Nevada Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[nonameelf]

It's all about Wisconsin.

You mean the state where Sanders beat Clinton by over 10 points and then Clinton lost it to Trump?

Dude, if you think doing the exact same thing again is going to win it then I have no idea what to tell you other than to come back to reality.

[PACOX]

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.

That Pete assessment is spot on. He seemed like a contender in the beginning, when he presented himself as a progressive candidate. Money made him flip quick and all that talk became transparent as he became more robotic. Wine cave Pete. What a shame

[Sunseeker]

That Pete assessment is spot on. He seemed like a contender in the beginning, when he presented himself as a progressive candidate. Money made him flip quick and all that talk became transparent as he became more robotic. Wine cave Pete. What a shame

And it was so....overt too. Like, not even gonna do your shady dealings in a back room? Not gonna sell out in a dark alley? Nope! Gonna do it in broad daylight on national television in front of millions of viewers! Jeeeeeeeesus.

Like, I get that some degree of corporate backing may be necessary to win, and I'm resigned that this is how our country works, but could you at least not slap your dick in our face while you do it?

[beanman12345]

You mean the state where Sanders beat Clinton by over 10 points and then Clinton lost it to Trump?

Dude, if you think doing the exact same thing again is going to win it then I have no idea what to tell you other than to come back to reality.

Sanders also won Michigan. Skroe just proving he knows fuck all.

[mvaliz]

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.

Wow, hubris AND a coward? Over a cartoon?

Who's more of an adult - the man who can admit he can learn from anything, or the one who pre-judges everything and learns nothing?

Sigh... the point is about relinquishing the illusion of control. The fact is very likely you're going to get Sanders. That's the peach. You may wish for an apple or an orrange, but you're getting a peach.

The lesson here is that a peach can defeat Tai-Lung (Dumbass Dump), if you help guide it, nurture it, and believe in it. (you doing all the things you said above about promoting/donating/ect to a candidate)

My point: How about stop thinking as a Traitorpublican, and start thinking as a human... and start with asking "What are the advantages about this?"

I can already think of one - no corporate investments whatsoever. He's purely individually donated. THAT's a HUGE selling point to Bernie that people overlook. Medicare for All is also extremely popular, regardless of wether you think it will pass or not. And, lets face it, Bernie IS the face of Medicare for All.

Boom, there's 2. Now, no doubt you're ignoring the above and itching to bleat out a bunch of reasons why he wont win (Because, of course, realism... not pessimism, right?), but seriously - realize this may be the hand you're dealt with, and look for the aces in there. Trust me, they're in there mixxed in with the 1 joker card. ;P

EDIT: Just thought of another BIG advantage for Sanders... He's, almost literally, the Anti-Hillary! =D He was the contested face AGAINST Hillary... and, thanks to Dumbass Dump, her name has been kept synonimous with hatred for a long time.

What better candidate to appeal to the ones who voted against Hillary than the very candidate who ran AGAINST Hillary!?

[nonameelf]

Sanders also won Michigan. Skroe just proving he knows fuck all.

Rust Belt voting in 2016 was clearly 100% "Fuck the status quo" but somehow people are missing that.

[Yoshingo]

And it was so....overt too. Like, not even gonna do your shady dealings in a back room? Not gonna sell out in a dark alley? Nope! Gonna do it in broad daylight on national television in front of millions of viewers! Jeeeeeeeesus.

Like, I get that some degree of corporate backing may be necessary to win, and I'm resigned that this is how our country works, but could you at least not slap your dick in our face while you do it?

It was particularly brazen with him though, with him repeatedly, on multiple debates, flatout saying its cool that billionaire are giving money to him because we need to beat Trump. It wasn't even hidden or even IMPLIED. He gets asked the question and then basically confirms it.

Whats the point in beating Trump if we become him? That's also the thing Skroe doesn't seem to understand. Its something Republicans have never understood, just winning isn't enough for a lot of us, because we don't see it as a goddamn game. We want people to win who will actually TRY (Even if they can't get it done always) to change things. Not just win and then go back to propping up the status quo.

[Skroe]

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

At this point, I'd be stunned if he isn't.

I ran the math from a Biden angle in the thread a few weeks ago (and before that a month prior). What changed is that Biden's poll numbers have been cut by 10%, other moderates got stronger, and Bernie got a little stronger some places, and a lot stronger other places.

Case in point, the explanation I ran stated that California is really a "no one wins" because if you have three people getting, for example 23%, 25 and 25% of the vote there, as was basically projected a few weeks ago, then they all get nearly the same amount of delegates. Big picture, it doesn't really matter if the guy who gets 25% gets 5 more than the person who got 23%.

