DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

nan said:

Do some of you listen to Bill Mahr?  Sounds like it. 

Nobody posting here has pushed Maher's idea in the video excerpt.  And the schlubby host with his edits and inserts was annoying.

nan said: 

the hatred is intensifying because he is doing so well.  

 What planet do you live on? Bernie is treading water at best. He still has his base which means mid/upper teens support numbers, but he’s still well behind crappy Joe Biden and he’s been passed by warren. 

nan said:

sbenois said:

Team Bernie is apparently imploding.

"POLITICO spoke with nearly a dozen current and former Sanders advisers and allies, some of whom declined to discuss internal dynamics on the record because of fear of retribution. Since Sunday, campaign staffers have been calling members of their steering committee, asking them not to speak to the media because stories about the internal shakeup were published, according to three people who received the calls."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/bernie-sanders-campaign-dissension-1500287

In other news, Liz was fantastic on Colbert tonight.   

It's from Politico.  I would expect nothing less.   The mainstream media hates Sanders because he is a real threat. You will not hear anything positive about him and the hatred is intensifying because he is doing so well.  They now champion Warren as preferable to Sanders, and they don't care if she loses to Trump.  She already let Trump get under her skin one time and it was a disaster.  If beating Trump is your #1 priority, Warren might not be the best choice.

Kind of surprised to see you support her since you used to find her repellant.  What changed your mind?

Sanders is not  "real threat".  Sorry.  You can paint this any color that you please but his expiration date has passed.   At a time when his numbers should be going up, they are stagnant or going down at best...resulting in  your excuses going up.     

If Warren is connecting with voters like me, then that should tell you something about her electability.

ridski said:

nan said:

 That can change depending on how fair the primary turns out to be.

 I have a feeling the primary will be unfair no matter how fair it is.

That's set in stone. 

ridski said:

nan said:

 That can change depending on how fair the primary turns out to be.

 I have a feeling the primary will be unfair no matter how fair it is.

 This.  A bad poll is any poll that has Bernie down, a good one is any poll that has him up.  A unfair primary is any primary that Bernie does poorly in, a fair primary is any primary Bernie does well in.  

If Trump was a Benie supporter, his posts would look a lot like Nan's.

Well, polls are polls. They can be biased for sure. I think if you look at a bunch of them in the aggregate they can be informative. 

But I am puzzled about the comment about the primaries being unfair. Is that an accusation that there will be tampering with primary election results? Or that somehow Sanders supporters will be prevented from or suppressed from voting?

I have pretty strong faith that each candidate whose name is on the ballot is going to have their fair shot at winning as many votes in each primary election as the next.

nan said:

 Voter shaming is not a good strategy. People stayed home in 2016 and unless they are motivated they will stay home in 2020. Give them something to get off the couch for.  I doubt Warren is get off the couch exciting, but maybe I'm wrong and they won't think she is Hillary 2.0. 

 Voter shaming?  You are constantly warning us that f Bernie doesn't get the nomination people will stay home, like an ominous prediction. I am suggesting that the people you describe as the young voter and the poor voter would be acting against their own interest if they were not excited enough to "get off the couch. They would be risking the overturn of Roe v Wade which would leave that very group with no options. And a couple of young SCOTUS picks will seal the deal for decades. 

That's not shaming that's observation. Affluent voters will always have travel options. Older voters will not be affected for obvious reasons.

The voter who can afford to stay home is the one with nothing to lose. Considering the state of the current political scene, I don't know who that is.

nan said:

Do some of you listen to Bill Mahr?  Sounds like it. 

 I'm raising my hand. I watch Bill Maher. I also watch endless hours of Law & Order SVU.  What's the point. Bill's a comic, SVU is a crime show. I don't rely on Bill for political strategy and I don't lean on SVU for legal advice.

But, I would rather discuss politics with Bill Maher than Krystal Ball. 

While comics rely on exaggeration, I take his thought to be this.(helpful for those who can't watch another video.) : maybe a candidate like Amy Klobuchar would be a decent middle choice between Biden and Warren. He's relying on her being younger than Biden but less progressive than Warren, and a female candidate which he feels the country would like. Yes she is not polling well. If it were me picking a middle choice not sure who I would pick.  See, I didn't use the moment to push Cory.

The point is it is easy to make anyone look "stupid" because none of us have the answers. I certainly don't, but like Bill, I'm ready to voice my momentary opinions. Of course Bill has a bigger audience, so maybe its time for @jamie to consider getting us a cable spot.

