Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

I don't know how Biden can continue at this rate. And Bloomberg is going to need a lot more commercials and that Men in Black mind-erasing raygun to make everyone forget this horrid debate performance. 

 

Then again I have been wrong about virtually everything related to politics since 2008, so who knows.

I agree with you on Biden, SC will determine his fete. 

I still say Bloomberg is viable because he has the money to will him to viability. There is Bernie and then the anti-bernie vote for the nomination. The problem with the anti Bernie vote is that it is divided between Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Warren right now. If the field clears some, and it is a choice between 2 then Bloomberg is viable just because he is the anti-Bernie. Biden will likely be out after SC. The question is how long Buttigeig can keep the run up. He seems to be doing well, but again NV and SC will see if he has staying power. Klobuchar, for as good as she sounds just is not going to have the funding to go all the way. Warren has a war chest and could be the biggest spoiler in the race. She is not going to get the nomination, but the longer she stays in, the better for Bernie. She has effectively lost most of the progressive vote and is really scrambling in the mix for the establishment voters. Ultimately, she is playing Bernie's wingman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how Warren could be counted and Biden not. Warren is in third in delegates right now and 98% of delegates are still outstanding. I think a good showing in NV could help propel her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

Buttigieg came across as a solid middle of the road choice in the beginning and then he started pivoting and taking a bunch of corporate money and now everything comes across as empty words. He had such a great groundswell of grassroots support in the beginning, I just don't know why he had to go away from that formula.

 

I don't know, I mean it's hard to blame him in a presidential race that can cost hundreds of millions just to have any shot at all.  He's playing by the existing system just like they all are.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, Biden just can't catch a break. He couldn't even make his closing statement because of whatever the hell was happening in the audience. 

 

p.s. Did Bloomberg faint, or leave early? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I'm not sure how Warren could be counted and Biden not. Warren is in third in delegates right now and 98% of delegates are still outstanding. I think a good showing in NV could help propel her.

Because Warren IMO has too many roadblocks in her way that it will be difficult for her to carve out a path. Biden still has a window that is closing fast, but if he does well in SC, he can show viability for a while longer. Bloomberg is likely a stronger candidate, solely because he has the money to do so (still not a good candidate). Klobuchar is the best of the candidate's policywise but I just dont think she has the funds to compete at this point. Her campaign is almost a mirror of John Kaisich in 2016. Coming in a bunch of 2nd and 3rd place, winning the home state, but not breaking through anywhere else. Favorite of the common sense voters in the establishment who think the rest of the party has gone off the  rails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Then again I have been wrong about virtually everything related to politics since 2008, so who knows.

Trump won in 2016, Bernie Sanders gave Hillary a run for her money. I dont think even the most expert politico has a pulse on what is going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Man, Biden just can't catch a break. He couldn't even make his closing statement because of whatever the hell was happening in the audience. 

 

 

IMG_2512.jpg.be146cc27ce47c2ae1e15afc5a09b029.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when the news channels all did features on Wasilla, Alaska?  With the sweeping views of the lakes and mountains?

 

When are we going to see this much-vaunted South Bend we keep hearing so much about?  I'm picturing a Ft. Wayne or a Richmond, but with Notre Dame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The completely meaningless Nevada Debate Yabo Power Rankings of actual candidates:

 

1. Mayor Pete

2. Warren

3. Biden

4. Sanders

5. Klobuchar 😞 

6. Bloomberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

The completely meaningless Nevada Debate Yabo Power Rankings of actual candidates:

 

1. Mayor Pete

2. Warren

3. Biden

4. Sanders

5. Klobuchar 😞 

6. Bloomberg


Klobuchar did the exact opposite of doing well at the debate... she was awful. She isn’t up to the task.

 

Warren definitely came out the winner in this debate. The issue is whether or not her policy can withstand scrutiny... she lost her front runner status the last time because her policy defenses were about as good as a wet paper bag’s defense against a sharp nail. I don’t suspect anything is different two months later.

 

Pete as always had a solid performance, and did just enough to reveal that Amy is completely unhinged. I found it very amusing that at the end of the debate he tried to shake her hand like a civilized person and she ran away from him with her head down. How f***ing presidential of her. She is the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SWOH said:


Klobuchar did the exact opposite of doing well at the debate... she was awful. She isn’t up to the task.

 

Warren definitely came out the winner in this debate. The issue is whether or not her policy can withstand scrutiny... she lost her front runner status the last time because her policy defenses were about as good as a wet paper bag’s defense against a sharp nail. I don’t suspect anything is different two months later.

