Author Topic: 2020 Presidential election  (Read 27741 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Separate private planes to push Green New Deal: Talk about trickle up economics!
« Reply #500 on: February 04, 2020, 07:05:21 AM »
I am so old I remember when the term 'stupid party' on the forum meant Republicans.  THIS is tone deaf. I've never seen anything like it, at least since the taxpayers flew the Obama's dog BO on a separate jet to Martha's vineyard.  What was his hurry?

I wondered how these Senate Democrats fly out of an impeachment hearing of their own choosing to find a last second seat on an airline to Iowa - like little people do?  But as they brag all their donations come from little people, they don't need to fly 'commercial' anymore.  They have the little people's money now.

Trying to think who it reminds me of:  "By helping the shepherd, you're helping the sheep."
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/televangelists-jim-tammy-faye-bakker-fall-grace-article-1.3387060

More CO2 was spewed than little people emit in a lifetime.  "Driver, take me to Mason City, and step on it!"

Besides, Democrats holding an event in Iowa 2020 is about as relevant as Republicans holding their first caucus in Massachusetts.  Is it too early to call Iowa for Trump?

https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sanders_warren_private_planes_2-3-20.jpg



« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 08:09:28 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #501 on: February 04, 2020, 07:34:16 AM »
The Sanders campaign reports it received 29.7 percent of the vote, closely followed by former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 24.6 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in at 21.2 percent, and former Vice President Joe Biden in fourth at 12.4 percent.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-release-caucus-numbers-iowa-buttigieg/

Accuracy unknown except that the winner has the least reason to lie.

The fall of Biden is the big story.  He needed to at least be competitive.

That is better than expected for Warren, but how do you call losing to Buttigieg a win?

Shocking, Klobuchar is not mentioned.  Dismal 5th in her must-win state?  So sad.  "On to New Hampshire!"  For what, post-campaign vacation?

It's not even a win for Sanders with the failed process stepping on his fairy tail story.  But assuming he wins NH, winning both and crushing Biden before they head into Nevada and South Carolina IS a story.

Unless people think Butti is the real deal, this opens the door a mile wide for Mini Mike, who also lacks wide appeal.  Mike didn't want to take his anti-gun message to Iowa?  He couldn't afford the media market in the big Quad Cities/Davenport?  He knows the liberal vote in Iowa is in the college towns and Bernie strangely owns the the young skulls of mush vote.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
t's not even a win for Sanders with the failed process stepping on his fairy tai
« Reply #502 on: February 04, 2020, 07:58:50 AM »
perennial loser MOOOOK is involved:


https://pjmedia.com/election/hoo-boy-hillarys-campaign-manager-was-involved-with-that-disastrous-iowa-caucus-app/

as . a Republican gotta love this pajama boy clinton appartichik

he is a total screw up.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Iowa
« Reply #503 on: February 04, 2020, 08:41:25 AM »
The focus last night is wrongly placed on how bad this process makes Iowa look.  The Democrats hate Iowa, too many white voters etc.  They already wanted to move the first primary out before this happened.  Now for sure they will. 

But think about it the other way around, what kind of impression did the Democrats make to Iowans? 

The only two term, swing state Governor in the race, with namesake to Iowa, Hickenlooper, came in and told a family audience about taking his mom to see Deep Throat.  Oops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_B._Hickenlooper
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/03/21/john-hickenlooper-took-mom-see-adult-movie-deep-throat/3231629002/

The rest came to advance coastal elite policies that will never win in a state where Jodi Ernst is sure to be reelected Senator.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-joni-ernsts-ad-about-castrating-hogs-transformed-iowas-us-senate-race/2014/05/11/c02d1804-d85b-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

6 out of 10 Iowa homes heat with clean natural gas from a neighboring state that leading Democrats want to outright ban.  [The other 4 out of 10 heat their homes with other fossil fuels, propane, that Democrats want to ban.]   https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=IA6

Heating your home is not a political joke in the Upper Midwest.  Taking away heat in winter is not a gaffe; it is an act of war.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Zogby
« Reply #504 on: February 04, 2020, 08:46:01 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-expanding-base-of-black-hispanic-suburban-voters-has-51-approval

“The president continues to receive a high approval rating near or slightly above 50% for the third straight poll. He has rebounded with Independents, women, suburban voters and suburban women,”

...a resurgence of support among independents, suburbanites, suburban women, and an expansion beyond his 2016 support among black and Hispanic voters.
...
In the suburbs, the impeachment reaction has helped Trump. “Since the House impeachment and Senate trial, Trump’s job approval rating and numbers against his Democratic rivals have improved with Independents, suburban voters and suburban women,” said the analysis.

With black voters overall, 22% support Trump, a significant jump from the 8% he won in 2016.

And with Hispanic voters, Trump’s average is 36%, also up big from the 28% he won in 2016.

