Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[breadisfunny]

ah, yeah. considering how berkeley is these days, they were probably pro-communist, which communism should be banned(antithetical and subversive to american culture).

anyway, when's the next round of voting? this friday? i like watching these voting nights. oh, and will there be anymore dem debates? i need to watch one, i watched debates back in 2016.

this is starting to sound more and more like a certain austrian man's version of freedom....when will you be agitating for the u.s. to deport those it deems unworthy of life and subversive to american culture next? how about annexing some lands for 'living space'?

[Draco-Onis]

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurv.../?page=overall

The C-Span Preisdential Historian Survey ranked him 9th most recently in 2017.

Then there's the New York Times with their own survey of experts: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...residents.html

The ranked Obama 8th, Reagan 9th and Trump last. Great right wing hacks right there.

Thank you for proving my point since you are delusional enough to think that Obama was left wing aside from social issues he was basically a republican. You also avoided Iran contra, Regananomics (steal from the poor give to the rich don't worry it will trickle down) among other things. Ronald Reagan was an awful president whose legacy got white washed by the republican party, I am sure the same thing is planned for Trump after the fact.

Gorbachev, as would many people living in Eastern Europe, would strongly beg to differ on that.

So you are basing your delusions on that no one could have been "friends" with him aside Reagan? good to see that the whole Trump personal relationship bullshit isn't new.

Four great people helped bring about the end of communism: Reagan, Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II and Thatcher.

I don't know about Thatcher but you just listed a bunch of incompetent buffoons including one that covered for countless pedophiles and sexual predators nice collection of awful you admire there.

[Orbitus]

I am going to ask this question because the right already have their answer. Is there any candidate on the left that can galvanize the party like Trump has on the right? If the Democrat ic party cannot find a candidate to get all of the votes after winning the primary they are destined for failure. Bernie is to far left and wont get moderates. Pete is gay and the country is not ready for a that in the least just look at the quotes coming out of iowa. Klobacher has no chance if a clinton didnt. Trump targeted Biden knowing he was the only one with a chance. Bloomberg is the democrats best chance now and but because he doesnt have the vote even Trump has in the black vote hes being put down. Yall need a person who can get ALL of the party to show up to vote like Trump has and i just dont see a candidate who can do that yet.

Wait, do you actually think that Trump has more than 5% black support?

[breadisfunny]

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you. You claim I am wrong but don't say whats wrong. NO DUR< UR WRONG!

Nice rebuttal style /eyeroll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ed-her-support


and Bernie Sanders campaign is suddenly quiet and not saying anything about it because it makes him look stupid.

TLDR: I was right, you were wrong, thanks for playing.

your source is utter bullshit. like most of the nonsense you post.

[Trunksee]

Wait, do you actually think that Trump has more than 5% black support?

Maybe 10% but no more than that. Also that 10% he has is more likely to show up to vote. But they have a reputation for not showing up anyway for either side other than Obama fo obvious reasons. I would not rely on minorities to flip the vote due to the districts most are in are already heavily blue. You have already seen going just for the popular vote is a losing strategy.

Like I asked who can galvanize the party like Trump has. Bernie supporters are easily manipulated not to even show up if you can make them think that it was rigged against him. Biden was the best shot. I dont get why he has been completely destroyed so far or how Pete has had this surge. Pete has absolutly no chance of winning against Trump yet people are voting for him. I wonder if Trump voters who are still registered are showing up to push a guy they know cant win.

[Orbitus]

Maybe 10% but no more than that. Also that 10% he has is more likely to show up to vote. But they have a reputation for not showing up anyway for either side other than Obama fo obvious reasons. I would not rely on minorities to flip the vote due to the districts most are in are already heavily blue. You have already seen going just for the popular vote is a losing strategy.

Black voters have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the last 40 or so years thanks to the Republicans being so anti-minority.

[Draco-Onis]

Maybe 10% but no more than that. Also that 10% he has is more likely to show up to vote. But they have a reputation for not showing up anyway for either side other than Obama fo obvious reasons.

Trump got 8% of the black vote so close but I don't see it going higher and the black vote was very high in 2018 in some cases higher than for Obama. Unless something happens voter participation will be high in 2020 because Trump is so divisive.

[Trunksee]

Trump got 8% of the black vote so close but I don't see it going higher and the black vote was very high in 2018 in some cases higher than for Obama. Unless something happens voter participation will be high in 2020 because Trump is so divisive.

Completely true but what are democrats presenting to them to get them to turn out? They already are in most districts where their votes wont swing anything more than a higher percentage democrat win. Still noone has answered my question. Which candidate can bring the party together like Trump has on the other side? I already have a gut feeling Trumps voter turn out will be even higher than last election if the Democrats put Bernie or Pete as the candidate.