 

Pete as always had a solid performance, and did just enough to reveal that Amy is completely unhinged. I found it very amusing that at the end of the debate he tried to shake her hand like a civilized person and she ran away from him with her head down. How f***ing presidential of her. She is the worst.

 

Yeah, normally I think people are unfair when women get angry, but I agree - she kind of snapped. 

 

Also, Mayor Pete is very good at antagonizing in a calm manner, which would play great against Trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its going to be fascinating seeing what happens on Saturday. My gut feel which is obviously meaningless is that Sanders will underperform at around 25%. I think the ranked voting which 77000 people participated in will have significant effects as it is usually older people that vote early.  I doubt they are voting for Bernie. The question is how many show up to caucus. Will there be another 80000 to offset the early voting?

  Bernie will get his 25%, Warren maybe 23% everyone else around 15% including Steyer who could likely get some delegates and allow him to be eligible for the next debate.  Don’t we need a widening of the field?

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yeah, normally I think people are unfair when women get angry, but I agree - she kind of snapped. 

 

Also, Mayor Pete is very good at antagonizing in a calm manner, which would play great against Trump

I agree that Klobuchar looked bad but I think Pete looked bad too. Some of his attacks seemed pretty. But Klobuchar definitely came out of that far worse.

 

I think Warren came out on top and hopefully helps her gain momentum.  I continue to think she might be the right candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

Also, Mayor Pete is very good at antagonizing in a calm manner, which would play great against Trump

 

What is the current over/under on Trump actually participating in any debates?   My guess is he will claim it is all rigged and not show.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about arguments against Biden. I don't see anyone matching up and actually beating Trump besides him. Imagine if Bloomberg put his funds behind Biden. Bernie cannot win over and will push away suburban moderates. So will Warren. Pete will lead to low Dem. base turn out. Trump is obviously terrified of running against Biden and if he were to chose someone like Stacey Abrams as his VP, I would see it being hard for him to lose in November. Wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While everyone is talking about how well Warren did last night, I cant help but feel she was essentially acting as Bernie's attack dog. She went after Bloomberg so Bernie did not really have to. He was left unscathed because she forced everyone to turn their arrows on Bloomberg. We shall see what happens at the polls but with early voting underway and her campaign flailing after NH and IA, I cant see her jumping in the top 2 to keep her relevant and viable over the long run.

 

Klobachar, while a fine candidate is just not going to have the funding long term to break through in this contest. While her showing in NH was great, she still does not garner the attention needed to be considered a true frontrunner and just appears to be hanging on, but with no real path to victory. Her and Pete are almost running in the same lane and he is better funded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's presence only creates a distraction, basically serving is a proxy-Trump. As long as he is there, many of the attacks the other candidates would aim at Trump instead get targeted at the wealthy womanizer with a racist policy record who is on stage with them. Last night showed he is in the wrong primary; Bloomberg should be in the Republican Primary right now, and from there he would be much more effective if his goal is, in fact, to unseat Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Klobachar, while a fine candidate is just not going to have the funding long term to break through in this contest. While her showing in NH was great, she still does not garner the attention needed to be considered a true frontrunner and just appears to be hanging on, but with no real path to victory. Her and Pete are almost running in the same lane and he is better funded. 

 

Unfortunately, the ideal skills for running a complex organization like the United States government are not the same set of skills needed to win an election campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ytown2ctown said:

Trump is obviously terrified of running against Biden and if he were to chose someone like Stacey Abrams as his VP, I would see it being hard for him to lose in November. Wishful thinking.

 

Speaking of Stacey Abrams as VP -- seems highly likely that she will be seriously considered by whoever is the nominee.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483382-stacey-abrams-on-being-vp-pick-of-course-i-want-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yeah, normally I think people are unfair when women get angry, but I agree - she kind of snapped. 

 

Also, Mayor Pete is very good at antagonizing in a calm manner, which would play great against Trump

 

That actually left me with a bad impression of Pete. The word smarmy is the word I was looking for last night. 

 

For being such a good attorney I was surprised to see Klobuchar just lose it. She couldn't seem to organize her thoughts within the time allotted and was definitely off her game. 

 

smarm·y

/ˈsmärmē/

adjective

ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Pete did a fine job at yesterday's debate. Not outstanding, but not poor, just fine. Biden did a fine job but there wasn't anything memorable about his comments and he was rather forgettable.

 

But holy hell, Klobuchar doesn't need to remember every major foreign power's leader but Mexico is kind of important, and being forgetful is quite common for contenders given all that you are supposedly having to memorize and know. But the explanation for it was botched and just made her look weak.