Zogby added that among Hispanic voters who feel good about the economy, support for Trump is even wider.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile
VDH: The art of warping elections
« Reply #505 on: February 04, 2020, 10:52:13 AM »
That is good news!
=========================

================

The Art of Warping Elections
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
February 4, 2020 6:30 AM

President Barack Obama listens to a question during his last press conference at the White House, January 18, 2017. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
Team Obama paved the way.
No sooner were Democrats’ Trump-Russia collusion charges debunked than they began to claim that Trump will do again in 2020 what Robert Mueller found he did not do in 2016: rig the election.

After 22 months, nearly 500 subpoenas, and somewhere around $35 million in costs, special counsel Robert Mueller’s much praised progressive “all-star” team of lawyers and investigators found no evidence that Donald Trump had colluded with the Russians. Trump did not warp the 2016 election, and so he had not unfairly defeated the supposed sure-winner Hillary Clinton. But again those who have investigated and attacked Trump nonstop probably are seeking to do in 2020 what they falsely accused Trump of doing in 2016.

Mueller’s failure to find any collusion evidence was not for want of the dream team’s “bombshell” and “walls are closing in” leaks to CNN and MSNBC talking heads, over the course of 88 weeks. Almost daily we heard ad nauseam that Trump was soon to be indicted, convicted, removed, or summarily dispatched.

If anyone should have found “collusion,” it was certainly the Mueller zealots, then de facto ramrodded by current MSNBC partisan “legal” analyst Andrew Weissmann. (How odd that John Brennan, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, and Andrew Weissmann leak to MSNBC and CNN and then, in the out-phase of their perpetually revolving-door careers, end up rewarded by their receptacles as paid TV analysts).

In the end, the “hunter-killer team” imploded.

Its ranks, in mediis rebus, were depleted by the summary firings of unethical anti-Trump FBI officials such as Lisa Page, and Peter Strozk, who had ridiculed the target of their investigation in amorous textual exchanges. Also fired for bias was FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith (“Viva le [sic] résistance),” who had also illegally altered a document to befool a FISA judge. The entire charade finally ended with Mueller’s post facto enfeebled testimony before congressional committee, in which he mysteriously claimed little knowledge of Fusion GPS and its offspring the Steele dossier, the fonts and catalysts of his own investigation.

NOW WATCH: 'George Soros Thinks Trump And Facebook Are Conspiring to Get Him Re-Elected'

Few, however, dared to say that the entire fraud will have played a role in the 2020 election, or at least was meant to play a part by embarrassing and defaming Trump — in the manner of the current impeachment hoax.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s huge team at the Department of Justice used almost as many resources as Mueller and found that the FBI and DOJ had deluded a FISA court in order to spy on an American citizen, who just happened to be a low-level Trump aide. It incidentally also discovered that a foreign national Christopher Steele had peddled junk opposition research that was gobbled up by Obama-administration intelligence agencies in an effort to spy on Page and thus the Trump campaign. Through the “two-hop” rule, a warrant allows spying on an individual, and on anyone that individual has contacted, and additionally on anyone those secondary people have contacted. Further, the warrant allows investigators to look back in time, going back years. In short, in today’s climate, one could argue that Team Obama functionaries, even in retirement, sought to influence the 2016 election by slandering Trump, and his holdover appointees have kept up their obsessions in order to affect the 2020 election.

Not one Democrat impeacher believes that Trump will be convicted and removed from office. All of them probably trust that impeaching him in the House will weaken his chances at reelection — and that they should, as impeachment is merely using government properly to influence an election.

Yet, under the current new standards, we might have easily impeached almost any prior first-term president on a variety of charges and certainly questioned the fairness of any incumbent’s election victory.

Take the divine Barack Obama. Obstruction of Congress?

Obama invoked executive privilege to obstruct congressional subpoenas in the Fast and Furious scandals. People died. And they died in Benghazi, a preventable debacle that was fraudulently blamed on an obscure video-maker. And some likely died as the result of the illegal Taliban–Bergdahl hostage swap.

Abuse of power? In the run-up to his 2012 reelection campaign, Obama weaponized the IRS to neuter Tea Party groups so they’d have no chance to repeat the stunning success they enjoyed in the 2010 midterm elections. And would monitoring the communications of Associated Press journalists now qualify as an abuse of power? Maybe stonewalling the Senate and passing the Iranian-deal treaty without a two-thirds ratification vote could qualify as well? Would sacrificing Eastern Europe missile defense for Putin’s temporary good behavior (prior to the 2012 election) qualify as a Trumpian impeachable quid pro quo? Not giving lethal aid to the Ukrainians in fear of Putin’s wrath?

On the further matter of warping an election, reconsider the successful reelection of Barack Obama in 2102. A number of scholars, including researchers from the Kennedy School of Government, Stockholm University, and the American Enterprise Institute, later suggested that had the Tea Party not been emasculated by systematic and politicized IRS harassment, it might have added more than 5 million voters to Republican ranks — more than the margin of Obama’s victory — in the 2012 election.

