2020 Democratic Nominee

[gmr548 16427]

There is no Barack Obama in this race unfortunately that will bring rust belt and suburban whites over to the Democrats side. 

Did you miss 2018? It's already been done. Trump is an incumbent President. It will be a hell of a fight, obviously, but the blueprint has been drawn up and executed already.

[bad_teammate 13115]

Trump was not on the ticket in 2018. Trump's voting base isn't the stock Republican voting base; it's full of people who hate Republicans and love Trump.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Bernie's fracking ban talk concerns me re his ability to carry PA. He'll do fine in the bread parts -- Philly and Pittsburgh -- but the shit parts of the sandwich Carville taught us about will go Trump if faced with a fracking ban.

I'm hearing lots of Bloomberg radio ads on Houston's "Country Legends" station and that tells me his team is very smart. They play on Bloomberg's sensibility and business acumen and hammer home the message that his presidency won't be the "chaos" it is under Trump.

I've heard a lot of Trumpsters who are uneasy about his Tweets and stuff like that, and its seems like Bloomberg is assuring them that he won't be like that, and he's not a Commie pinko, and that he can and will win.

At heart I am a Sanders man, but in looking at his chances, it reminds me of times I have been wildly overoptimistic about the Horns or Astros in the preseason. Like "Well, if Ehlinger has a Heisman-level season and Ossai wins the Butkus and three of our true freshman are all-conference and all our new coaching hires are the vast upgrades I hope they will be....I mean, show me a loss, people..."

You take a whole bunch of possibles, ignore the likelihood of each of them occuring, and compound that error by needing all of them to happen, all while you ignore things like injuries, suspensions, guys not leveling up, etc. And you also tend to ignore what everyone else is doing to get better, while magnifying their shortcomings. "I mean, the Gooners are breaking in another new QB this year and all their best receivers are moving on, their OL has to fall off one of these years, and...."

It's the same with Bernie's run. Too many variables need to go one way with none going sideways.

To me, Bloomberg just has more assets going from the outset. I know full well his shortcomings. He is going to be in choppy waters at first regarding his sexism, and he will have to mollify those upset at him over stop and frisk (I think that is overestimated as a stumbling block, as whites tend to forget there is a strong law and order element amongst black folks, too), we on the Bernie side are going to be hard to placate on a bevy of issues ranging from taxation to gentrification to Israel and more, and so on.

But he's got the suburbs sewn up. I think most blacks and Hispanics will get on board once they see the momentum. Rust Belt union dudes are all about trade and Bloomberg can talk a good enough game there to shut Trump the fuck up. 

I don't know, there were just a bunch of signs in the air yesterday that made me suddenly believe it's inevitable. Carville bitchsmacking us all collectively was one; on the other side, AOC sent out the message that her supporters should rally around whoever the nominee would be. To me, coming from her, at that moment in time, it seems like she's sending the message that the Berners might need to slow their roll a little and not continue this semi-extortionate approach to the primaries. I am thinking maybe she doesn't see a way for Bernie to win.

 

[troph 24498]

Trump was not on the ticket in 2018. Trump's voting base isn't the stock Republican voting base; it's full of people who hate Republicans and love Trump.

Now that folks know who Trump is trump’s base should not be enough. Not when the equation is now anyone but Trump instead of anyone but Hillary. In fact I think there are more anyone but Trump voters than anyone but Hillary. But then I hang around dems and progressives so what do I know.

[bad_teammate 13115]

More people support a fracking ban than oppose one. Independents support bans 44-36. And that's before a major candidate starts pushing the idea really hard.

It's a niche issue at best.

 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

More people support a fracking ban than oppose one. Independents support bans 44-36. And that's before a major candidate starts pushing the idea really hard.

It's a niche issue at best.

 

Hey we agree.  Seriously, this election isn't going to come down to fucking fracking.

[gmr548 16427]

Most voters are already decided. There is a reason why a 2019 CNN poll had 74% of voters extremely or very enthusiastic. That compares to 58% in 2015. People want to vote for or against Trump. It was 80% for Republicans and 78% for Democrats, a virtual tie.
Democrats do not need to do anything special to have huge turnout except to not screw it up by upsetting parts of their base.
Historically more people have voted then were very enthusiastic or better in the poll. If 74% vote that  will be 156 million  or at least 34 million who did not vote in 2016. They will mostly come from non-voting groups, the young and minorities. Those are the people Democrats need to make sure they don't  piss them off.

