Nevada Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[Skroe]

In your opinion

It was also your opinion that McConnel was going to ditch Dump the first chance he got.

No. I thought he'd ditch him when he became more trouble than he was worth. And we had him, in early 2019, except the Mueller report did not do what I expected Mueller to do and indict Trump.

With the shut down, the 2018 election loss, and the Mueller report, Trump was lined up, but Mueller didn't go far enough and allowed McConnell and opening.

It was also your opinion that Dump would be impeached and out of office by end of 2019.

After the Mueller report failed to follow through, I said Trump would survive to the 2020 election, even though he was likely to be impeached before hand. And that happened.

It was also your opinion that Sanders wouldn't stand a chance because Warren would split the progressive vote.

The ground shifted rapidly in the last few weeks, as Biden apparently forgot to build a campaign to match his strong initial polling.

It was also your opinion that the majority of Dem votes were pushing for moderate (by shoving Buttigege, a progressive, in the calculation - for some reason)

Polling still reflects that. Especially aggregate sums (see: Iowa and New Hampshire, where total moderates out numbered total progressives).

and now, it's your opinion to run the most Hillary-like candidate to run against Dump. Because the 2nd time's the charm?

Because voters in blue states don't mater and can stay home and voters in Wisconsin matter. And right now, the Democratic message in Wisconsin is failing.

Maybe America is simply sick of status quo... maybe you haven't accounted for that in your calculations. Maybe your math is off. It's clearly been before...

My record is pretty damn good, if you don't intentionally misrepresent my positions that is.

And America doesn't get to choose the President. Tens of thousands of voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania do.

Let me put it this way: you progressives would have a much more compelling argument if we had a national popular vote that chose the President. The electoral college renders that irrelevant. The game is to play for select states, not the nation.

SO here is the REAL question: are voters in Wisconsin sick of the status quo? Because we're at their mercy, as ridiculous as that is.

Again, I ask - which of your internal wolves are you planning on feeding?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this.

[Thepersona]

That's why I'm kinda laughing right now... Skroe's complaining about people "not doing more!" and yet, here's Bernie skyrocketing - BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY OUT THERE ALL DOING MORE!!!

The irony hurts... it really does.

The problem here, as I pointed out, is that Skroe is facing an ideological crisis. He was so wrapped up in his arrogance and hubris that the mere thought of a Bernie path-to-victory would even be possible. Fuck, even I didn't think that!

And yet, here we are! :P

Dude, last year i wouldnt even think that my country would rise up against the injustices of the system. And now we're about to vote on a new constitution.
Young people are doing this. And thats a good thing. Think about how many young people will enter the voting age between today and november.

[Skroe]

The ghost of Christmass past has the following gift for you:

You're comparing apples and oranges. I've said in this very thread, I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. And donate.

But like hell I'm going to lie down and let that happen. And it's not because of ideology. It's because I think he can't win in November, and that is it.

So both my posts are perfectly consistent. This is not about my personal political positions. This is about the fact that Bernie Sanders's platform will lose Wisconsin to Donald Trump in November. Because there is not evidence they are disgusted with the status quo the way some others are. And we chose Presidents via the electoral college, not the NPV.

[Sunseeker]

That's why I'm kinda laughing right now... Skroe's complaining about people "not doing more!" and yet, here's Bernie skyrocketing - BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY OUT THERE ALL DOING MORE!!!

The irony hurts... it really does.

The problem here, as I pointed out, is that Skroe is facing an ideological crisis. He was so wrapped up in his arrogance and hubris that the mere thought of a Bernie path-to-victory would even be possible. Fuck, even I didn't think that!

And yet, here we are! :P

As a huge Bernie fan I really did not see this kind of victory coming. I figured he'd hold a solid #3 spot, with Biden in #1, Warren or Pete in #2 and Bernie's support would slowly drop off as the primary goes on (not that it still couldn't, just saying). I assumed the DNC would retain tighter control over the situation, but for all the arguments otherwise, I still think their decision to allow Bloomberg in was a mistake, it just fueled the progressive side and made Biden look weak by being policy-wise closer to Bloomberg than his "I'm Obama's buddy!" argument usually makes him look. I really thought Pete had a chance until I actually stopped and listened to him, and realized I wasn't hearing anything at all.