Then there was Obama’s election-year lapse when he got caught on a hot mic (on March 21, 2012), pledging to outgoing Putin surrogate Dmitri Medvedev that if Putin just gave Obama “space” before his reelection (i.e., not causing trouble in Eastern Europe and thus discrediting the entire sham of Russian “reset”), then a successfully reelected Obama in return would show “flexibility” on joint American–Eastern European missile defense — meaning that Obama would cancel the long-planned missile-defense shield).

Remember the quid pro quo context: Romney was running neck and neck in the polls with Obama and was rebuking the president for his “reset” softness about Putin’s increasing hostility to the U.S. and its interests. If Putin were to hibernate during the American election cycle, it would be easier to diminish Romney as a Cold War dinosaur. Obama later argued exactly that in a presidential debate: “When you were asked, “What the biggest geopolitical threat facing America?’ you said Russia! . . . The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” And so voters were reminded of the trademark Obama charisma that had achieved peace and mesmerized even thuggish enemies

Unlike Trump’s pseudo-scandal that never resulted in a cutoff of aid to Ukraine (indeed, Trump’s aid to Ukraine far superseded that of the timid Obama administration, which refused to sell Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine), Obama’s tit-for-tat deal delivered the politically convenient results: Putin delayed his territorial expansion into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine until after Obama’s reelection, and the U.S. did withdraw its sponsorship of Eastern Europe missile defense.

But there was more in pre-election 2012.

Do we remember former Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel and the strange, rich Malaysian wheeler-dealer Low Taek Jho — the pair who had planned to channel some $21 million in mostly foreign monies into pro-Obama outlets during the 2012 election? How strange that we did not discover fully their nefarious electioneering until seven years after the fact — given that “collusion” with foreign entities to “rig” U.S. elections are the chief concerns of watchdog Democrats. Had voters known of such past skullduggery at the time, would they have factored in that malfeasance on Election Day?

Then there was other mysterious “news” that broke just after Obama was reelected in 2012. Again, it was only in December 2012, after the president was reelected, that the Federal Election Commission clarified its earlier preliminary findings of illegal behavior by the 2008 Obama campaign. Only weeks after the president’s 2012 reelection, the Commission announced that it was leveling one of the largest fines ($375,000) in its history on Obama’s earlier campaign for not disclosing the amounts or sources of sizable donations. How conveniently odd that after four years of investigatory work, the voters learned right after — rather than before — Election Day that the Obama team had a bad habit of breaking fundraising and campaigning rules.

There were even more mysterious 2012 post-election “bombshells.” A mere 24 hours after Obama’s victory, the public was tersely told that the Iranians, five days earlier, well before Election Day, had fired on an American drone — a most unwelcome development in the then ongoing courting of Iran that would eventually lead to the infamous Iran deal.

Might voters have appreciated that knowledge as they assessed the degree of success or failure of the Obama’s reset outreach to Iran?

Even stranger still was the abrupt resignation of CIA director David Petraeus scarcely more than two days after the election. Weeks earlier, Petraeus had given substantial closed-door testimony to congressional committees about the election-cycle Benghazi disaster, the role of the CIA in security lapses in Benghazi, and, most controversially, the nature of the attack: whether it was a preplanned terrorist hit or, as the administration claimed, an ad hoc mortar barrage incited by a supposedly Islamophobic, right-wing video made by a Lebanese Coptic Christian living in America.

Remember, we were repeatedly told by Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton that a nefarious, reactionary, immigrant Muslim-hater had quite unexpectedly egged on the Arab Street, which in turn led to a spontaneous rampage against Americans — a narrative that would hide the Obama administration’s wages of appeasement, manifested in negligently lax security for our diplomatic and security personnel in the American-induced badlands of Libya.

What was not known at the time of Petraeus’s testimony was that, four weeks earlier, Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI had formally started investigating the CIA director for alleged security lapses concerning his contacts with his mistress.

Voters learned of all that only a few days after Election Day, with the CIA director’s stunning resignation and apology, and subsequent plea bargaining to a lesser offense — all leading to the replacement appointment of John Brennan, known subsequently for lying under oath with impunity on two occasions to Congress.

Apparently, Obama and Eric Holder felt that, after weeks of investigation, it was critical only after Election Day to immediately announce the fate of Petraeus. This was at a time when some in Congress were complaining that CIA testimonies were less than candid and were unrealistically promoting the administration’s narrative that the Benghazi debacle was the result of spontaneous rioting rather than the work of skilled terrorists who had planned the attacks. Some House members would soon complain that Petraeus’s post-resignation testimony on the nature of the attackers (that they were likely Islamic extremists) differed from his pre-election comments that the video had enraged Libyans and provoked untrained mobs to attack the consul and annex.

Had Petraeus resigned before Election Day, would voters have become curious about the circumstances of his abrupt departure? Would they have asked questions about what exactly the U.S. was doing in Libya and under whose direction?