[Draco-Onis]

Completely true but what are democrats presenting to them to get them to turn out? They already are in most districts where their votes wont swing anything more than a higher percentage democrat win. Still noone has answered my question. Which candidate can bring the party together like Trump has on the other side? I already have a gut feeling Trumps voter turn out will be even higher than last election if the Democrats put Bernie or Pete as the candidate.

You miss my point who was running to unite the party in 2018, Trump voter turn out is already maxed out his problem is he can't get the people in the middle to vote for him. Trump being Trump got a high turn out in 2018, the question is whether it can go higher with democrats having a leader at the top.

[draynay]

Which candidate can bring the party together like Trump has on the other side?

That's an unreasonable expectation since the democrats are not a cult.

[Trunksee]

You miss my point who was running to unite the party in 2018, Trump voter turn out is already maxed out his problem is he can't get the people in the middle to vote for him. Trump being Trump got a high turn out in 2018, the question is whether it can go higher with democrats having a leader at the top.

I think you under estimate the laziness of american voters. There is a large chunk of people who still didnt vote last election. There are still more people out there who will show up.

- - - Updated - - -

That's an unreasonable expectation since the democrats are not a cult.

So I thought the democrats were the smart party who were educated. If you dont show up for any candidate that wins the nomination the democrats cant win.

[Draco-Onis]

I think you under estimate the laziness of american voters. There is a large chunk of people who still didnt vote last election. There are still more people out there who will show up.

Oh absolutely turn out can always be higher but 2018 was a mid term year usually that is when we get the lowest turn out yet we got Obama level turn outs. The problem is the way Trump whips his base it also whips the other side he is his own worse enemy. The additional people that will turn out will not be the base of either side which is the problem for Trump he turns those people off when he does his thing.

[Endus]

ah, yeah. considering how berkeley is these days, they were probably pro-communist, which communism should be banned(antithetical and subversive to american culture).

You realize this is directly at odds with your supposed support of freedom of speech, right?

You're talking about the elimination of the 1st Amendment and a shift towards jailing and persecuting those who don't support the regime.

[mvaliz]

Laziness?
Seems to me more like there are strong tactics of voter suppression going on.
Why do US people not get days off on election day or not hold elections during weekends instead like the rest of first world nations?

If you talked to the average american, most (particularly my generation, Gen-X) really just don't give a shit about voting as they're too focused on the drama of their day-to-day lives. Many will site that "all politicians are corrupt" as an excuse to not vote, or will site others (an example of people on this forum, including myself) for being too neurotically focused on Politics to be mentally healthy, therefore they shouldn't be so they don't end up "like them".

Seriously, there's a reason that stupid South Park idiom of "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" gets passed around every election season. People use it as a validating excuse to not bother voting.

Now, I'm not saying Voter Suppression doesn't happen - and hell's yeah we should have a day off to vote! I'm just saying all of what you said also stacks ON TOP of everything else. It's not an either-or situation. >_<

EDIT: the other thing to note here is that many states (including my own) also allow Early Voting. Heck, I can actually go right now and vote for the Dem Primary...

...and yet, many many people in my state still don't vote. >_<

[Endus]

Laziness?
Seems to me more like there are strong tactics of voter suppression going on.
Why do US people not get days off on election day or not hold elections during weekends instead like the rest of first world nations?

I mean, the reason they're not on weekends is because it would be unChristian.

Seriously, that's it.

In the before-times, polling was generally done in towns and cities, and a heavily-agrarian society meant a lot of voters had to make their way into town to cast their votes. Given that travel was by horse (whether mounted or with horses drawing a larger conveyance) or by foot, that took time, often the better part of a full day's travel. So you couldn't expect voters to vote the same day they arrived in town; they'd have to vote the next day. Here's where God comes in; most people were Christian, and couldn't miss Sunday church. So you couldn't have voting on Sunday, obviously, and Saturday was out too, because they'd never get home in time for church. So they scheduled voting to give people Monday to travel into town, and votes were cast on Tuesday.

That's why it's a Tuesday. Because Christians wouldn't skip Sunday church in a time before cars existed and society was primarily agricultural. That's it. That's the whole reason. How is that applicable today? It's not. Except as a tool of voter suppression. Which tells you everything you need to know about people who insist it stays the same.

[beanman12345]

I think you under estimate the laziness of american voters. There is a large chunk of people who still didnt vote last election. There are still more people out there who will show up.

Strong turnout always favors democrats. Always. Turnout might be up or down with blacks because Republicans are trying to supress the vote of many black voters, so we'll see if they can push through it or not, but the more people vote the less likely Trump will win, doesn't matter who that nominee is.

[mvaliz]

Strong turnout always favors democrats. Always. Turnout might be up or down with blacks because Republicans are trying to supress the vote of many black voters, so we'll see if they can push through it or not, but the more people vote the less likely Trump will win, doesn't matter who that nominee is.

