomberg is going to win the nomination. Of all the scenarios I worry about that's not one of them. Not sure why there's a segment of people on Twitter freaking out about that.

There's risk of whoever outlasts the non-Sanders field getting handed the nomination so if Bloomberg is in 2nd, there's obviously a chance.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:27 pm There's risk of whoever outlasts the non-Sanders field getting handed the nomination so if Bloomberg is in 2nd, there's obviously a chance.

Eh, if anything the DNC is probably likely to throw it for Bernie in that specific situation. Whatever conspiracy theories people have about the DNC stacking the deck against Bernie because he's not a Democrat goes 100 times for Bloomberg since he's apparently still a Republican.