In other words, the Obama administration, perhaps more so than prior administrations, played politics with the news cycles, abused campaign-finance laws, leveraged its powers of incumbency for partisan advantage, put reelection aims on par with or above U.S. security concerns, left hanging key U.S. allies, and sought to use the administrative state to enhance its 2012 reelection chances and to diminish the opposition’s party 2016 candidate. And all that likely helped reelect Barack Obama.

Until recently, I believed that none of this Obama skullduggery rose to the level of impeachable offenses that would have nullified the 2012 election and canceled out the votes of millions of Americans.

100
Now, under the new standards established by Adam Schiff, Gerald Nadler, and Nancy Pelosi, all that and more from the Obama administration were most eminently impeachable.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #507 on: February 05, 2020, 11:09:54 AM »
Crafty, from Bloomberg thread:  "It sure looks like the Titanic that is the Biden campaign has hit the Iowan iceberg.  To whom are Biden supporters going to go?

Buttgig?"

---------------------------------

That has been the question all along.  There is no one competent, qualified, attractive in that lane.  Now it is urgent if you are establishment Dem.

Iowa is apparently saying Butti over Biden, but Butti and Iowa are Midwest, now called Trump country.  What does that mean for Dem voters in Calif, NY, Texas?  We'll see.

Along with Biden, Butti kicked Amy K in the butti in her home region.  NH should finish her off if it's not already clear she's done. 

Butti is beating expectations so far, but creating nothing like the excitement like the excitement of Obama 2008.  Obama, out of nowhere, was already a sitting US Senator from a major state, a de facto leader of the Senate with major endorsements.  And he ran in a no incumbent year following Republican division and failure, nothing like now.

Yang (and the rest) also had essentially zero.  There isn't another unknown upstart coming.

Can Biden come part way back after IA, NH? Does Butti rise or fall from here? Warren did better than I expected, can she finish 1 or 2 in NH?  Can Mayor Mike get ONE endorsement?  I see him as getting only enough support to create more division, not closure.  Hillary and Kerry make sounds but can't do it either and there is no one left to dig up and put in.

What we see developing is more chaos, not clarity. 

Airbnb's top destination for 2020 is Milwaukee!  We'll be watching.
https://news.airbnb.com/20-for-2020/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Iowa, Sexist Racist Democrats
« Reply #509 on: February 06, 2020, 08:04:54 AM »
Still not final!  Essentially Sanders and Butti are tied.  Then there is 1st and second round voting. Just what we need (sarc), ranked choice voting.

Peter Buttigieg  42,235  26.2%
Bernard Sanders 44,753  26.1%
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/
click link to update

Besides Biden, the losers are Warren and Klobuchar (and all the others).  Warren lost to Biden and Klobuchar lost to Buttigieg in the less socialist lane.  In both cases, the woman was equally or better qualified.  If these results matter, they have no blacks left, no women left, no Hispanics left, no Asian Americans left if you count Yang's zero as being out.  It's by their definition this makes them sexist and racist.

Tepid turnout is a cause for some concern among Democrats.
Sean Trende, Senior elections analyst, RealClearPolitics.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/05/takeaways_from_the_early_iowa_caucus_results_142318.html
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 08:58:07 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile
ROTFLMAO
« Reply #510 on: February 06, 2020, 12:29:17 PM »
Given that it is the Federalist, surprising that there is no mention that the App was developed by Clintonistas , , ,

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/06/democrat-congresswoman-blames-iowa-caucus-disaster-on-russia/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #511 on: February 06, 2020, 03:02:33 PM »
see my post #1078
on election fraud thread

Putin jokingly blamed

never underestimate the chutzpah of the Dems and the Clintonites

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential, Gallup: Economic Optimism Highest Ever Recorded
« Reply #512 on: February 07, 2020, 06:12:14 AM »
I'm sorry, did they just say, highest such finding Gallup has ever recorded?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallup finds that 59% say they are better off than they were a year ago, as opposed to only 20% who say they are worse off. Those are great numbers–interestingly, we are so divided that political affiliation makes a big difference even on a simple question about one’s own finances–but that isn’t the data point I mean.

The most striking finding is this one: 74% say they expect to be better off a year from now than they are today, the highest such finding Gallup has ever recorded
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/02/why-trump-will-be-re-elected-in-one-data-point.php

This came out before today's big positive employment news.

No idea what's causing it, the WashPost fact checkers call it, the best three years of the Obama expansion!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2020, 07:09:46 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #513 on: February 07, 2020, 06:21:44 AM »
"No idea what's causing it, the WashPost fact checkers call it, the best three years of the Obama expansion!"

scumbags

 and these MSM Democrat operatives get up on their high holy horse and have the nerve to call Trump vindictive
for their *24/7/365* abuse of him

Republicans (minus the jonah golbergs, bill kristols, nicole wallaces, colin powells, michael steeles, guiseppe scarboroughs ( with the comic book archie haircut)
are going to come out in droves and shove it all back in their faces for ignoring us , insulting us , and trying to exterminate our culture our beliefs and freedoms

 in November.   :wink:




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election, NH Dem Debate Tonight, FYI, 8pm ET ABC
« Reply #514 on: February 07, 2020, 08:18:46 AM »
Is this the one where the wisdom and charisma of Tom Steyer will finally shine through?