Ypur point abput voting blocs is correct but in no world will 2020 come close 74 percent turnout or adding 34+million new voters. That's beyond unprecedented in the modern era. That'd be a turnout surge the likes of which has never even come close to happening in this country. That's foolish to suggest and I'll gladly eat crow if wrong, because that'd be a blue wave that makes 2018 look like a GOP victory.

"Did Not Vote" will have a bigger share of the voting eligible population than either candidate.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Hey we agree.  Seriously, this election isn't going to come down to fucking fracking.

It will in Pennsylvania, and if Texas was in play it would here too. 

Look, fracking sucks, but Houston would be Detroit right now without it. I would be alright with that as I am one of the freaks who longs for the empty, depressed Houston of the '80s Oil Bust, but I do not represent a large bloc of voters. 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

The prospect of a President Sanders makes me giddy, high, intoxicated, but I just don't think it's attainable. I see Bloomberg's presidency as a four-year course of anti-depressants. It does not excite me at all but I think it would be easy to obtain and the alternative -- four more years of Donny Doucheskillet -- is far worse. 

[gmr548 16427]

2008 had the higjest turnout (58 percent) since 1968, which was the last time we hit 60 percent. 2016 was at 55. Even a return to 2008 level turnout wpuld be a huge boon for Democrats. Three percent of AVP in 2016 would have been 7.5mm new votes nationally, and of course as turnout rises, advantage Ds. Someone can correct me on the state specific math if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that kind of turnout increase flips PA, MI, and WI.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, so what was your point in telling me I'm angry?

I didn't. I said you seem angry. There is a difference, at least to me. Perhaps in your posts the tone is harder to assess or you interpret things differently. It's not a big deal, and I don't get my feelings hurt on the internet. But in a discussion that is about different Democratic candidates, considering various demographic groups is a positive, IMO. If I understand you correctly, your point is that the white female suburban voter of a certain age and income level doesn't gain enough votes to be worth pursuing because class will out, correct? I don't disagree in the largest sense, because nationally that seems accurate enough. My point is that despite being a part of that demographic, I'm open to pulling votes wherever I can find them among the people in my community of all demographics including that demographic. Healthcare has been a big topic, and the healthcare for all platform is drawing more people in than you may realize. More and more middle class families are seeing that they are one healthcare emergency away from being awash in debt and how that can tie them to a dead end job just to have some kind of health care.

Peace, bt.

[heso 2748]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It will in Pennsylvania, and if Texas was in play it would here too. 

Look, fracking sucks, but Houston would be Detroit right now without it. I would be alright with that as I am one of the freaks who longs for the empty, depressed Houston of the '80s Oil Bust, but I do not represent a large bloc of voters. 

 

I live in western PA. unless you’re personally gaining financially from fracking (which is a very low %), you’re either indifferent or negative towards fracking. 

And even then, you’re talking about Uniontown, not Pittsburgh. Counties that trump won 65-35, at the closest. Short of trump turning black and replacing pence with a Muslim, there no hope for those counties. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by heso

[RayDog 682]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

 

Ypur point abput voting blocs is correct but in no world will 2020 come close 74 percent turnout or adding 34+million new voters. That's beyond unprecedented in the modern era. That'd be a turnout surge the likes of which has never even come close to happening in this country. That's foolish to suggest and I'll gladly eat crow if wrong, because that'd be a blue wave that makes 2018 look like a GOP victory.

"Did Not Vote" will have a bigger share of the voting eligible population than either candidate.

 

 

It is also unprecedented that the actual voter turnout was less than the enthusiasm level from the year before for as long as CNN has been doing the poll.

I think at least 140 million turnout which is still at least 18 million voters who did not vote in 2016. That is a lot of millennials, zoomers, and minorities. Anything in the 140 to 150 million range would not surprise me.

[bad_teammate 13115]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

But in a discussion that is about different Democratic candidates, considering various demographic groups is a positive, IMO. If I understand you correctly, your point is that the white female suburban voter of a certain age and income level doesn't gain enough votes to be worth pursuing because class will out, correct?

Not entirely correct. We should pursue all voting bases, but we should not shape our policy, vision, or message to allay the fears of the well-heeled. We should not choose a candidate with the idea that this candidate is least likely to scare them, because this is what we have been doing for 30 years to the detriment of everyone who isn't a well-heeled white.