 

And Bloomberg just didn't give a s**t. He's about as charismatic as corpse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm saying this, but hey 2020 man, I'm really hoping Warren gains momentum so she can chip away at the Progressive vote.

 

Bernie is impervious to any serious criticism on the stage because every other candidate is terrified of offending his hyper woke base and thereby losing any chance of their support if its needed in the general.

 

Bloomberg should've assumed that role and leaned into it and just piled on Bernie's spending proposals and moreover, Bernie's comment about how Bloomberg shouldn't be allowed to accumulate wealth was MAJORLY significant and telling and went largely ignored. Pete took a couple shots at Bernie, but it was in re: leadership more than policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

 

What is the current over/under on Trump actually participating in any debates?   My guess is he will claim it is all rigged and not show.  

 

It would depend on who his opponent is, but as I've said before (either on this thread or the Trump one), I think he will show unless he is somehow prevented from doing so by his handlers (whom he frequently ignores).  In his own mind, he's Cicero and has nothing to fear from any debate.

 

Also, some of the Democratic contenders are not particularly charismatic, and people remember their impressions of candidates in debates generally more than they remember any specific words or soundbytes (an effect that Trump has taken advantage of frequently).  People think someone like Warren or Buttigieg would trounce him in a debate because of their knowledge and rhetorical ability, but I'm not actually sure, because a lot of Trump's target audience doesn't even keep score the same way they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Unfortunately, the ideal skills for running a complex organization like the United States government are not the same set of skills needed to win an election campaign.

At this point, I see 3 viable candidates. Bernie, Bloomberg and Buttigieg. with a possibility of Biden if he Wins SC and gets a top 2 finish in NV. 

Amy is underfunded, and Warren peaked too early. She is the Howard Dean of the race right now. 

 

None of the frontrunners are great candidates. Bloomberg is obviously the centrist favorite, but has the personality of a brick and also many flaws on top of that. He is a jerk of a person and feels he knows better than everyone else how to live their lives, but hey, he aligns with the Dems on the issues fairly well so he has a path given his money. Problem is with Bloomberg, the progressives wont likely show up for him and turnout is low, I dont think he can really beat Trump. 

 

Bernie on the other hand has inspired the progressive class and may get some energy with his base, but he is a bit unhinged and mentally unstable and turns off a lot of moderates. Those people are more likley to hold their nose for Bernie than progressives would for Trump, but then you will lose a lot of the independent vote. I dont see Bernie being able to beat Trump with his socialism brand, but he actually may be more competitive than Bloomberg in the states that matter.  Bernie at the end of the day is a Jeremy Corbyn candidate.  He may look competitive early on, but come election time, will likely falter out in a Corbynesque way. He will be maligned the blame and the Dem party will then move back toward the centrist candidates long term.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do...do you guys remember Trump did terrible in the 2016 debates - by normative standards or whatever - and it didn't matter?  I don't really care about "how would X do against Trump for 3 nights on debate stages?" because it doesn't matter.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that bloomberg did so bad and took so many hits and nobody looked great in the debate combined with the fact that Biden didn’t do bad, could be a pop for Biden in Nevada as the default.  I ‘m not sure i understand who mayor pete’s demographics are except middle-aged college educated white people.  That is not a big pool of voters in Nevada when that is what everyone on the stage is fighting for.  The Amy/Pete feud was good for Biden as was the Bloomberg beat down. If Biden doesn’t get at least 20% in NV he likely is toast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any candidate has ever gone 4th / 5th in the first two states and then rebounded to be the nominee.  I could be wrong.  But Biden didn't write Iowa off like McCain in '08.  He actually competed.  So I'm not sure why people still think Biden is some sort of viable candidate.  His campaign is toast.

 

Similarly, we've never seen a candidate like Bloomberg.  Completely off the board in the first four states, flooding the airwaves at an unprecedented level.  We'll have to wait and see if this dismal performance pops his bubble.  I believe, I may have this wrong, that he's outspending all the other candidates on ads COMBINED.  And that includes Tom Steyer, who has outspent the non-Bloomberg candidates on ads COMBINED.  Just unreal amounts being pumped in.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Similarly, we've never seen a candidate like Bloomberg.  Completely off the board in the first four states, flooding the airwaves at an unprecedented level.  We'll have to wait and see if this dismal performance pops his bubble.  I believe, I may have this wrong, that he's outspending all the other candidates on ads COMBINED.  And that includes Tom Steyer, who has outspent the non-Bloomberg candidates on ads COMBINED.  Just unreal amounts being pumped in.