Can record low viewership go any lower?

Will they break (brake?) for Bloomberg commercials?

Will people across the fruited plain call up their neighbors to turn on their television sets to see who is this Bootie-judge who broke out in Bettendorf?  But instead see a madman named Sanders giving Castro speeches as the current leader in the clubhouse of JFK's old party.

Will one questioner ask one tough question of one candidate about ANY of the at least 56 Trump accomplishments laid out in the State of the Union, almost none of which would have happened if they were in office?  Or will uttering the label, Manifesto of Mistruths, suffice?

How about just a simple show of hands: Are you for or against economic growth?  Yes?  No?

Then why do you oppose everything that leads to that?!!!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #515 on: February 07, 2020, 09:12:42 AM »
"Will one questioner ask one tough question of one candidate "

Zucker's orders -> don't they dare unless they want to look for a new career.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Beware Sanders
« Reply #518 on: February 08, 2020, 10:59:46 AM »
Bernie Sanders Makes His Charge
Republicans say he can’t win. That’s what Hillary Clinton said about Donald Trump.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 7, 2020 7:07 pm ET


Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally in Derry, N.H., Feb. 5.
PHOTO: STEVEN SENNE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

No major American political party has nominated a full-throated socialist for President. But after his strong showing in Iowa, could Bernie Sanders be the first? That’s the question Democrats have to ask as Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary approaches. Republicans may want to hold the Schadenfreude.


The counting fiasco has muddled the Iowa results, but it seems Mr. Sanders has either finished a narrow first or a close second to former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The Vermont Senator now leads in New Hampshire by 4.7 points in the Real Clear Politics average. He has so far held off Elizabeth Warren, his main challenger on the left, who finished a distant third in Iowa and trails in the Granite State.

A second victory would give Mr. Sanders momentum for this month’s later contests in Nevada, where the polls have tightened, and South Carolina, where voters who favor Joe Biden might be looking for a new champion if the former Vice President continues to fade. The Morning Consult poll says Mr. Sanders is the top second choice for Biden supporters, with 27%. Mike Bloomberg is next with 21%.

Mr. Sanders has taken a 4.8-point lead in California, the largest delegate prize on March 3. That day will also include primaries in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Utah and Vermont, all states that Bernie won in 2016. Mr. Sanders won’t lack for money, having raised $25 million last month, on top of the $108 million he previously raised from mostly small donors, according to data at OpenSecrets.org.

All of this is a credit to Mr. Sanders’s grass-roots appeal. He has struck a chord in particular with millennial voters who don’t recall the miseries of Cold War-era socialism. The Senator is running as an outsider in an era when millions of Americans mistrust elite institutions. Not unlike Donald Trump, he campaigns as a fighter for those left behind. The difference is that his foils are corporations and the wealthy, the classic targets of left-wing populists.

The risk for his supporters and the Democratic Party is that Bernie’s platform is the most explicitly left-wing since at least Henry Wallace in 1948. He wants to nationalize health insurance, eliminating 170 million private policies. He wants a $16.3 trillion Green New Deal and a $2.5 trillion housing plan, to include national rent control. He wants to cancel $1.6 trillion in student debt and ban fracking. He wants a “wealth tax” on individual net worth, with rates up to 8% a year. He wants a federal law saying workers can’t be fired without “just cause.”

All of this is no longer disqualifying in a Democratic primary because the party took a sharp left turn during the Obama years and has kept driving. Mr. Sanders’s backers also remember being scolded to rally behind the “electable” Hillary Clinton. Now that pitch has less salience for Mr. Biden. Progressives think Mr. Trump’s personal unpopularity offers a unique chance to win the White House with an agenda that yanks the country to the left.

***
All of which confronts Democrats with a dilemma not unlike the one Republicans faced four years ago in Mr. Trump. Their panic is already palpable, yet who can they rally behind as the alternative?

Mr. Biden finished fourth in Iowa and might be the collateral damage of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment missile. She aimed at Mr. Trump and hit Uncle Joe. Mr. Buttigieg is rising in New Hampshire and could become the default non-socialist alternative. But he’s a 38-year-old former small-city mayor who hasn’t attracted much African-American support.

Mr. Bloomberg is pouring hundreds of millions into ads in March 3 primary states, but what if his main contribution is to siphon votes from Mr. Buttigieg, or Mr. Biden if he’s still running? Democrats also have to worry about appearing to conspire to deny Mr. Sanders the nomination, alienating his supporters whom they will need to win in November.

Republicans will be tempted to cheer, thinking Mr. Trump would trounce Mr. Sanders. Some GOP officials in South Carolina, the Charleston Post and Courier reports, plan to urge Republicans to vote for Bernie in the state’s open primary. This is playing with fire.