So yeah, I don't think the state of American politics or the "national consensus" is as remotely nailed down as Skroe believes.

[Zaktar]

I go into the PAC tomorrow afternoon and I'm going to try and encourage my immediate boss there that he should push the governing committee to open a new front against Sanders to try and stop his candidacy dead in its tracks, because he too is a demagogue. It probably won't work, at least at first. But it's what I got right now. That's something real. A start, if nothing else.

I'm sure I'll think of something. I was going to volunteer for the Democratic campaign in the fall. Maybe after Super Tuesday I'll volunteer for the moderate left standing in the primary.

Fair enough, I don't agree that a bland corporate moderate is going to go far at all in this election, but I respect your work ethic and contributions. Don't count the rest of us out. No one knows who will win this election.

[mvaliz]

And evidently, voting for the guy least likely to actually defeat Trump in November.

Have you ever seen the first Kung Fu Panda movie?

What you wrote there reminds me of this beautiful exchange between Master Oogway and Master Shifu. Oogway has chosen a fat flabby unskilled Panda to fight as the "Dragon Warrior" against Tai-Lung, an indescribably skilled martial artist who brings destruction wherever he goes - and Shifu argues that Po (the panda) can't win.

Watch this... it might help you to reconsider your positions slightly on this.

Relevant quote starts:
"No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orrange... but you will get a peach."
"But a peach cannot defeat Tai-Lung!!"
"Maybe it can..."

[Skroe]

Skroe: Beating Trump is the only thing that matters!
Also Skroe: I'm gonna encourage people to tear down the leading candidate!

Whatever happened to "it's a primary! If you don't let the candidates have it out, you don't respect democracy. In the general, I'm sure they'll all come together".

Hypocrites.

[Rukh]

You're comparing apples and oranges. I've said in this very thread, I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. And donate.

But like hell I'm going to lie down and let that happen. And it's not because of ideology. It's because I think he can't win in November, and that is it.

So both my posts are perfectly consistent. This is not about my personal political positions. This is about the fact that Bernie Sanders's platform will lose Wisconsin to Donald Trump in November. Because there is not evidence they are disgusted with the status quo the way some others are. And we chose Presidents via the electoral college, not the NPV.

I think Sanders can win, but it's going to depend on a few things. I think Sanders is smart enough to know he has to relate his positions in ways it appeals to moderates, and furthermore I think trump has replaced most capable people with morons who say yes when they shouldn't. I think Sanders is smart enough to know he needs to work with the Democratic machine for local support in states and also that we need to take the senate.

I think despite the best effort of some of his loudest supporters, he knows what he needs to do. He's been in this game a long time and even if these new justice democrats idolize him as their messiah, he's still a fairly savvy guy.

[Skroe]

Have you ever seen the first Kung Fu Panda movie?

What you wrote there reminds me of this beautiful exchange between Master Oogway and Master Shifu. Oogway has chosen a fat flabby unskilled Panda to fight as the "Dragon Warrior" against Tai-Lung, an indescribably skilled martial artist who brings destruction wherever he goes - and Shifu argues that Po (the panda) can't win.

Watch this... it might help you to reconsider your positions slightly on this.

I'm not going to seriously re-evaluate a political opinion off of a Kung Fu Panda clip.

That's a sentence I'm just stunned I actually needed to write to an supposedly serious person.

[Yoshingo]

As a huge Bernie fan I really did not see this kind of victory coming. I figured he'd hold a solid #3 spot, with Biden in #1, Warren or Pete in #2 and Bernie's support would slowly drop off as the primary goes on (not that it still couldn't, just saying). I assumed the DNC would retain tighter control over the situation, but for all the arguments otherwise, I still think their decision to allow Bloomberg in was a mistake, it just fueled the progressive side and made Biden look weak by being policy-wise closer to Bloomberg than his "I'm Obama's buddy!" argument usually makes him look. I really thought Pete had a chance until I actually stopped and listened to him, and realized I wasn't hearing anything at all.