Morganna said:

nan said:

 Voter shaming is not a good strategy. People stayed home in 2016 and unless they are motivated they will stay home in 2020. Give them something to get off the couch for.  I doubt Warren is get off the couch exciting, but maybe I'm wrong and they won't think she is Hillary 2.0. 

 Voter shaming?  You are constantly warning us that f Bernie doesn't get the nomination people will stay home, like an ominous prediction.

Thank you for allowing me to stay dead center in your mind.   

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

 Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi, not Warren. 

In the NBC/WSJ poll, Gabbard was the second choice of 1%. Mathematically, that means that even if all her second-choice votes came from Sanders supporters, 93% of Sanders supporters in that poll shifted to someone other than Gabbard.

(Warren was the top second choice, at 21%.)

 Speaking of first and second choices, here are some interesting results from a poll of likely Democratic Iowa caucus goers (first two images). The third image are results from (apparently) a separate sample of Registered Voters.

paulsurovell said:

 Speaking of first and second choices, here are some interesting results from a poll of likely Democratic Iowa caucus goers (first two images). The third image are results from (apparently) a separate sample of Registered Voters.

 It's the "Civiqs" Iowa voter survey from Iowa State.  The sample is described as "1333 registered voters and 572 likely Democratic Caucus attendees in Iowa from September 13-17, 2019. The survey was conducted online, among selected members of the Civiqs research panel."

I was not aware that Senator Warren was doing so well.

[Edited to add] Details from an article about the results of that poll: https://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2019/09/18/caucuspoll

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren leads the Democratic field of presidential candidates in a new Iowa State University/Civiqs poll. Warren was the top choice of 24 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders were tied in second place with 16 percent each, but even more say they do not want either man to become the Democratic candidate.”

“Almost a third (31 percent) of those surveyed said they do not want Biden to win the nomination, followed by Sanders (23 percent) and Williamson (12 percent)."

As long as you're looking at polls:

"The Democratic Primary in Florida, scheduled for March 17, 2020, continues to be a stronghold for former VP Joe Biden according to a new FAU BEPI poll, where Biden leads the field with 34%, while Senator Elizabeth Warren has seen her support double in the last 5-months to 24% and Bernie Sanders is at 14%. No other candidate clears 5%, 6% were undecided. This poll was conducted Sept 12-15 with and Democratic primary voters comprised n=407, +/-4.9%. This is a tightening of the race from FAU’s May poll where Biden was at 39% and Warren and Sanders were tied at 12% each."

https://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/bepi-polls-2019/warren-cutting-into-bidens-lead-in-florida.php

Trump is barely ahead in matchups with leading Dem contenders, with Warren slightly closer:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 She's just setting up he inevitable "excuse" once Bernie tanks totally. "Unfair" is her battle cry.

 I'm pointing out the extreme bias of the mainstream media, which basically functions as a propaganda cutout for the ruling class establishment.  They try to brainwash people into choosing candidates that are against their own best interests, such as Joe Biden.  Biden is losing his mind, but he takes corporate money and does their bidding, so they will prop him up even if he is likely to lose to Trump. 

Naturally, they despise Sanders, who takes no corporate money and wants to put a bunch of them either out of business or having to pay their fair share of taxes.  He also wants to give unions much more power.  So, it's not an "excuse,"  but anger at a corrupt system.  It is also amazing that Sanders continues to do well with that kind of opposition.  But, it does damage the campaign and it is a legitimate beef.

This kind of prejudice should be opposed by everyone, not just Biden haters or Bernie lovers.  It is anti-democratic and down the line, it could be a candidate you like.  Hopefully, you will never know what it is like to see the candidate you support constantly ignored and attacked on the biggest media outlets in the country. 

ridski said:

nan said:

 That can change depending on how fair the primary turns out to be.

 I have a feeling the primary will be unfair no matter how fair it is.

 It's already pretty bad as far as the media goes.  There is also voter suppression in New York as Cuomo, the Biden supporter, won't sign a bill extending the deadline for registering as a Democrat to vote in the primary.  There is more, but I don't have the full list. 

Smedley said:

 Tulsi will be long gone when sanders drops out, probably around early spring. 

 

 Where do you get your information on the primary?  MSNBC?

sbenois said:

If Warren is connecting with voters like me, then that should tell you something about her electability.

 It does tell me about her electability.  She is only connecting with voters like you -- affluent white professionals.   That's a problem for her electability.  

I remember constantly being told that Bernie was "not electable" because he supposedly could not get the black vote. Every time he had a rally, the mainstream and MOL media would comment on how white it was.  They don't say that anymore, but for some reason, they don't seem to care that Waren really does have that problem. 

