Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Machismo]

It's pure diversion. When faced with facts they find unpleasant, they immediately divert to whataboutism. Low resolution thinking ftl.

Yes, it's a shame when people get upset when faced by facts, and immediately divert, and run away.

God damn, I love irony.

[Blade Wolf]

yea its sort of irritating and skews discussion imo, i myself dgaf about their politics except as relates to the US.

Stop playing world police and stop sticking your dick in every single country and we'll stop bothering you.

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm glad some liberals are waking up to how fake CNN is.

If you think most "liberals" hold a particularly high opinion of CNN, you've clearly not been paying attention.

[Blade Wolf]

If you think most "liberals" hold a particularly high opinion of CNN, you've clearly not been paying attention.

It's the least shitty but still shitty. It's like comparing horse shit and dog shit, they both stink but one is usually a bigger pile of shit.

[Omega10]

18 progressive groups sign unity pledge amid Sanders-Warren feud

The groups are a mix of both Sanders and Warren supporters.

It may not matter much longer what Warren thinks:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1ZG00D

Latest national poll: 20% Sanders, 19% Biden, 12% Warren, 9% Bloomsberg, 6% Buttigieg

Sanders and Bloomsberg are rising, the others not so much. There are still a lot of undecided voters.

From what I can tell, Warren learned how not to attack, and Sanders did a decent job of defending. The Sanders "attack" (his phone call script) on Warren seemed to trigger Warren into making unforced errors.

If one of these people wins the democratic nomination, they need to review each and every step they took in this battle and improve their tactics. The winner gets to face from August until November a constant state of attack and defend.

[Shadowferal]

Bloomsberg? WTF?

[PACOX]

Bloomsberg? WTF?

If anything he is exposing the power of money.

[Omega10]

Bloomsberg? WTF?

He is in 4th place and rising. From what I've read, his strategy is to ignore all the high profile states such as Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and amass delegates in states that other candidates typically ignore. From what I can tell, he is banking on a good result on Super Tuesday.

The little bit that I have read about him praises the get out the vote organizations he has set up in most of the 50 states. Although the articles talk about him spending 500 million up to about a billion on the race, with his $53 billion dollar bank account, if he takes off I could see him spending more like 4-5 billion rather than less than one.

[Edge-]

Bloomsberg? WTF?

Name recognition helps. So does dropping ludicrous amounts of his own money on ads.

Who says you can't buy an election : P

[Skroe]

Bloomsberg? WTF?

His ads are good... really good... and he's spending more per week than Democrats are raising per quarter. He will likely spend $1 billion by November.

Folks should be thankful for that. Right now, it's a curioisity. He will not be the nominee. But he is going to spend on that nominee and it seems zero (and then some) Trump's expected monetary advantage.

Remember: Donald Trump was anticipate to raise north of $2 billion this cycle, while Democrats would raise about $1.3ish. With Bloomberg's billion on top of that, it could give Democrats a money advantage they desperately need.

The resource war is an essential component of beating Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop playing world police and stop sticking your dick in every single country and we'll stop bothering you.

The United States is world police because most of the world does not have its act together nearly as much as they think they do.

[Dacien]

The more I think about it the more I believe Warren. Only someone incensed at perceived wrongs would, after raising the allegation just days prior, approach Bernie Sanders in what appears to be genuine frustration. Someone raising scurrilous allegations that hold little merit isn't going to escalate on shaky grounds, and Warren doesn't strike me as that malicious or calculated to orchestrate the routine.

[Omega10]

Name recognition helps. So does dropping ludicrous amounts of his own money on ads.

Who says you can't buy an election : P

The difference between Bloomsberg and Steyer (is that the other billionaire that is spending boatloads of money of ads?) is that Bloomsberg knows how to put together a campaign. And that is reflected in the fact that Bloomsberg is in the top 5, and Steyer is not.

I think that Bloomsberg will take in a lot of delegates. And yes his cash advantages are huge. The worst part of his candidacy is that, win or lose, he will provide a blueprint for other billionaires to run similar campaigns in future elections.

[Dacien]

And here's my hot take on CNN's debate style: They thought they were making a power call by being pro-woman #BelieveWomen in their slanted questioning and performance, and it had nothing at all to do with corporate Democratic interests.

[Edge-]

And here's my hot take on CNN's debate style: They thought they were making a power call by being pro-woman #BelieveWomen in their slanted questioning and performance, and it had nothing at all to do with corporate Democratic interests.

