Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

Bloomberg is the Democratic version of "we're gonna make our OWN Trump! With hookers and blow!" Bonus that he sort of combines a bit of Giuliani in the draw, for good measure.

Bloomberg is a big chunk of what's wrong with the DNC, in general. If your net worth is less than 10 million, and you're thinking about backing him in the primary, you're being fooled, the same way Trump supporters were.

I long for the day when we can have legally mandated media blackouts prior to elections after a sensible, publicly funded campaign season.

Alas. Grift on, silver girl. Grift on by...

[Telogrus]

Optically, that would be brazenly stupid for the superdelegates to do. If Bernie wins the majority of primary delegates, he should be the nominee.

But by the rules of the party, which have existed for a long time and that Bernie is well aware of, they have a right to vote for whoever they want to represent the Democratic Party. It's kind of on him that he has existed so long outside the party apparatus and now wants to represent that party in running for President without, yanno, participating and cultivating his own branch of it for 40 years. Maybe he had an excuse in 2016 where he started out as a fringe candidate merely hoping to push Hillary to the left, but he has no excuse in 2020 for not having superdelegates on his side. They're people, just like voters. They're not beholden to orders from Biden or anyone. If Bernie can convince them, he should convince them.

I think they should trash superdelegates, tbh, or at least make their vote contingent on their primary results (which some of them do as a matter of principle).

Next to no superdelegate would support Bernie because they’re all wealthy elites who would never support a progressive. There’s nothing that Bernie can do to get their support without abandoning his policies

[Fugus]

Bloomberg is the Democratic version of "we're gonna make our OWN Trump! With hookers and blow!" Bonus that he sort of combines a bit of Giuliani in the draw, for good measure.

Bloomberg is a big chunk of what's wrong with the DNC, in general. If your net worth is less than 10 million, and you're thinking about backing him in the primary, you're being fooled, the same way Trump supporters were.

Ok, that is the best description I have heard thus far and a great Futurama reference.

[beanman12345]

Giving being in a unique situation where I voted for a billionaire last year for governor who essentially bought his way into the position, so that he could replace a true pos we had that was ruining our state, and has turned out to be actually a pretty good governor, I'd happily do the same in a general election. he's on the bottom of my list in the primary, but a general, 100% voting bloomberg over trump.

[Fugus]

Not sure if it has been linked yet, but I figure I will before I go to bed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1128476

[Elegiac]

Not sure if it has been linked yet, but I figure I will before I go to bed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1128476

Asked about the call later Sunday, Kerry said he was "absolutely not" contemplating joining the Democratic primary race. He reiterated the sentiment in a tweet later, saying "any report otherwise is f---ing (or categorically) false." Minutes later, he deleted the tweet and reposted it without the expletive.

As I told the reporter, I am absolutely not running for President. Any report otherwise is categorically false. I’ve been proud to campaign with my good friend Joe Biden, who is going to win the nomination, beat Trump, and make an outstanding president.

— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) February 2, 2020

He told NBC News later Sunday: "This is a complete and total misinterpretation based on overhearing only one side of a phone conversation. A friend who watches too much cable called me wondering whether I'd ever jump into the race late in the game if Democrats were choosing an unelectable nominee. I listed all the reasons I could not possibly do that and would not — and will not under any circumstances — do that."

We get that the narrative of an anti-Bernie conspiracy is designed to counter any questions about his viability as a candidate, but please. This is a bigger reach than Rose Mary Woods.

[beanman12345]

Not sure if it has been linked yet, but I figure I will before I go to bed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1128476

I saw this too but it has been debunked. Kerry isn't worried at all about sanders. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...020-bid-110389

[mvaliz]

Bloomberg is the Democratic version of "we're gonna make our OWN Trump! With hookers and blow!" Bonus that he sort of combines a bit of Giuliani in the draw, for good measure.

Bloomberg is a big chunk of what's wrong with the DNC, in general. If your net worth is less than 10 million, and you're thinking about backing him in the primary, you're being fooled, the same way Trump supporters were.