Depends if you rile up the Traitorpublican hate machine like they did in 2010 and again in 2016. Republicans flocked to the elections the moment a Democrat/Black Man became the President thanks to Traitorpublican propaganda.

[Milchshake]

Looks like cognitive dissonance is a real thing.

When Bernie is the "front runner", voter suppression is a real thing.
In 2016 when Hillary supporters pointed this out. They were told that Hillary was just bad and lazy.

If voter suppression wasn't real, why would the GOP spend hundreds of millions on Project Red Map? Or have their governors in key midwest states inact the worst of voter ID and suppression laws?

Poor Gen Xers, they're not lazy. It's mostly that GenX is half the numbers of the Boomers. So the asymmetries in electoral strengths are vastly intensified.

Even the millennial cohort is larger than the Xers.

[Mihalik]

Looks like cognitive dissonance is a real thing.

When Bernie is the "front runner", voter suppression is a real thing.
In 2016 when Hillary supporters pointed this out. They were told that Hillary was just bad and lazy.

If voter suppression wasn't real, why would the GOP spend hundreds of millions on Project Red Map? Or have their governors in key midwest states inact the worst of voter ID and suppression laws?

Poor Gen Xers, they're not lazy. It's mostly that GenX is half the numbers of the Boomers. So the asymmetries in electoral strengths are vastly intensified.

Even the millennial cohort is larger than the Xers.

Literally not a single Bernie supporter has ever claimed voter suppression wasn't a thing. On the mother fucking fucking contrary. You are literally making complete shit up.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/fre...air-elections/ Holy fuck dude.

Electoral reform is a literal core issue for Bernie.

[Elegiac]

So to pivot the discussion: a friendly reminder that nobody in their right mind should be voting for Michael Bloomberg in the primary.

As presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has risen in Democratic primary polls — he’s currently in third place nationally according to RealClearPolitics’ polling average — he’s faced increasing scrutiny about his past.

In particular, Bloomberg has been challenged about allegations of sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace, and has been questioned about a number of lawsuits filed against him and his eponymous company regarding those issues. On Saturday, a new investigative report from the Washington Post’s Michael Kranish once again surfaced those concerns.

....

The report also features a former employee who says he heard one of the most notorious accusations against Bloomberg himself — that the former mayor once told a pregnant subordinate to “kill” her unborn child (Bloomberg has denied saying this).

And in a week in which Bloomberg was accused of being racist due to resurfaced comments about the stop-and-frisk program he once championed, Kranish’s work also highlights comments Bloomberg allegedly made that are startlingly degrading to African Americans; one lawsuit claims Bloomberg once advised an employee to find “some black who doesn’t have to speak English” to work as a nanny for her.

...

Sekiko Sakai Garrison, a top saleswoman who worked for Bloomberg in his business information firm, sued him and his company in the ’90s for workplace discrimination. The Post published some of the details of the complaints mentioned in the lawsuits:

"On April 11, 1995 at approximately 11:20 a.m., Bloomberg was having a photograph taken with two female Company salespeople and a group of N.Y.U. Business School students, in the company snack area. When Bloomberg noticed Garrison standing nearby, he asked, “Why didn’t they ask you to be in the picture? I guess they saw your face.” Continuing his penchant for ridiculing recently married women in his employ, Bloomberg asked plaintiff, “How’s married life? You married?” Plaintiff responded that her marriage was great and was going to get better in a few months: that she was pregnant, and the baby was due the following September. He responded to her “Kill it!” Plaintiff asked Bloomberg to repeat himself, and again he said, “Kill it!” and muttered, “Great! Number 16!” suggesting to plaintiff his unhappiness that sixteen women in the Company had maternity-related status. Then he walked away."

But the Post interviewed a former Bloomberg employee, David Zielenziger, who said that he personally witnessed the conversation. Zielenziger not only confirmed that he heard it, he said it was typical. “He talked kind of crudely about women all the time,” he told the Post.

...

The Post also obtained and published a notorious booklet compiled by a Bloomberg employee that allegedly contained some of his most degrading and profane comments around the workplace. Entitled “The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg,” the 32-page booklet contains crude boasts and jokes, such as the claim that his famous computer system “will do everything, including give you [oral sex]. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”

...

Garrison’s complaint also reportedly contains some allegations Bloomberg made racist remarks while at the office, including the remark about finding “some black” to serve as a nanny, and that the former mayor referred to Mexican clients as “jumping beans.”

...

And in recent days, the candidate has had to defend himself against allegations he is racist following a progressive podcaster resurfacing a 2015 speech. Bloomberg gave the speech defending New York’s stop-and-frisk program (which was declared unconstitutional in 2013), in which he said, “Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25.”

And just for good measure, here's a bit from Politico about him comparing teachers' unions and the NYCLU to the NRA.

Make no mistake, this man is Trump in blue patrician clothing and it's fairly telling how so many people have apparently jumped on the bandwagon.