Not even. They just wanted to start a fight on-stage for views and those post-debate clicks on VODs. As I said, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the moderators started shouting "WORLD STAR" as they filmed what they hoped would be bare-knuckle brawl.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference between Bloomsberg and Steyer (is that the other billionaire that is spending boatloads of money of ads?) is that Bloomsberg knows how to put together a campaign. And that is reflected in the fact that Bloomsberg is in the top 5, and Steyer is not.

I think that Bloomsberg will take in a lot of delegates. And yes his cash advantages are huge. The worst part of his candidacy is that, win or lose, he will provide a blueprint for other billionaires to run similar campaigns in future elections.

And the fact that you'll probably get a lot more folks on the street knowing who Michael Bloomberg is than Tom Steyer.

This is why I still think we need major campaign finance reform. It should be a level playing field for candidates, not a contest to see who has the edge because they're a billionaire/have wealthy donors.

[Omega10]

Not even. They just wanted to start a fight on-stage for views and those post-debate clicks on VODs. As I said, I legit wouldn't be surprised if the moderators started shouting "WORLD STAR" as they filmed what they hoped would be bare-knuckle brawl.

- - - Updated - - -



And the fact that you'll probably get a lot more folks on the street knowing who Michael Bloomberg is than Tom Steyer.

This is why I still think we need major campaign finance reform. It should be a level playing field for candidates, not a contest to see who has the edge because they're a billionaire/have wealthy donors.

Nice pun on your name Of course, it's more than just an edge. For the most part it's a very large advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

And here's my hot take on CNN's debate style: They thought they were making a power call by being pro-woman #BelieveWomen in their slanted questioning and performance, and it had nothing at all to do with corporate Democratic interests.

Their questions were just plain anti-Sanders.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/cn...cratic-debate/

Unfortunately for Warren, CNN's anti-Sander's questions coincided with the Sanders-Warren feud, which made it seem like CNN is on Warren's side. Having CNN on your side is the kiss of death.

The Sanders-Warren feud will pass. The hit to CNN's reputation will not. It would be nice if CNN just went away, but I suppose that is too much to ask!

[Masark]

The United States is world police because most of the world does not have its act together nearly as much as they think they do.

Unfortunately, your world policing is like American policing, who appear to believe that the Peelian principles are a communist plot.

[Skroe]

Nice pun on your name Of course, it's more than just an edge. For the most part it's a very large advantage.

- - - Updated - - -



Their questions were just plain anti-Sanders.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/cn...cratic-debate/

Unfortunately for Warren, CNN's anti-Sander's questions coincided with the Sanders-Warren feud, which made it seem like CNN is on Warren's side. Having CNN on your side is the kiss of death.

The Sanders-Warren feud will pass. The hit to CNN's reputation will not. It would be nice if CNN just went away, but I suppose that is too much to ask!

So is this going to be the excuse? "Bernie lost cuz CNN had an agenda".

CNN can be sensationalist (looking at you Wolf Blitzer), but they are also one of the best and more comprehensive journalism there is.

I'll put this plainly. If Bernie-fucking-Sanders can't take CNN treating him "fairly" (in the eyes of his supporters), how the hell could he be considered a credible candidate to negotiate with Putin, or Xi Jinping, or Iran?

Don't baby this fucking candidates. Put them through the meat grinder. If they can't take it, fuck 'em.

But then again, the Bernie Bro team is a Trumphadi-style cult, so they'll never, ever do that.

[NED funded]

Has any galaxy brained politicos written in defense of Judas Iscariot Warren that she was merely saying "Her Truth" yet?

I totally missed this. Is Bernie Jesus now? Is that where we are now?

People need something more to their life before they try comparing politicians to jesus

[Skroe]

Unfortunately, your world policing is like American policing, who appear to believe that the Peelian principles are a communist plot.

Yeah it's only formed the backbone of the liberal international order since World War II. nbd.

And because of China's activities, expect more of that level activity than in the past 40 years. Something pretty ironic because it's one of the few areas the Presidency has significant unilateral power in, but it almost never comes up in these debates as Democrats engage in happy talk about bills that Mitch McConnell won't bring to a vote and executive actions that they'll be defeated on by the courts.

[Elegiac]

CNN can be sensationalist (looking at you Wolf Blitzer), but they are also one of the best and more comprehensive journalism there is.

Pfffthahaha.

Nah, the problem is the entire concept of "comprehensive journalism" as it applies to the 24 hour news cycle and the constant narrativization of events. Mainstream corporate news media in the US is just plain old terrible.