I've got a lot of respect for you, but I was curious to see your opinion of our new mayor here in Illionois - Pritzker.

He's really shocking me ATM as he's the billionare owner of Hyatt - and basically did what Bloomberg did, dumped a ton of his own money into the election via advertising blitzes and everything - running on a very progressive platform.

I was like you, I was like "Pffft... Billionare running as a progressive!? Please, he'll flip the moment he's in!"

So, he won - and so far - he's been spot-on with his progressive agendas. The only people he's pissed off here in Illinois are all the buisness owners, of all people, via tax raising for minimum wage hikes and the like.

When asked, he said "They'll be fine". =/

While I still agree with you that the mere notion of "Buying an election" is absolutely horrific... I'm also rather stymied now that somebody's actually doing it for the right reasons/results, for once. =/

So... thoughts? I'm assuming your opin may be similar to mine insofar that "just because one guy turns out really good, doesn't justify the means by which said leader has self-chosen themselves"?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways, I'm out all... have fun with the Iowa Caucus tomorrow!

Sadly, I'll be on my first ever Dopamine Fast (look it up) and i'll be chewing on my arm in boredom and interest as to what will happen tomorrow that I'm totally going to miss until very VERY late at night! >_<

G'nite all! ^_^

And remember, Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, Buttigege or Barren...erm... Warren, we're all on the same side here!

[ati87]

Not sure if it has been linked yet, but I figure I will before I go to bed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...nders-n1128476

The hubris, ofc he will deny the story but even as a so called joke. Nobody is going to vote for the guy that lost to Bush, there is no path he could take to really undermine Sanders because nobody will actually vote for him or give him enough money to run as a independent. Kerry is rich but not rich enough to do what Bloomberg does or what Howard Schultz was going to do.

[eschatological]

I've got a lot of respect for you, but I was curious to see your opinion of our new mayor here in Illionois - Pritzker.

He's really shocking me ATM as he's the billionare owner of Hyatt - and basically did what Bloomberg did, dumped a ton of his own money into the election via advertising blitzes and everything - running on a very progressive platform.

I was like you, I was like "Pffft... Billionare running as a progressive!? Please, he'll flip the moment he's in!"

So, he won - and so far - he's been spot-on with his progressive agendas. The only people he's pissed off here in Illinois are all the buisness owners, of all people, via tax raising for minimum wage hikes and the like.

When asked, he said "They'll be fine". =/

While I still agree with you that the mere notion of "Buying an election" is absolutely horrific... I'm also rather stymied now that somebody's actually doing it for the right reasons/results, for once. =/

So... thoughts? I'm assuming your opin may be similar to mine insofar that "just because one guy turns out really good, doesn't justify the means by which said leader has self-chosen themselves"?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways, I'm out all... have fun with the Iowa Caucus tomorrow!

Sadly, I'll be on my first ever Dopamine Fast (look it up) and i'll be chewing on my arm in boredom and interest as to what will happen tomorrow that I'm totally going to miss until very VERY late at night! >_<

G'nite all! ^_^

And remember, Biden, Bernie, Bloomberg, Buttigege or Barren...erm... Warren, we're all on the same side here!

I think a person can be a good person, even if they're a billionaire. I think having that much money makes you completely out of touch in your day to day, so a good person who was that out of touch (CF Gates, Bezos) can easily think they know fucking everything and how they're truly the progenitors of greatness in society. But if you listen to people, I don't know that a billionaire couldn't be a good politician.

It's just that it's so hard to believe a billionaire who says they're going to radically act against their own interests (which is what being a progressive billionaire basically is). It's why Tom Steyer has such low numbers despite having somewhat of a track record for speaking for progressive causes, because no one trusts billionaires. Bloomberg is basically a billionaire who isn't really going to do anything about wealth inequality, but he holds progressive views on things like guns and gay marriage. He's nominally been for tax cuts for the middle class before, but he's not gonna raise taxes. So I guess people can.....idk, accept him more cause at least he's not lying about it?