But whats changed now in California is Bernie surged because he has the cash to build infrastructure there, while his competitors declined. So now California looks like it'll have a fairly decisive winner. And that's a fuck ton of delegates.

The other side of it is Texas, another Super Tuesday state. In the prior model, Biden and Bernie basically tied in California, but Biden smashed Bernie in Texas and ran away with tons more delegates. This would open up a lead that Bernie would never narrow. What's happened now is that Bernie is a slight lead or tied with Biden in Texas. Which transplants the California "no one wins" scenario here. So now we have an inversion, to Bernie's advantage, where he opens up a hard-to-close delegate lead via California (rather than Biden did in Texas).

More ominiously: if Bernie can win by these numbers in Nevada, he can win by these numbers in Florida, and Pennsylvania, and perhaps the delegate rich southerns states we don't really talk about that would have been Biden's bulwark. And if he can;t win in them, he could at least, not lose as badly. Which is almost just as good, so long as he wins unexpectedly big in places like California or New York or Illinois, where by rights he now should.

A lot of this is thanks to money. Money buys resources and Bernie raises a lot of money, and spends it effectively. His competitors raise less and burn through faster. They do not have infrastructure like Bernie does.


So I'd be stunned if he blows it. Even if Biden has a strong showing in South Carolina - and I now expect at very best, a narrow Biden win or narrow Bernie win - it doesn't fundamentally change this calculus. He'll still go into Super Tuesday behind where he was a month ago in California and Texas. And that creates a lot of trouble.

Long story short, what I said in January still holds: due to the map we'll know the nominee by March 10th (the elections after Super Tuesday). So many delegates will be awarded on March 3rd and March 10th that anyone other than the guy who has the lead those days will have to basically win everywhere else in order to emerge on top. And a lot of those post-March 10th places are "narrow tie" states where one candidate gets 23 delegate and the other gets 25, so the pre-established lead basically holds.

[Sunseeker]

Rust Belt voting in 2016 was clearly 100% "Fuck the status quo" but somehow people are missing that.

Well because "people" in this context, the DNC and folks like Skroe, are the status-quo. They got the message, they just think they know better than you.

[Skroe]

Wow, hubris AND a coward? Over a cartoon?

Who's more of an adult - the man who can admit he can learn from anything, or the one who pre-judges everything and learns nothing?

Sigh... the point is about relinquishing the illusion of control. The fact is very likely you're going to get Sanders. That's the peach. You may wish for an apple or an orrange, but you're getting a peach.

The lesson here is that a peach can defeat Tai-Lung (Dumbass Dump), if you help guide it, nurture it, and believe in it. (you doing all the things you said above about promoting/donating/ect to a candidate)

My point: How about stop thinking as a Traitorpublican, and start thinking as a human... and start with asking "What are the advantages about this?"

I can already think of one - no corporate investments whatsoever. He's purely individually donated. THAT's a HUGE selling point to Bernie that people overlook. Medicare for All is also extremely popular, regardless of wether you think it will pass or not. And, lets face it, Bernie IS the face of Medicare for All.

Boom, there's 2. Now, no doubt you're ignoring the above and itching to bleat out a bunch of reasons why he wont win (Because, of course, realism... not pessimism, right?), but seriously - realize this may be the hand you're dealt with, and look for the aces in there. Trust me, they're in there mixxed in with the 1 joker card. ;P

EDIT: Just thought of another BIG advantage for Sanders... He's, almost literally, the Anti-Hillary! =D He was the contested face AGAINST Hillary... and, thanks to Dumbass Dump, her name has been kept synonimous with hatred for a long time.

What better candidate to appeal to the ones who voted against Hillary than the very candidate who ran AGAINST Hillary!?

Touchy freely crap that has no relevance to the fact all democrats are hugely behind in Wisconsin, and Bernie's has been consistently among the least popular there.

Thats not cowardice. That's practicality. We're not going to beat Trump there on emotion. Wanting it is not enough. There is no Tinkerbell theory of politics. Clapping counts for nothing. We're going to beat Trump by somehow, someway, cleaving off a few regretful Trump 2016 voters and getting out a few more independents than in 2016. A "Political Revolution" is not the message to do that. Making Trump run against Trump is.

[Sunseeker]

It was particularly brazen with him though, with him repeatedly, on multiple debates, flatout saying its cool that billionaire are giving money to him because we need to beat Trump. It wasn't even hidden or even IMPLIED. He gets asked the question and then basically confirms it.