The difference between Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg is, for anyone who isn't a white person with money, actually extremely important.

An object lesson here is the Joe Rogan "endorsement". Bernie went on Rogan's show and didn't pander or compromise anything, but won Joe over with integrity and consistency.

So we go to the well-heeled and say, "We are going to raise your taxes. We are going to either outright end some of the abusive industries that have made you rich or at least heavily regulate them. You are probably going to lose some privileges. It's not because we hate you as individuals, but our society is unjust and people are dying. We are all in this together and we want you to join us in this fight so we can be a unified people."

I'm not going to pretend I have moved elections, but in my years of working on campaigns, I know the power and importance of simply asking someone to join. Most people are not ideological stalwarts, and when you shake their hand, look them in the eye, and say, "We want to make this country safer and more prosperous for everyone, will you join me?" there are a TON of people for whom that's all they need.

I've been doing that a little lately with some of the board conservatives and I will be doing that A LOT when the general election starts to fire up.

But before we can do that, we have to figure out what the values are that we are going to try to sell those conservative groups. That's why I always say "This is the war" when it comes to "infighting" during the primary.

We must try to appeal to everyone, but we must not compromise our values to protect the class interests of those who live in privilege.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

I don’t understand the idea that Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. I would assume any of the candidates would jump at the chance if they had a $1B or more to drop on their race. Instead they have to spend time trying to figure out how best to extract money from people constantly.

bloomberg isn’t my top candidate at the moment but I disagree his money should somehow disqualify him.

[triplehorn 2664]

Quote

 

Hillary, a candidate who isn't running and who has no analogue in the 2020 race.

I answered yours, now you answer mine: Who won Wisconsin and Michigan?

 

Wrong.  Sanders is set up to be the analogue.  Hillary was easy to attack and make people hate.  Bernie is easy to attack and make people fear due to the deeply conditioned response to "socialism."

 

Quote

Ohio is irrelevant if you have Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. You get those 3 states, you get the White House.

Beating Hillary in a primary is not the same as beating Trump in the general, especially when foreign interference was targeting HRC and boosting Sanders.

 

Quote

What are you even saying here?

See first response above.

 

Quote

So the minorities, in your mind, are pretty much animals?

I'm an animal.  Aren't you?  FEAR is a primary motivator for all animals to do something.  It can be harnessed responsibly by leaders when when a real and credible threat exists, and it can be abused by leaders who seek to manipulate the truth for personal power and gain.

Trump the demagogue, with Cambridge Analytica, and the Russian IRA induced people not only hate, but fear Clinton, and it sunk her.  The more extreme the characteristics of a candidate, the more easily exploitable those characteristics become.  Sanders' relates to "socialism".  If and when Sanders is the nominee, it's going to be brutal.  Between 2016 and up until now, we haven't even caught a whiff of what's in store.

Responsible use of fear to attack Trump includes focusing on the tangible traumatic results of his racism as POTUS, and the harm that he will inflict on millions of people with his gutting of available affordable health care, for example.

With regard to minorities, I think responsibly tapping fear is particularly important because of the need to overcome hopelessness and apathy that something promised won't be delivered based on past years of being left out.

[bad_teammate 13115]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t understand the idea that Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. I would assume any of the candidates would jump at the chance if they had a $1B or more to drop on their race. Instead they have to spend time trying to figure out how best to extract money from people constantly.

bloomberg isn’t my top candidate at the moment but I disagree his money should somehow disqualify him.

Using personal wealth to buy advertising means you're shortcutting fundraising, yes. So if all he's competing against are people trying to milk other billionaires for money, then I can see that there is a distinction without difference between a Buttigieg and a Bloomberg.

But when you have truly grassroots candidates also in the mix, what you have is someone using his ill-gotten gains to essentially force himself into the process without the peoples' consent and interest, you have them doing that against someone who is ONLY there because of the mass will of the people.

So it's a values thing. Which is good for the country, the man who buys himself power or the man who represents the organic will of the people?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Using personal wealth to buy advertising means you're shortcutting fundraising, yes. So if all he's competing against are people trying to milk other billionaires for money, then I can see that there is a distinction without difference between a Buttigieg and a Bloomberg.

But when you have truly grassroots candidates also in the mix, what you have is someone using his ill-gotten gains to essentially force himself into the process without the peoples' consent and interest, you have them doing that against someone who is ONLY there because of the mass will of the people.