I really don't understand the fascination with Bloomberg, tbh.

[draynay]

I really don't understand the fascination with Bloomberg, tbh.

Advertising works maybe?

For me its only ads for food that are effective, but maybe different people have different cravings?

[derpkitteh]

I have a question for you, would you ever be open to the idea of randomly choosing Representatives/Senators/President - literally a lottery system.

i believe there should be a major overhaul, but not random.

for one, candidates names and faces should be completely unknown until they're in office, only their platform and promises should be known. no rich person should be able to run for office, and being a politician should only give them enough money to live on, no luxuries. food, water, housing, that's it.

if they "pivot" or fail to achieve any of their promises without major resistance from other senators, they should be subject to removal from office and publicly whipped by their constituents. it should be law that politicians fear the american public, the founding fathers knew the public could rise up against them at any moment, and that fear needs to be brought back.

[JohnBrown1917]

Sure Sanders is opposite to his views on a lot of things, but I don't believe @Skroe is spreading willful misinformation. He's not a bullshitter or grifter, unlike much of that side the aisle right now.

He benefits from increased defense spending, his constant defense of all wars the US is involved in, plus his defense of all military actions does lead me to believe he is grifting.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean I'm already voting for Biden instead of Bernie if Warren drops out so, makes no difference to me.

I'd rather a status quo dork that means well than risk Bernie filling the executive with his supporters.

Well, atleast you're honest about preferring a conservative over anything left of center. Took you long enough.

[Elegiac]

Well, atleast you're honest about preferring a conservative over anything left of center. Took you long enough.

Like I said, my left wing credentials are solid enough that I can call a spade a populist demagogue.

[tyrlaan]

This thread has turned into such a shitshow.

Way too many people in the US are vastly uninformed voters, which needs to change, but hopefully they don't swing to the other end of the pendulum and become hyper political tools that bicker on forums. Guilty as charged for getting involved in it sometimes, but damn if some time away hasn't showed me what a waste this conversation (and others here) is.

Go do stuff for your candidate of choice and stop attacking people that disagree with you. Learn the difference between criticizing ideas and attacking people (which some here get but plenty others do not).

[Themius]

You are taking it the wrong way, I am not saying Clinton is as bad as Trump. I am saying that it was an election where you voted either FOR Trump or AGAINST Trump, you really didn't have any other candidate to vote for that you would actually want.

Clinton's whole campaign hoped that there were enough to come out to vote "Against Trump" to help win as she knew she didn't have enough that would come out and vote "For Clinton".

I was excited for Clinton. I had issues with her last position. But she did evolve. Her policies I mostly agreed with and she was well respected and got shit done.

I was for Bernie more but we have Warren now for 2020 and Bernie Sanders camp is very trumpian and he doesn’t do much to shy away from it which deeply bothers me.

[Fugus]

I was excited for Clinton. I had issues with her last position. But she did evolve. Her policies I mostly agreed with and she was well respected and got shit done.

I was for Bernie more but we have Warren now for 2020 and Bernie Sanders camp is very trumpian and he doesn’t do much to shy away from it which deeply bothers me.

For me, I didn't care for Clinton overall and didn't think she would actually deliver on many of the things I wanted that she started talking about near the end to try and get Sanders voters after she snubbed them earlier and figured they would be forgotten or "Compromised" away.

But I was still willing to hold my nose and vote for her till her actions with Debbie Wasserman Shultz. When Debbie was forced to resign in disgrace after what she pulled for Clinton, even if anyone even tries to claim Debbie didn't do anything the optics were there and even I believe she did, but the same day she stepped down, Clinton turned around and put her directly in her own campaign the same day.

That was just too much of an insult and a middle finger to her own voters with that action, I couldn't vote for that. To me, she would have been a "Not Trump" vote but or arrogance screwed her out of even that.

[Themius]

For me, I didn't care for Clinton overall and didn't think she would actually deliver on many of the things I wanted that she started talking about near the end to try and get Sanders voters after she snubbed them earlier and figured they would be forgotten or "Compromised" away.