Mr. Sanders is beating Mr. Trump in most head-to-head polls in key states, and simply labeling him a socialist won’t be enough. In this politically volatile age, the impossible can soon become inevitable. Ask the Democrats who rejoiced when the GOP nominated Mr. Trump.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
my prediction for dem candidate '20
« Reply #520 on: February 08, 2020, 04:03:39 PM »
!).butti. most likely

2) mini mike

Or

2) the guy who always sounds like he has mouth full of pastrami every time he speaks

(. depending if, " the hate the rich crowd  free shit crowd" wins over "the establishment in the swamp loop crats ")

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #521 on: February 08, 2020, 10:47:46 PM »
Buttgig is 7% RCP nationwide.  Many states will not be friendly.

Bloomie is 10% wide and climbing.  Listened to his campaign manager this morning on FOX.  The guy is crisp.  The message is crisp-- for the Dem vote.

Sandernista will win NH, but subsequent states may not be as easy.

Prediction:  Brokered convention.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17669
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #522 on: February 09, 2020, 01:47:06 AM »
I wonder if someone is lurking in the shadows, waiting for a brokered convention...

Buttgig is 7% RCP nationwide.  Many states will not be friendly.

Bloomie is 10% wide and climbing.  Listened to his campaign manager this morning on FOX.  The guy is crisp.  The message is crisp-- for the Dem vote.

Sandernista will win NH, but subsequent states may not be as easy.

Prediction:  Brokered convention.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
predictions
« Reply #523 on: February 09, 2020, 04:42:44 AM »
Crafty:  ".Buttgig is 7% RCP nationwide.  Many states will not be friendly."

oh,
 well few weeks back I was picking Warren to win.    :-o

GM:  "I wonder if someone is lurking in the shadows, waiting for a brokered convention..."

yup.  she and her mob are just drooling for that "right moment". "never say never".


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #525 on: February 09, 2020, 06:55:17 AM »
warren looks bad now

what a few weeks or months can make

she has to hope Bern keels over.

when she drops out ( if ever) I assume most of hers will go to bern (?)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #526 on: February 09, 2020, 08:56:27 AM »
She... 'is lurking in the shadows, waiting for a brokered convention'.   (from Bloomberg thread)

She... is the most popular woman in Democratic politics over the last 12 years, maybe ever.

She... wrote a memoir that sold 10 million copies last year.

She... was first lady of the United States. 

She... Is Michelle Obama.
--------
Seriously:  The first job of the 'brokered convention' is for losing candidates to concede and get behind the leading candidates.  Put the one who was leading going in over the top and unite, not negate the voice of the primary voters.  If getting behind number one is not possible, nominate the one who is everyone's second choice. I don't see how they unite behind someone who was not one of the top 3 going in.  Really, it needs to to be the leading vote-getter or they won't be unified.

Will Bernie voters be satisfied if he is the leader from all the primaries and Hillary is anointed?  Ha!  It would be more like civil war. 

They will fight in Milwaukee.  Then Trump will carry Wisconsin.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 09:03:30 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election - New Hampshire
« Reply #527 on: February 10, 2020, 07:01:38 AM »
NH primary tomorrow.  No one knows what to think of it. 

"Trump's opponent in the general election" Joe Biden is running fifth?

Klobuchar is passing up Biden and Warren, but already lost her lane to Buttigieg.

Bloomberg is not on the ballot.  Ummm, "MURKOWSKY" won her statewide race with a write-in.  New Hampshirers can't spell "Bloomberg"??  Mini-Mike couldn't afford the entry fee, didn't know the deadline?  Is too clever by half?

All except those leading in NH have declared that NH doesn't matter.

Bernie leads.  Buttigieg already declared victory. Thinking of Butti, there's this:

"The only people who think that real world experience doesn't matters are those who never had real world experience." - @nntaleb

Suffolk: Sanders 27, Buttigieg 19, Klobuchar 14, Warren 12, Biden 12
Emerson: Sanders 30, Buttigieg 23, Klobuchar 14, Warren 11, Biden 10
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 07:22:08 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Black voters
« Reply #528 on: February 10, 2020, 09:55:39 AM »
If Trump gets even 20% of the black vote in swing states such as Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania, then Democrats will simply have no path to victory.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/democrats-should-be-very-afraid-of-trumps-powerful-pitch-to-black-voters


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: Politico: New Electoral Map
« Reply #530 on: February 10, 2020, 11:11:07 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/07/election-2020-new-electoral-map-110496?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

Good article, considering their slant.

"a “Blue Wall,” a term applied to a northern tier of 18 states, stretching from coast to coast, that appeared to provide a structural advantage for a Democratic nominee."

The 'Blue Wall' was the 242 electoral vote count they thought they had locked up before they started, back when they loved the electoral college - and the constitution that defines it.  They only needed 28 more electoral votes to win.

Nate Silver, 2015:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-blue-wall/  There is no Blue Wall
"when commentators talk about the Democrats’ “blue wall,” all they’re really pointing out is that Democrats have had a pretty good run in presidential elections lately (2015)... The Electoral College just isn’t worth worrying about much... Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority."