So it's a values thing. Which is good for the country, the man who buys himself power or the man who represents the organic will of the people?

I’m not entirely sure of your point but Bloomberg would have to win over the will of the people to win.  For some reason, grass roots efforts has taken on some romantic ideal but it can also mean very little in terms of overall electability and governing.

however if someone feels that grass roots is the ONLY acceptable method to win the nomination, then absolutely they should hate Bloomberg.

[bad_teammate 13115]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’m not entirely sure of your point but Bloomberg would have to win over the will of the people to win.  For some reason, grass roots efforts has taken on some romantic ideal but it can also mean very little in terms of overall electability and governing.

however if someone feels that grass roots is the ONLY acceptable method to win the nomination, then absolutely they should hate Bloomberg.

It means everything in governance, because you are going to serve whoever got you there. That's unavoidable.

If you're the bought toy of the wealth class that you begged for money, you're going to serve the wealth class that bought you.
If you're the candidate that came out from the masses, you're going to serve the masses.
If you're the candidate who powered yourself alone, you're going to serve yourself. We see that in the WH right now.

[David Dennison 18487]

18 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Wrong.  Sanders is set up to be the analogue.  Hillary was easy to attack and make people hate.  Bernie is easy to attack and make people fear due to the deeply conditioned response to "socialism."

How ironic is it that the vast majority of people with that deeply conditioned response to "socialism" were educated in socialist schools?

[Guest Lobo]

socialist schools in the sense that my mom couldn't afford to send me to private school, had to work so she couldn't home-school me, and if she didn't send me to the slightly above-average public school mandated by my zip code and date of birth, they'd take me away from her and arrest her?  Is that what a socialist school is? 

In 175 years of public school education, other than asking for more money every year to feed the beast...the greatest disruptive idea they've had is to sit us in 5 rows of 5, talk at us with zero account of weaknesses, proclivities, interests, and needs.  All based on our zip code and our date of birth.  It was an interesting idea 175 years ago.  Now where has it gotten us?  Oh yeah, I forget...just a few more bucks and we'll get over the hump.  

Anyway, back to thread.  You guys really gotta think Pete, Joe, or Mike.  This is not the time to play Mad Scientist in the Lab.  You can sculpt the future of the party on your own time.  We need a winner to take out Capt. Asshat.  And we need them now.   

Edited February 9, 2020 by Lobo

[bad_teammate 13115]

How is Bernie Sanders leading the polls and very popular?

People don't actually give a shit about "SOCIALIST!"

[David Dennison 18487]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

socialist schools in the sense that my mom couldn't afford to send me to private school, had to work so she couldn't home-school me, and if she didn't send me to the slightly above-average public school mandated by my zip code and date of birth, they'd take me away from her and arrest her?  Is that what a socialist school is?  

Yes.

[bad_teammate 13115]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

socialist schools in the sense that my mom couldn't afford to send me to private school, had to work so she couldn't home-school me, and if she didn't send me to the slightly above-average public school mandated by my zip code and date of birth, they'd take me away from her and arrest her?  Is that what a socialist school is? 

In 175 years of public school education, other than asking for more money every year to feed the beast...the greatest disruptive idea they've had is to sit us in 5 rows of 5, talk at us with zero account of weaknesses, proclivities, interests, and needs.  All based on our zip code and our date of birth.  It was an interesting idea 175 years ago.  Now where has it gotten us?  Oh yeah, I forget...just a few more bucks and we'll get over the hump.  

Anyway, back to thread.  You guys really gotta think Pete, Joe, or Mike.  This is not the time to play Mad Scientist in the Lab.  You can sculpt the future of the party on your own time.  We need a winner to take out Capt. Asshat.  And we need them now.   

I love this post because it's outright hostility towards the idea of social cooperation and then "Hey here's some good faith advice for the people I clearly hate."

And centrists will see it and lap it up because they have brains of cheesecloth.

[David Dennison 18487]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I love this post because it's outright hostility towards the idea of social cooperation and then "Hey here's some good faith advice for the people I clearly hate."

And centrists will see it and lap it up because they have brains of cheesecloth.

It's basically, I like my neighbors, but fuck everyone else. Oh, and I don't really like my neighbors.

[triplehorn 2664]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If you're the candidate who powered yourself alone, you're going to serve yourself. We see that in the WH right now.

When Putin powers your election, you’re going to serve him.  We see that in the WH right now.

[triplehorn 2664]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How is Bernie Sanders leading the polls and very popular?