But I was still willing to hold my nose and vote for her till her actions with Debbie Wasserman Shultz. When Debbie was forced to resign in disgrace after what she pulled for Clinton, even if anyone even tries to claim Debbie didn't do anything the optics were there and even I believe she did, but the same day she stepped down, Clinton turned around and put her directly in her own campaign the same day.

That was just too much of an insult and a middle finger to her own voters with that action, I couldn't vote for that. To me, she would have been a "Not Trump" vote but or arrogance screwed her out of even that.

She had positions for a while that were progressive. The problem is she wasn’t always talking about them.

Here’s my deal... the dnc is a democratic thing and who they want to support and lift up is to the party.

It’s good when things get out so the populace has a say in swaying how the dnc behaves but I can’t say I am up in arms.

I’m more up in arms about an independent using the Democratic Party to access voters and then instead of staying and trying to change the party just leaves... and comes back later. To use then infrastructure that was built without them.

[Fugus]

She had positions for a while that were progressive. The problem is she wasn’t always talking about them.

Here’s my deal... the dnc is a democratic thing and who they want to support and lift up is to the party.

It’s good when things get out so the populace has a say in swaying how the dnc behaves but I can’t say I am up in arms.

I’m more up in arms about an independent using the Democratic Party to access voters and then instead of staying and trying to change the party just leaves... and comes back later. To use then infrastructure that was built without them.

If our system was setup to actually allow for 3rd parties to be viable, I could agree with you. But we are setup expressly to prevent them which leaves people like Sanders with no choice.

And I actually think the DNC and the RNC should be required to let all in and be neutral in their process until that happens. If the new person actually wins, that should show them where their voters actually lay and that they need to adjust accordingly.

The DNC was actually violating their own rules when they tried to put their fingers on the scales.

As for Sanders leaving, lets put it this way, they gave him a token position with no real power, and made sure they had enough on the board to shut down everything he did. They honestly wanted to give up nothing and then get to use his popularity while trying to hound him for his voter list. Could you really blame someone for not staying if they did that?

And part of the reason why Sanders does that is to prevent him poaching voters since our system doesn't allow more than 2 viable candidates in the general. If he was to run 3rd party, he would be nothing but a spoiler vote in our system and he doesn't want to be that.

So what other choice does he have that doesn't hand the election to the worst options by being a spoiler vote but also doesn't get them trading on his name not giving a damn about his policies? If it wasn't for him, the Democratic candidates wouldn't be pushing near what they are and he is forcing it because he is both encouraging others with those views to try and even those who fight those views on the votes has to fake it or they lose to him against the voters.

So can you really blame him for going his route?

[Themius]

If our system was setup to actually allow for 3rd parties to be viable, I could agree with you. But we are setup expressly to prevent them which leaves people like Sanders with no choice.

And I actually think the DNC and the RNC should be required to let all in and be neutral in their process until that happens. If the new person actually wins, that should show them where their voters actually lay and that they need to adjust accordingly.

The DNC was actually violating their own rules when they tried to put their fingers on the scales.

As for Sanders leaving, lets put it this way, they gave him a token position with no real power, and made sure they had enough on the board to shut down everything he did. They honestly wanted to give up nothing and then get to use his popularity while trying to hound him for his voter list. Could you really blame someone for not staying if they did that?

And part of the reason why Sanders does that is to prevent him poaching voters since our system doesn't allow more than 2 viable candidates in the general. If he was to run 3rd party, he would be nothing but a spoiler vote in our system and he doesn't want to be that.

So what other choice does he have that doesn't hand the election to the worst options by being a spoiler vote but also doesn't get them trading on his name not giving a damn about his policies? If it wasn't for him, the Democratic candidates wouldn't be pushing near what they are and he is forcing it because he is both encouraging others with those views to try and even those who fight those views on the votes has to fake it or they lose to him against the voters.

So can you really blame him for going his route?

Sanders was a brand New Democrat who was using them why should he have instant power? Where is the trust?