Whats the point in beating Trump if we become him? That's also the thing Skroe doesn't seem to understand. Its something Republicans have never understood, just winning isn't enough for a lot of us, because we don't see it as a goddamn game. We want people to win who will actually TRY (Even if they can't get it done always) to change things. Not just win and then go back to propping up the status quo.

Exactly, what's the point in beating a sellout by becoming a sellout? Even Skroe has said that Trump has been little more than an annoyance in the face of general American foreign policy (and we all know Skroe knows and cares little about domestic policy). The next sellout will what, slap a happy face sticker on the same bullshit? Great we replaced a smiling idiot devil with a smiling clever devil. VICTORY!???

Also, on Pete: at least he could have sold out and still stood for something. I mean, he could have sold out and been all "Fracking is awesome!" "Guns are great!" "Big pharma makes America rich!" "Prison-industrial-complex FTW!" "War is peace!" and then at least he'd have some goddamn stances, but he basically sold out so that when he got elected he'd be an empty canvas for anything his donors want.

[mvaliz]

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'd say however times it takes you to stop vomit-raging over it... because your emotions are clearly betraying your real intentions here. :P

Do I need to find the post where you said "I'll hold my nose and even vote for Sanders if that actually comes to reality" or something akin to that?

[beanman12345]

Well because "people" in this context, the DNC and folks like Skroe, are the status-quo. They got the message, they just think they know better than you.

He just completely ignores factual evidence that Bernie beat Hillary in 2016 by 10 points in Wisconsin and writes it off as he's the most unpopular. Think he's just "T"ing and this point.

[Skroe]

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.

I've never once said "run the Hillary playbook". Not once. Ever.

I've said, loudly and often, you make Trump run against Trump. The actual HISTORY of Trump as President.

Hillary was at a disadvantage in this regard. She had her extensive platform sure, but her warning against Trump was largely a hypothetical.

The 2020 candidate gets to utilize what Trump has already done. That is why I find the counter-argument some of you offer with "Hillary 2.0 won't work" as baseless, because literally nobody is suggesting that. Making 2020 a referendum on Trump, which it is, and not a policy election, makes it extremely different from 2016.

And I'll say once again: once Democrats get the Presidency they can indulge themselves in the progressive agenda for all I care. That's not relevant to me whatsoever. But the way to victory isn't to broadcast it. It's to be stealthy about it (at best) and force feed people a reminder of why they've turned against Trump and how he'll continue to fuck them and fuck this country on the basis of the things he's done as President.

[Sunseeker]

I'd say however times it takes you to stop vomit-raging over it... because your emotions are clearly betraying your real intentions here. :P

I feel like we need to quote some more CGI characters for him:

well...a muppet anyway.

At 34 seconds: "The fear of loss is a path to the dark side."

[mvaliz]

Touchy freely crap that has no relevance to the fact all democrats are hugely behind in Wisconsin, and Bernie's has been consistently among the least popular there. .

Heh, I just told you the most grounded reality-based point, and you're calling it "Touchy feely"... how quiant.

Tell me, how well was Biden polling in Nevada? Shit, how was Biden polling all over the USA prior to ANY of the democratic votes?

You want reality - here's reality - the polls are clearly wrong... by a waaaaay large margin. That's not an inference, that's a cold-hard fact. The only question remains, why are these polls so wrong...

Oh, and wisconsin?
Guess I have to re-link the 2016 map again:


Ummm... Bernie won against Hillary in Wisconsin... in 2016.

[Skroe]

I'd say however times it takes you to stop vomit-raging over it... because your emotions are clearly betraying your real intentions here. :P

Do I need to find the post where you said "I'll hold my nose and even vote for Sanders if that actually comes to reality" or something akin to that?

That's some A+ arrogant presumption on your part. My intentions have been unwavering for 4 years, since before Trump won. Stop him at all costs.

The problem is you're so far up your own ass with your own political ideology you can't imagine for a second some of us aren't driven by those concerns like you are. I don't give a fuck about the politics of liberalism versus conservatism anymore, EXCEPT in regard to what I think makes the most enticing meal for swing-state voters so anti-Trump can win against Trump.

Repeat after me: I have literally said in this thread I will happily vote and donate to Bernie Sanders, if he is the nominee. I have no problem with that whatsoever. It'll be the easiest vote of my life, because Bernie Sanders is a patriot I disagree with in good faith, while Trump is a traitor who I want to see spend his final days sleeping on a concrete slab in Supermax.