People don't actually give a shit about "SOCIALIST!"

I don’t actually think you know what you’re talking about.

[bad_teammate 13115]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I don’t actually think you know what you’re talking about.

Democrats more positive than negative about socialism.

Young Americans are embracing socialism.

There's a pattern both here in this discussion with you and many of them I have: I provide data and sources. You just ramble about Russian interference and hope from one neuron firing to the next.

[triplehorn 2664]

I take issue with the partial if not glancing context of the data and sources you provide combined with sounding cocksure when anyone who has been paying attention knows it’s more variable and unknown than you project.

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

I guess this is the right place for this

[bad_teammate 13115]

Klobbmentum: RISING

 

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

God, Joe Biden is a completely shitty candidate.  If he finishes fifth in NH, he should drop out.

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yeah, I didn’t think he would win Iowa or New Hampshire, but I thought he’d at least keep it close enough to still be strong heading into Nevada and South Carolina when he could start winning.  Instead he’s on track to be less viable than Pete and Amy, who aren’t viable themselves.  Yikes.

That's what I thought.  I didn't expect him to win, which is kind of shitty in it's own right but I expected him to keep in somewhat close.  Maybe third?  (That's still shitty for the presumptive nominee.)  But fifth?  Fuck off and of go away.  

 

[washparkhorn 9931]

I saw the first effective ad for Biden above, when he struck out at Buttigieg.

The middle lane is still wide open. Biden isn't out of it yet. Bloomberg will eventually try to takeover that lane (from his VIP Billionaire autobahn). I think Biden can take him. Liz might be able to. Buttigieg will just join him. Amy might be able to knife him. 

Still wide open for the middle lane. But Biden is running on fumes. He needs some momentum. The ad is a little breathers, but NH will hurt his nascent rebound. He may just be a dead cat bouncing. 

Edit - Joe's effective ad.

 

Edited February 9, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I saw the first effective ad for Biden above, when he struck out at Buttigieg.

The middle lane is still wide open. Biden isn't out of it yet. Bloomberg will eventually try to takeover that lane (from his VIP Billionaire autobahn). I think Biden can take him. Liz might be able to. Buttigieg will just join him. Amy might be able to knife him. 

Still wide open for the middle lane. But Biden is running on fumes. He needs some momentum. The ad is a little breathers, but NH will hurt his nascent rebound. He may just be a dead cat bouncing. 

Edit - Joe's effective ad.

 

Stopped reading there.

There is not one demographic group or any one person besides Jill Biden that would pick Joe Biden over Bloomberg in a two person choice.  If you truly believe that, I question everything else you've ever said.

[washparkhorn 9931]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Stopped reading there.

There is not one demographic group or any one person besides Jill Biden that would pick Joe Biden over Bloomberg in a two person choice.  If you truly believe that, I question everything else you've ever said.

Sorry to disappoint you.  Cheers!

[Bama Chick 28596]

The Biden ads that have been so good that have started showing up over the last couple of months?

Produced by former Beto staffers that joined the Biden campaign.

(He dropped out too early and it still makes me sad but I’m starting a grassroots movement to draft him for DNC chair.)


Also, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PETE CAMPAIGN????

I just cannot believe his people - and he - are this tone deaf.



(And, yes, it’s real - https://store.peteforamerica.com/collections/apparel/products/invest-in-black-america-t-shirt )

Also, nice subtle use of an “African color scheme” with the red, yellow, & green.

[washparkhorn 9931]

40 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The Biden ads that have been so good that have started showing up over the last couple of months?

Produced by former Beto staffers that joined the Biden campaign.

(He dropped out too early and it still makes me sad but I’m starting a grassroots movement to draft him for DNC chair.)


Also, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PETE CAMPAIGN????

I just cannot believe his people - and he - are this tone deaf.



(And, yes, it’s real - https://store.peteforamerica.com/collections/apparel/products/invest-in-black-america-t-shirt )

Also, nice subtle use of an “African color scheme” with the red, yellow, & green.

Ouch. 

Pete's programming needs to be updated. 

If some of Beto's people did that last ad for Biden comparing his experience to Pete's, there is only one thing to say: Joe's people screwed up not using their narratives and themes earlier. That was a good ad. Certainly the best ad put out by Biden so far. 