 

Crazy stats. The possibility of Bloomberg (and Steyer) tanking in the polls is actually a pretty strong argument against campaign finance reform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's an issue with Warren.  Week to week, I don't really know what she's trying to portray to voters.  One week it's, "I'm a fighter.  I'm in this to fight."  The next week it's, "I'm the unity candidate.  I'll bring all the factions of the party together."  Then last night, it's "I've got my knives out for every candidate on this stage."  There isn't really a coherent message through all of those.  If she's going to be the "unity" candidate, she shouldn't then be attacking everyone, right?  And if she's going to be a fighter, it's really hard to thread the needle of being a "fighter" and a "unifier," especially when your fighting involves taking down candidates in a debate to your ideological left and right.

 

While she did a great job at exposing Mike Bloomberg tonight, she also leaned in to absurd attacks on Bernie's supporters, had a weird "my Medicare for All plan is better than Bernie's" moment (after saying in the debates in the summer - "I'm with Bernie on this"), and did not say the voters' will should win the day in the event of no candidate winning a majority of pledged delegates.

 

More of a mixed bag debate for her in my view - but a lot of that stems from not really understanding how she's trying to portray herself to voters, and I think the constant switching of messages are a bit contradictory to each other.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important question:

 

Does Bernie realize he’ll no longer be able to scream “you kids get off my lawn!” if he turns everyone’s lawn into public property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, it was pretty incredible that five of six candidates...of a party who has spent the last 4+ years telling us how important democracy is, how important voting rights are and how everyone should have their voice be heard, how the POPULAR VOTE should decide Presidential elections... said that the candidate who ends up with the most votes/delegates should not necessarily be the nominee and that it's fine, actually, for superdelegates to decide the nomination in that case.  A lot of "democracy for thee, but not for me" vibes.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Crazy stats. The possibility of Bloomberg (and Steyer) tanking in the polls is actually a pretty strong argument against campaign finance reform. 

 

After last night, the possibility of him *not* tanking would be an even stronger argument for campaign finance reform.

 

Two of his worst moments:

 

(1) Tax breaks for the wealth by Obam....um....um....Trump

 

(2) I deserve to have $62 billion because I work hard (I get that he's defending captilaism, but it shows he has quite the blind spot to what people perceive to be both unfair and inefficient about a system that so handsomely rewards some and not most...many of whom work just as hard and are quite possibly just as smart or smarter)

 

Biden got a great shot in at Bernie about his NRA support, but I feel like that's being swept under the rug.

Edited by jam40jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "mayor pete" nickname is so lame.  Mayor Mike was mayor of the most important city in the world.  South Bend might have two Chipotle's. 

 

That said, the two mayors each have simian features, so there's that.  Minnesota lady drinks the most.  Warren is like the head university librarian.  Sanders and Biden each look like they bring harmonicas to camp fires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Important question:

 

Does Bernie realize he’ll no longer be able to scream “you kids get off my lawn!” if he turns everyone’s lawn into public property?

 

Lol.

 

Somewhat related, I am not sure Sanders / the Sanders campaign is ready to be the nominee and what that entails.  He thrives off railing against the establishment / the DNC, railing against party insiders and funders, etc.  If he wins the nomination, he will BE the establishment.  He will have to navigate the DNC and all that.  It's very different running in the primary and saying, "Look, the billionaires are scared of us.  The DNC is scared of us.  We have the pharmaceutical industry and the fossil fuel industry on the run" and then suddenly being the head of the Democratic Party.  That will be a big change for them in term of tone, messaging, etc.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The "mayor pete" nickname is so lame.  Mayor Mike was mayor of the most important city in the world.  South Bend might have two Chipotle's. 

 

That said, the two mayors each have simian features, so there's that.  Minnesota lady drinks the most.  Warren is like the head university librarian.  Sanders and Biden each look like they bring harmonicas to camp fires. 

 

Cogent analysis. Cancelling my subscription to Politico magazine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The "mayor pete" nickname is so lame.  Mayor Mike was mayor of the most important city in the world.  South Bend might have two Chipotle's. 

 

That said, the two mayors each have simian features, so there's that.  Minnesota lady drinks the most.  Warren is like the head university librarian.  Sanders and Biden each look like they bring harmonicas to camp fires. 

 

For your information, South Bend has three Chipotles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The "mayor pete" nickname is so lame.  Mayor Mike was mayor of the most important city in the world.  South Bend might have two Chipotle's. 

 

It's just because his last name is a mouthful. Mayor Pete rolls off the tongue better than BOOT EDGE EDGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...