So yeah, I don't think the state of American politics or the "national consensus" is as remotely nailed down as Skroe believes.

imo Pete had a very, very good chance, one that I would almost call a lock, had the Pete that's been in the actual elections be the Pete that originally came onto the scene. The more progressive Pete, who still had the appeal of being a small town mayor.

But the second billionaires flooded his donation box, all of his policies started changing. And he lost me. He turned from someone that seemed like they had political beliefs that they strongly held to some paper tiger whose opinions changed based on what audience he was speaking to and what his corporate masters told him to say that day.

And just like when Warren sadly took on a bunch of Hillary and Obama advisers, both of them started drifting to the middle and then lost a lot of their support. Warren moreso because she and Sanders had almost the exact same demographic, but then she started backing down on issues and muddied a lot of the things I originally supported her on, like her plans for M4A.

Sanders has been saying the same shit for 30 years and he looks very much like the frontrunner. Pete (And especially Warren) took on big money donations and/or centrist advisers and their campaigns are falling further and further behind.

[Rukh]

As a huge Bernie fan I really did not see this kind of victory coming. I figured he'd hold a solid #3 spot, with Biden in #1, Warren or Pete in #2 and Bernie's support would slowly drop off as the primary goes on (not that it still couldn't, just saying). I assumed the DNC would retain tighter control over the situation, but for all the arguments otherwise, I still think their decision to allow Bloomberg in was a mistake, it just fueled the progressive side and made Biden look weak by being policy-wise closer to Bloomberg than his "I'm Obama's buddy!" argument usually makes him look. I really thought Pete had a chance until I actually stopped and listened to him, and realized I wasn't hearing anything at all.

So yeah, I don't think the state of American politics or the "national consensus" is as remotely nailed down as Skroe believes.

Or crazy idea that may blow your mind: The DNC isn't trying to stop Sanders.

[Sunseeker]

Whatever happened to "it's a primary! If you don't let the candidates have it out, you don't respect democracy. In the general, I'm sure they'll all come together".

Hypocrites.

I never supported that. My stance has always been that the "debates" should show a unified front, an anti-Trump front. Sure, Sanders and Biden and Warren might all go about it differently, but effectively they needed to be saying "My policies destroy Trump.". But we've got the DNC letting Bloomberg buy himself into the race and Pete the Parrot starting the show off attacking Bernie, there goes "party unity".

The DNC thought they could sell out and they are collectively being told to shut the fuck up and tow the line.

I'd be nice if y'all actually asked me what my positions were, instead of assuming you know me. I've read all your posts Skroe, I may disagree with you on a number of issues, but I've got a pretty good read on who you are. You, on the other hand, have a bad habit of not reading what other people write, and assuming they are idiots who can't read your perfect scriptures.

You think you know better than us, and you're doing everything in your power to get what you want over everyone else. You're a Republican Skroe, you don't know the DNC, you don't have your fingers on the pulse of Democrats.

[Skroe]

I think Sanders can win, but it's going to depend on a few things. I think Sanders is smart enough to know he has to relate his positions in ways it appeals to moderates, and furthermore I think trump has replaced most capable people with morons who say yes when they shouldn't. I think Sanders is smart enough to know he needs to work with the Democratic machine for local support in states and also that we need to take the senate.

I think despite the best effort of some of his loudest supporters, he knows what he needs to do.

That's the thing. I don't think he's smart enough. I think there is nothing in his professional life that illustrates that he is a man who will temper rhetoric and ideology in order to expand appeal. The sincerity is in fact, a key draw to him by his base.

I would be far less concerned if I thought Bernie Sanders had within him the capability to be a political chameleon... and also had the Men-in-Black memory forgetting device to give the country Amnesia about his prior statements and positions. But I simply think he'll take a nomination as an actual political revolution (which it isn't), and discover the hard way that this country has an appetite for reform, but not revolution, when he fails to re-calibrate his message and loses badly.

Have you read about Bernie Sanders' staff? There is a specific reason I compared him to Jeremy Corbyn. It's not the ideology. Corbyn is a blood-red socialist and Bernie is New Deal Democrat. It's that both of them surround themselves with absolute ideological zealots who, once again, are so far up their own ass they are incapable of doing anything more than trying to hawk their own message in their own way, rather than calibrate a voter-friendly message that expands appeal.