Or if her popular vote victory comes all from one state she already won.
-------------------------
Trump will win MN IF he wins a 2% improvement from suburban voters, suburban women.  But if he wins MN, he has already won IA, WI, MI, OH, PA, FL, NC etc the House, the Senate and an easy reelection.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential, Biden ad rips Butti
« Reply #531 on: February 11, 2020, 08:03:24 AM »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Trump sucking up to the big four
« Reply #533 on: February 12, 2020, 05:13:39 AM »
before the election

suddenly they are all friends. he looks like he is kissing their asses

what is going on .  Who is playing whom?  surely there is maneuvering going on .

weird:


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/trump-heaps-praise-on-trillion-dollar-tech-club-calling-four-big-companies-maga.html


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: Klobuchar
« Reply #535 on: February 12, 2020, 01:36:02 PM »
https://patriotpost.us/articles/68531-is-klobuchars-momentum-real?mailing_id=4860&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4860&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body


From the article:
"Klobuchar “is campaigning for an economy-destroying policy of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a ‘more robust public option’ in healthcare. In other words, socialized medicine.” She also supports eliminating the Electoral College, ending offshore oil drilling, and banning semiautomatic rifles." “It is a testament to how far left the Democrat Party has veered that Klobuchar could be considered a centrist.

Even The Washington Post admits that “every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of [Barack] Obama’s.” That includes Klobuchar.


   - Precisely.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #536 on: February 12, 2020, 03:08:01 PM »
NH:  Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar

Yang out, Michael Bennett out, Deval Patrick out. Steyer out. Only 5 people have won any delegates.  It would seem that Warren is out too having lost in both lanes and no path forward.  I guess it depends on how much money she has left and how best to time the humility of admitting failure.  She really thought she was going somewhere.
                                                                                       
Biden also should drop out.  We'll see if his lead holds up in SC.  Isn't he already out of money?

If Biden fails, none of the remaining have any appeal to the "black and brown" people.  [I hate those grouping.  They aren't hyphenated-voters; they are voters.]

I didn't agree that Bloomberg would catch on.  The importance of NYC is )IMO) between small and contrary indicator in the heartland and he's wrong on the issues.  But it is now a race with none of the above winning so why not Mike?   (

I listened more carefully to a Bloomberg spot today.  It all sounds so good, a really dynamic narrator tells you how great this man is for most of the minute.  Then a monotone, aging, uncharismatic candidate says a couple of sentences in his own words, negating all the excitement.  Let's get that narrator in the race!

Sanders is the vote leader after two states, getting 25% of the vote.  The not-Sanders vote looks to be 75%.  If Warren drops or gets any more irrelevant, that could move to 30-70 with the 70 split between Butti, Biden, Bloomberg and Klob-mentum.  Will one of these set themselves apart?  So far that one is Butti, but it is 2 states of 50 and he is just starting to face resistance.  Much more to come.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
A student butti
« Reply #537 on: February 12, 2020, 04:03:37 PM »
saw him speaking in suit and VERY Obamanesque

he surely is copying the "one".  another slickster - not fooling anyone but he knows the media will cover for him.

Funny how the Wall street people who have no problem with socialism and big government controlling all of OUR lives
suddenly a scared at the prospect of Sanders - who would love to steal THEIR money are suddenly decrying "socialism"

to think they run to butti or napolean
to save their fortunes

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election, The Sanders Ceiling? The Sanders Trap
« Reply #538 on: February 13, 2020, 06:41:34 AM »
(Doug) "Sanders is the vote leader after two states, getting 25% of the vote.  The not-Sanders vote looks to be 75%.  If Warren drops... that could move to 30-70 with the 70 split between [the others]."

Also leading nationwide with about 25%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Political analyst Sean Trende calls it the Sanders Ceiling:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/12/takeaways_from_new_hampshire_142376.html

I think it's the Sanders Trap.  Think of AOC and the people who love her (and Bernie).  People get all excited with all this anger at the very basic foundations of our society  (fruits of your labor, private property, work hard get ahead).  They don't just come down from that when someone else is (wrongly) nominated, turn on a dime and say ok, now we back Butti or Mini-Mike with a smile on their face.

Sanders could win Nevada, win California big time and win many other states with his clear message of tear it all down, while these others get tangled up with each other with their slick, pretend moderation.  His 25-30% ceiling might be 40% of the delegates at the convention.  (Candidates getting below 15% in a state receive no delegates.) 

If Sanders is the leader coming into the convention, either they nominate him and drive away the moderates, or they step over him (again) and drive away the radicals.  Which will it be?

Defeating Trump is what unites them?  Not when what is stopping them is the establishment of their own party.