So why was supposedly not attracting a diverse voter base a problem for Sanders, but not for Warren?

nan said:

So why was supposedly not attracting a diverse voter base a problem for Sanders, but not for Warren?

 It is a problem. If Warren can make substantial headway in overcoming this, she'll be the nominee. If she can't, Biden will.

nan said:

sbenois said:

If Warren is connecting with voters like me, then that should tell you something about her electability.

 It does tell me about her electability.  She is only connecting with voters like you -- affluent white professionals.   That's a problem for her electability.  

I remember constantly being told that Bernie was "not electable" because he supposedly could not get the black vote. Every time he had a rally, the mainstream and MOL media would comment on how white it was.  They don't say that anymore, but for some reason, they don't seem to care that Waren really does have that problem. 

So why was supposedly not attracting a diverse voter base a problem for Sanders, but not for Warren?

 Well if that tells you a lot about Warren's electability, when in the world does it tell you about Bernie's electability?   He's trailing her.    Do you know how that works?

Let's face it Nan, Bernie is not going to be the nominee of my party.  Sorry to break the news to you.  

nan said:

 It's already pretty bad as far as the media goes.  There is also voter suppression in New York as Cuomo, the Biden supporter, won't sign a bill extending the deadline for registering as a Democrat to vote in the primary.  There is more, but I don't have the full list. 

 That's atrocious. They have a much earlier registration than we do in NJ. Wonder if its worthwhile for people in NY to contact Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Brooklyn, Queens. He's pretty active in the party.  Why isn't DeBlasio making a fuss?

nan said:

Do some of you listen to Bill Mahr?  Sounds like it. 

Yes I do, he is a comedian and I think he is funny. The guy with the beard, the host, whatever his name is, is not funny and he is very hard to listen to for more than 30 seconds. He sounds depressed.

sbenois said:

Let's face it Nan, Bernie is not going to be the nominee of my party.  Sorry to break the news to you.  

 It's still early, but I agree, it doesn't look like it. Also, Bernie is not a member of the Democratic party.

These primaries are going to be interesting.  Basically any candidate with more than 15% of the votes in a state's primary is going to walk away with some delegates.  The rules are a little more complicated than that but I'm close enough for government work.

Right now there are three candidates who pretty consistently poll above 15% nationally - Biden, Sanders and Warren (alphabetical order!).Things shift around when you look at individual states, but not a heck of a lot.  At the moment it looks like those three would each pick up delegates in most states.  And you might have the odd candidate here or there like O'Rourke picking up some in Texas.  He's polling around 12% there in a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Without getting too long-winded there's an opportunity for some real political gamemanship going into the convention.  Imagine if two of the candidates are sitting with about 35% each of the delegates and the third has 30%, with the remaining 5% scattered among a couple of others.  The  candidate with 30% is in a position to crown the nominee by turning over their delegates. Or maybe you have a crazier situation like this:

Biden 35%

Sanders 35%

Warren 14%

O'Rourke 14%

Yang 2%

Neither Warren nor O'Rourke can be a kingmaker, but Yang can team up with someone (let's say Warren) to push someone else (let's say Sanders) over the top.

Again this is all speculation for fun at this point, but these scenarios are starting to look more possible.

basil said:

 It's still early, but I agree, it doesn't look like it. Also, Bernie is not a member of the Democratic party.

 Based on what?  Latest Emerson poll has Biden and Bernie tied.  I'm not big on polls, but Sanders has consistently polled at the top and predicting him dropping out sounds more like an MSNBC talking point than reality.  And not being a member of the Democratic party can be a good thing.

http://emersonpolling.com/2019/09/17/biden-sanders-warren-in-statistical-tie-in-democratic-primary-harris-struggles-in-home-state/ 

nan said:

 Based on what?  Latest Emerson poll has Biden and Bernie tied.  I'm not big on polls, but ... 

... but you cited them for months and months over the last year while claiming Sanders was the most popular politician in America. If you really don’t trust polls, no one’s forcing you to link to any.

And since your comment didn’t make it clear: The tie in the Emerson poll was for California only (4.7-point margin of error).

Morganna said:

 So the young and the poor have no interest in women's choice.  Maybe we should collect those emails so the right to life crowd can send them their thanks. Now that Planned Parenthood has been defunded, which will effect much of the under 30 crowd, according to statistics, and definitely hurt poor women,  staying on the couch will hurt them more than the crowd you often describe as the affluent intellectuals who support Warren.

But hard to believe people will stay home because the rest of us did not support Bernie. 