It is clear now the Field of Democratic Candidates (in this from the beginning) will have to go through the Billionaires supporting various other Field Candidates -- then a Usurper Billionaire (who refused to leave office when his term was up) -- and finally another set of Billionaires (supporting a Bad Actor) to reach to the White House. 

We live in interesting times. Important times. History will want to understand 2020. 

Learn. Talk to people. Vote. 

 

[washparkhorn 9931]

Super Tuesday in Texas puts Texas on the political map - and Texas will be important, if not pivotal. California and Texas are two big power makers.

Texas could start the dominos falling as Colorado and then California are decided. Vote!

Jim Hightower has a voting guide. 

Quote

As a South Texas saying puts it: “A grandes males, grandes remedios” – for big problems, get big solutions. Obviously, our society’s problems today—from rampant inequality to climate change—are beyond huge, but how big will Democrats go in addressing these challenges?

https://hightowerlowdown.org/article/its-time-to-vote-how-to-choose-between-the-progressives-and-the-centrists/

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

The democrat field is behaving like the 2012 gop field.  Seems like everyone rose to the top at some point including Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. Romney was the candidate always near or at the top. It was like the gop didn’t really want Romney but the others couldn’t solidify their support.  One difference is that the gop was down to 3 main and 1 minor candidate by this date.

unfortunately it’s a good sign for trump if the democrats can’t lock in on a candidate.

but then again who’s to say what’s normal now. 

[workswithseed 2028]

8 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t understand the idea that Bloomberg is trying to buy the election. I would assume any of the candidates would jump at the chance if they had a $1B or more to drop on their race. Instead they have to spend time trying to figure out how best to extract money from people constantly.

bloomberg isn’t my top candidate at the moment but I disagree his money should somehow disqualify him.

Apparently he's just playing by the rules as everyone else.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

The donor criteria  is an arbitrarily rule that assumes that a candidates viability is at least partially defined by the #of donors. That rule breaks down entirely when one candidate decides to not solicit donations. It’s an ok rule for the most part since there must only be a few Americans with the desire and money to self fund a presidential run.  Even someone at trump’s “declared” wealth can’t realistically self fund.

for the people that are against changing the rules for Bloomberg, what are your thoughts if he started polling at 60% tomorrow but the debates only invited the other candidates?

Hall Monitor Harry: “sorry our voters might want you but it says right here in the rules, we will only allow the non-primary winners to debate each other”

[bad_teammate 13115]

for the people that are against changing the rules for Bloomberg, what are your thoughts if he started polling at 60% tomorrow but the debates only invited the other candidates?

My thought would be, "Good."

Steyer bought his way onstage easily following the rules. It's a 3-imch hurdle to clear for a billionaire.

It's not about being a hall monitor. I would've been fine with fudging it to allow Booker so we could at least have one black person on stage.

It's about watching a billionaire openly try to buy this thing and wanting the Democratic Party to be an organization that says, "Fuck you* to billionaires trying to just buy power in the organization.

[bad_teammate 13115]

Also, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE PETE CAMPAIGN????

I just cannot believe his people - and he - are this tone deaf.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/267/swedish_chef.jpg

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

I'd laugh if Bloomberg won the nomination without ever having been in a debate.

[bad_teammate 13115]

When I want some expert insight into left-wing politics, you know who I watch videos of? Fucking nerds who are pissed off that girl superheroes exist.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

That's seven minutes and 44 seconds into a world I never knew existed.

[SquishMitten 10381]

The democrat field is behaving like the 2012 gop field.  Seems like everyone rose to the top at some point including Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. Romney was the candidate always near or at the top. It was like the gop didn’t really want Romney but the others couldn’t solidify their support.  One difference is that the gop was down to 3 main and 1 minor candidate by this date.
unfortunately it’s a good sign for trump if the democrats can’t lock in on a candidate.
but then again who’s to say what’s normal now. 

It really is interesting. I think it probably has a lot to do with each candidate generally staying out of the mudslinging game. The overall agreement that dividing the party (like 2016) is the worst path to achieving the goal of beating Trump...it also has the potential downside that the field narrows more slowly. I only say “potential” because who the hell knows. As long as they continue to avoid heavy mudslinging, more candidates wooing moderates - who may then follow that candidate’s ultimate endorsement of the nominee - could be a huge benefit.

[bad_teammate 13115]

"Who cares if the billionaires own politicians?" I ask, sitting in the capitol set from The Hunger Games.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

A small reminder that this tweet from a year ago today is going to replaced by much worse for any and all candidates...