It's how Corbyn's Labour Party lost historic Labour territory. And it's why here in America, Trump is likely to win Wisconsin, a historic Democratic heartland, twice in a row.

Bernie Sanders' staff, and Bernie himself, while believing different things than Corbyn and his team, are every bit about waving the ideological flag. And that's bad politics.

[Sunseeker]

Or crazy idea that may blow your mind: The DNC isn't trying to stop Sanders.

I am not kidding when I say this would seriously blow my mind. But hey I'm a millennial, jaded and cynical is my whole deal!

imo Pete had a very, very good chance, one that I would almost call a lock, had the Pete that's been in the actual elections be the Pete that originally came onto the scene. The more progressive Pete, who still had the appeal of being a small town mayor.

But the second billionaires flooded his donation box, all of his policies started changing. And he lost me. He turned from someone that seemed like they had political beliefs that they strongly held to some paper tiger whose opinions changed based on what audience he was speaking to and what his corporate masters told him to say that day.

And just like when Warren sadly took on a bunch of Hillary and Obama advisers, both of them started drifting to the middle and then lost a lot of their support. Warren moreso because she and Sanders had almost the exact same demographic, but then she started backing down on issues and muddied a lot of the things I originally supported her on, like her plans for M4A.

Sanders has been saying the same shit for 30 years and he looks very much like the frontrunner. Pete (And especially Warren) took on big money donations and/or centrist advisers and their campaigns are falling further and further behind.

Oh absolutely. And the turnaround on that has been spectacularly fast. Day 1: get some big donors. Day 2: lose a fuckton of support. The fact that Bernie continues to prove that little-guy fundraising can be just as powerful as corporate backers and has been very public about it just really goes to show how fundamentally differently he approaches this whole process and that's been completely to his benefit this cycle.

People still want what Trump fundamentally promised: a new approach and a guy with a new way of doing things and Trump's failure to be that guy has really helped Sanders fill that void that the other candidates seem more than happy to abandon.

[PACOX]

So what are you going to do about it? Whine on internet forums? You claim to be a realist but you're not acting like one at the moment.

To his credit with all his gripes he does at least write checks and the assessment about needing to flip particular states is not wrong.

Sanders will have to fight hard to flip the same states that Clinton lost. Those battles won't be easy. I don't think they will be impossible though.

There are Democrats, quite a few with decent platforms who are a lot more destructive than a Republican who will hold his nose to see this thing through.

At the of being accused of praising Fox News, it's bad when they give Sanders his roses that some 'left-wing' MSM outlets do. Looking particularly at MSNBC.

[Skroe]

That's why I'm kinda laughing right now... Skroe's complaining about people "not doing more!" and yet, here's Bernie skyrocketing - BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY OUT THERE ALL DOING MORE!!!

The irony hurts... it really does.

The problem here, as I pointed out, is that Skroe is facing an ideological crisis. He was so wrapped up in his arrogance and hubris that the mere thought of a Bernie path-to-victory would even be possible. Fuck, even I didn't think that!

And yet, here we are! :P

How many times do I need to say it's not about my personal ideology before the requirement for continued conversation shift to "Mvaliz needs to get it tattooed to the back of his hand".

I don't give a royal fuck about Bernie Sanders' policies towards myself, or the country, or towards conservatism. He can (try) to raise my taxes. I don't give a shit. Higher taxes is a small price to pay for seeing Trump and his crime syndicate in prison.

I care _exclusively_ because his position and strategy is going to lose Wisconsin (I keep saying Wisconsin because its what my PAC knows best), and maybe elsewhere (where I don't have immediate data). Losing Wisconsin without Winning North Carolina or Florida means Trump wins.

So repeat after me:

It's all about Wisconsin.

It's all about Wisconsin.

It's all about Wisconsin.

It's all about Wisconsin.

My concern is progressive Democrats are going to nominate a candidate likely to lose in a state that CANNOT be lost.