 If Warren can't beat Trump, and I'm not sure she can, then woman's choice is down the drain.  You can scream and scream and voter shame and voter shame, but if a person is working two jobs and they have to stress out to figure out how to get to the polls, they might not put that last push in if they are not excited about the candidate.  They are excited about Bernie.  They trust him to be on their side.  Warren looks like Hillary and sounds like Obama, who promised hope and change and then let Citigroup pick out his cabinet. 

nohero said:

ridski said:

nan said:

 That can change depending on how fair the primary turns out to be.

 I have a feeling the primary will be unfair no matter how fair it is.

That's set in stone. 

 Keep doing the same thing and expect a different result and then blame it on the guy who lost.  That's your song and dance and it is pounded into stone with a jackhammer. 

nan said:

 If Warren can't beat Trump, and I'm not sure she can, then woman's choice is down the drain.  You can scream and scream and voter shame and voter shame, but if a person is working two jobs and they have to stress out to figure out how to get to the polls, they might not put that last push in if they are not excited about the candidate.  They are excited about Bernie.  They trust him to be on their side.  Warren looks like Hillary and sounds like Obama, who promised hope and change and then let Citigroup pick out his cabinet. 

 I'll repeat what I said above in case you missed it. I have no interest in screaming about this topic. I did scream earlier on FB when I read about a poor sick old elephant who died, after posing for selfies at some bloody carnival. That makes me scream. That makes me want to shame each and every person involved.

But voter shaming? Nah. I'm making a point that I think you are warning us that these voters will stay home if not excited by a candidate and I'm saying, in dulcet tones that they would be hurting themselves. No spite here just saying I don't see that they would. Here is what I said, softly, in a slightly high pitch, kind of like Daisy Duck with a cold and a NY accent.

Morganna

Sep 18, 2019 at 10:06am

nan said:

Voter shaming is not a good strategy. People stayed home in 2016 and unless they are motivated they will stay home in 2020. Give them something to get off the couch for. I doubt Warren is get off the couch exciting, but maybe I'm wrong and they won't think she is Hillary 2.0.

Voter shaming? You are constantly warning us that f Bernie doesn't get the nomination people will stay home, like an ominous prediction. I am suggesting that the people you describe as the young voter and the poor voter would be acting against their own interest if they were not excited enough to "get off the couch. They would be risking the overturn of Roe v Wade which would leave that very group with no options. And a couple of young SCOTUS picks will seal the deal for decades.

That's not shaming that's observation. Affluent voters will always have travel options. Older voters will not be affected for obvious reasons.

The voter who can afford to stay home is the one with nothing to lose. Considering the state of the current political scene, I don't know who that is.

Morganna said:

 I'm raising my hand. I watch Bill Maher. I also watch endless hours of Law & Order SVU.  What's the point. Bill's a comic, SVU is a crime show. I don't rely on Bill for political strategy and I don't lean on SVU for legal advice.

But, I would rather discuss politics with Bill Maher than Krystal Ball. 

While comics rely on exaggeration, I take his thought to be this.(helpful for those who can't watch another video.) : maybe a candidate like Amy Klobuchar would be a decent middle choice between Biden and Warren. He's relying on her being younger than Biden but less progressive than Warren, and a female candidate which he feels the country would like. Yes she is not polling well. If it were me picking a middle choice not sure who I would pick.  See, I didn't use the moment to push Cory.

The point is it is easy to make anyone look "stupid" because none of us have the answers. I certainly don't, but like Bill, I'm ready to voice my momentary opinions. Of course Bill has a bigger audience, so maybe its time for @jamie to consider getting us a cable spot.

 Why would you rather talk politics with Bill, rather than Krystal?  

Do you agree with Bill that we should hope the superdelegates pick a low polling centrist like Amy Klobuchar as a "compromise candidate?"  Seriously, who would be happy with Amy Klobuchar, the woman who gleefully says we can't have anything and will throw a binder at our heads if we continue to whine?  She's a female Joe Biden, which means she's a Republican like him.  See video below for details.  By only comparing her to Warren and Biden, you are leaving out Sanders, who is not the non-entity that the mainstream media makes him out to be.  They also promote Joe as non-senile and in 2016 spoke of Hillary as a shoo-in. Picking Cory would not matter, because Cory and Amy are interchangeable.

Crystal, on the other hand, pops his bubble with the popularity of economic populism,  citing a poll that Bernie Sanders is beating Trump in Texas  (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll).  It's clear that people are fine with progressive candidates. Mahr is out to lunch.

Morganna said:

Here is what I said, softly, in a slightly high pitch, kind of like Daisy Duck with a cold and a NY accent.

Now it makes sense.