Seriously, I have written this two you in like 2 of the last 4 posts or something, and it's getting ridiculous. I'll vote for Bernie. Enthusiastically. I think he's going to lose badly. I think you people are so pleased with yourselves about the righteousness of your beliefs you're not able to even evaluate the electoral map properly and wonder if people in Wisconsin and elsewhere like that want what you're selling. I think that's why you're going to suffer an epochal disaster in November, and the rest of America is going to be dragged to hell with you. But I will vote for Bernie if he is the nominee because stopping Trump by any legal and legitimate means necessary is actually my only real political position nowdays.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh, I just told you the most grounded reality-based point, and you're calling it "Touchy feely"... how quiant.

Tell me, how well was Biden polling in Nevada? Shit, how was Biden polling all over the USA prior to ANY of the democratic votes?

You want reality - here's reality - the polls are clearly wrong... by a waaaaay large margin. That's not an inference, that's a cold-hard fact. The only question remains, why are these polls so wrong...

Oh, and wisconsin?
Guess I have to re-link the 2016 map again:


Ummm... Bernie won against Hillary in Wisconsin... in 2016.

First, I tore that map apart a week ago and its strange you're posting it again.

Most of those green states are delegate-light states.

Most of those gold states - the Hillary states - are delegate rich states. This is the 2016 Democratic Primary version of the "Cows don't vote" map like this:



Indeed. Cows don't vote. A sea of red...except far more Americans live in the blue areas.

As for Wisconsin, the only relevant statistic, right now, is that Trump has a large lead over Bernie in Wisconsin:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6850.html

50-43, according to Quinnipiac. It's early, sure. But "what about Hillary"ing here, as you did, is just... not relevant.

[mvaliz]

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).

You and me both on those percentages! Although I'm more of a Warren fan this go around (purely because of the two reasons I do agree with Skroe on being sticking points against Bernie, his age, and that he's been tarred with the BS hatemongering of "GYASOCIALIXZM!!!")But, to me, Warren and Bernie were very very close enough.

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

I don't think the state of American politics or the "National Consensus" is remotely nailed down to ANYBODY's Belief ATM. As I pointed out, all the national polls are turning out not just wrong, but bonkers-levels of opposite! That really needs to be looked into. Who the hell were they polling that they ALL got it so unbelievably wrong!? o_O

- - - Updated - - -

First, I tore that map apart a week ago and its strange you're posting it again.

You didn't. You dismissed it/ignored it with rhetoric.

You wanted facts. I posted facts. Wisconsin = won by Bernie in 2016

/drop mic

Realism, bitch. ;P

[Sunseeker]

I've never once said "run the Hillary playbook". Not once. Ever.

It's not the Hillary "playbook", it's Hillary. You could have run Biden with the Hillary playbook and things would have been fine.

I've said, loudly and often, you make Trump run against Trump. The actual HISTORY of Trump as President.

Any Democrat can and will do this (save Sellout Pete).

Hillary was at a disadvantage in this regard. She had her extensive platform sure, but her warning against Trump was largely a hypothetical.

A reality any Democrat had to deal with in 2016. There was a reasonably probability that Trump would be a status-quo blowhard and not....this.

The 2020 candidate gets to utilize what Trump has already done. That is why I find the counter-argument some of you offer with "Hillary 2.0 won't work" as baseless, because literally nobody is suggesting that. Making 2020 a referendum on Trump, which it is, and not a policy election, makes it extremely different from 2016.

Which is why I find your obsession with raptor jesus to be silly. Any Democrat will do this. Biden will do it with reasonable neo-liberalism (Hey, I'm a Republican, but nice!). Warren with do it with lite progressivism (Hey, I'm a commie, but I love capitalism!). Sanders will do it with hardcore democratic socialism (Hey, I'm a commie and I own this shit!).

And I'll say once again: once Democrats get the Presidency they can indulge themselves in the progressive agenda for all I care. That's not relevant to me whatsoever. But the way to victory isn't to broadcast it. It's to be stealthy about it (at best) and force feed people a reminder of why they've turned against Trump and how he'll continue to fuck them and fuck this country on the basis of the things he's done as President.

I don't think you have an accurate read on the current standing of progressives in this country. I think you're surrounded with wealthy new englanders who are out of touch with the overwhelming majority of this country's demand for change. Trump promised change and delivered exploding cigar boxes. So now they're looking for someone else who's selling change and someone who looks honest about it. Many of the Democratic candidates fail the honesty test, and many fail the change test.

[mvaliz]

That's some A+ arrogant presumption on your part. My intentions have been unwavering for 4 years, since before Trump won. Stop him at all costs.

And not 3 posts above you just stated you wanted to actively sabotage the current Democratic Front-Runner. Hardly what I call "unwavering".

Classic Projection of your own arrogance

/mic drop

Realism, bitch. ^_^
[Infraction]