Fuck conservatism. Fuck my ideology. Fuck my political wants. Irrelevant. If the goal is to get rid of Trump - and it is for purely non-ideological reasons alone (like his danger to democracy) - then the only concern is "how does one win EXACTLY where Hillary lost in 2016".

If you progressive Democrats don't obsess about Wisconsin, then on top of everything else, you're stupid as well. Because Wisconsin, not Brooklyn, will decide.

[Rukh]

That's the thing. I don't think he's smart enough. I think there is nothing in his professional life that illustrates that he is a man who will temper rhetoric and ideology in order to expand appeal. The sincerity is in fact, a key draw to him by his base.

I would be far less concerned if I thought Bernie Sanders had within him the capability to be a political chameleon... and also had the Men-in-Black memory forgetting device to give the country Amnesia about his prior statements and positions. But I simply think he'll take a nomination as an actual political revolution (which it isn't), and discover the hard way that this country has an appetite for reform, but not revolution, when he fails to re-calibrate his message and loses badly.

Have you read about Bernie Sanders' staff? There is a specific reason I compared him to Jeremy Corbyn. It's not the ideology. Corbyn is a blood-red socialist and Bernie is New Deal Democrat. It's that both of them surround themselves with absolute ideological zealots who, once again, are so far up their own ass they are incapable of doing anything more than trying to hawk their own message in their own way, rather than calibrate a voter-friendly message that expands appeal.

It's how Corbyn's Labour Party lost historic Labour territory. And it's why here in America, Trump is likely to win Wisconsin, a historic Democratic heartland, twice in a row.

Bernie Sanders' staff, and Bernie himself, while believing different things than Corbyn and his team, are every bit about waving the ideological flag. And that's bad politics.

Well I sincerely hope you're incorrect, it looks like a good chance he ends up the nominee.

[Zaktar]

To his credit with all his gripes he does at least write checks and the assessment about needing to flip particular states is not wrong.

Sanders will have to fight hard to flip the same states that Clinton lost. Those battles won't be easy. I don't think they will be impossible though.

There are Democrats, quite a few with decent platforms who are a lot more destructive than a Republican who will hold his nose to see this thing through.

At the of being accused of praising Fox News, it's bad when they give Sanders his roses that some 'left-wing' MSM outlets do. Looking particularly at MSNBC.

I respect the guy just not what he was doing earlier when he predicted with absolute certainty that we will lose.

[Crispin]

Bernie is not going to beat Trump, neither will Pete Buttigieg, for the obvious reasons. Sorry but there are too many Americans who only seem to care for themselves, it's the complete opposite of what Kennedy said in his inaugural speech. Add that while some Americans are very progressive, the one that matters in this election arent, and the dems are running around in some silly infight, not addressing the issues they need to, to win the election. Thinking that "we're the good guys!" won't win the election.

[Sunseeker]

It's all about Wisconsin.

My concern is legitimate Democrats are going to nominate a candidate likely to lose in a state that CANNOT be lost.

Fuck conservatism. Fuck my ideology. Fuck my political wants. Irrelevant. If the goal is to get rid of Trump - and it is for purely non-ideological reasons alone (like his danger to democracy) - then the only concern is "how does one win EXACRLY where Hillary lost in 2016".

If you progressive Democrats don't obsess about Wisconsin, then on top of everything else, you're stupid as well. Because Wisconsin, not Brooklyn, will decide.

I live in Wyoming Skroe, I get to listen to Republicans, RINOs and a few DINOs every day. There is an almost universal hatred for Hillary out here, and by "out here" I mean "the upper Midwest". I get to hear from folks up and down the middle of the country, folks with friends and family up and down out here. I don't hear much about Sanders. Oh yeah he's a dirty commie but it honestly lacks the pure vitrol compared to how people talk about Hillary. I don't get it, and a lot of it is irrational, but goddamn is it there.

Hillary lost because the DNC assumed they had it in the bag, and didn't give two shits about what people thought. Turns out, folks out here pretty irrationally hate Hillary. If they had nominated damn near anyone else last cycle they wouldn't have had that problem.

How does one win where Hillary lost? Honestly: by not being Hillary. I know it sounds silly but quite frankly from what I hear I don't think it's much more complicated than that.