The big Academia-Media complex created and fueled all this Leftism, especially in young people.  The rich are making you poor and the world is going to end!  Now they have no idea how to rein it in and defeat Trump and the Republicans with a sensible centrist.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
The little shit is worse than Soros
« Reply #539 on: February 15, 2020, 08:32:05 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17669
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #541 on: February 15, 2020, 09:24:56 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #542 on: February 16, 2020, 09:52:35 AM »
".Bllomie-Hillary would be a very formidable ticket-- not to be taken lightly!"

Of course it would be .
that is why it is all over the news.

The entire Wall Street est. , DNC media complex with control of the media and 90% of the propaganda of this country
 
and Clinton's political machine back in business ....

This will sweep butti away
and it probably will sweep aside the Sanders Warren wing, as the money crowd SUDDENLY is worried about socialism now that it could hurt their asses and not just the little people they know what is best for.

One thing I find odd

How come no mention of the stereotype "rich Jew" controlling the country?

No mention he would be first Jewish Prez.  Odd.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #543 on: February 16, 2020, 11:29:02 AM »
America's reaction to Clintons back on the national scene:
https://youtu.be/BPlsqo2bk2M
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 12:04:29 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #544 on: February 16, 2020, 12:28:58 PM »
"One thing I find odd
How come no mention of the stereotype "rich Jew" controlling the country?
No mention he would be first Jewish Prez.  Odd.
---------

Waiting patiently for the Bloomberg endorsements from Omar and Tlaib.  Warren rails against people like Bloomberg too, (without calling them Jews).  There is going to be a very strong anti-Mike movement in the Dem party rising with his numbers. 

Gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Billionaires and the welfare crowd all in the same party.  Teachers unions stopping choice and people demanding school choice  - all together.  Moderates and radicals all coming together.  What could possibly go wrong?  Milwaukee 2020, here we come.

AOC does support a "rich Jew" for President, Bernie Sanders.  It's okay for far-Left to support a rich (non-observant?) Jew as long as they support the destruction of the Israeli state  (and the American economy).

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10339
    • View Profile
Latins for Bernie
« Reply #545 on: February 18, 2020, 06:43:16 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/national-latino-group-endorses-bernie-sanders-115712

Of course the all flood over here in the last 30 yrs
now want the rest of us to pay for their "free" benefits

who would have guessed?

wonder if the DEms have noticed?
wonder if the repubs and their business backers have noticed or care?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: Latins for Bernie
« Reply #546 on: February 18, 2020, 08:41:13 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/national-latino-group-endorses-bernie-sanders-115712

Of course the all flood over here in the last 30 yrs
now want the rest of us to pay for their "free" benefits

who would have guessed?

wonder if the DEms have noticed?
wonder if the repubs and their business backers have noticed or care?


https://outline.com/9qYsWE
 The Atlantic › February 17, 2020
Latino Support for Trump Is Real
Kristian Ramos
... When Democrats reach out to Latino voters, they are too focused on immigration, and say too little about other issues these voters prioritize. If they want to win over enough Latino votes to retake the White House, Democrats must continue to fight for the immigrant community, but they must also offer a positive, aspirational narrative that embraces Latinos as a vibrant part of America.
-----------------------------

I would rather win the voters than support of the radical group leaders.

One party offers you welfare and free stuff if you stay poor enough to qualify.  The other party just brought you the lowest unemployment rate in history and the best wage growth in a generation.

The author (a concerned Dem) estimates that Dems need to 70% of the Hispanic vote to win and they are not getting that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election, Nevada Dem Debate is tomorrow
« Reply #547 on: February 18, 2020, 09:26:05 AM »
Dem party division is rthe agenda for tomorrow.  The nice phase of this contest is over. 

Mini-Mike is the newcomer and he is not going to be popular with the other contestants, trying to buy his way in, and he can't talk with his announcer's voice in the debate.  Mike of stop and frisk fame.  'I'll "Xerox" you a copy of what a young black male looks like and you take away their rights.'  Explain THAT!  He's an old-time sexual harasser (allegedly), sick of female employees getting pregnant and taking time off work.  None of that will come up?

This looks like it will be a can't win battle for all participants.

How about Bernie, the frontrunner.  If you are Mike or Butti or Klob, you can't just let him run away with it, but as you attack him you are moving yourself away from his supporters that you need to win back if your attack is successful.  No win situation so you divide first and worry about the consequences later.  A number of these people are going to be irrelevant after 'super-Tuesday if they don't make a move. 

So you go with far-Left-lite, like the 'red-diaper baby'.  But if far-Left is the benchmark, then Bernie is best and lighter is weaker.

If you are Mike, your only strength is to be the real Mike Bloomberg, not the pretend one from his ads.  The real Mike would be a perfect candidate for the John Kasich, David French, Bill Krystal wing of the Democratic party - of which there is none.  Instead he will work to be what his ads say he is, extreme on abortion - same as all the rest, strongest on ending gun rights - same as everyone else, and "get it done" whatever that means.

FYI to Mike, money didn't win in 2016.

"YOU DIDN"T BUILD THAT!" is Elizabeth Warren's line and it applies to all of them except Bloomer, but he is the one they will aim it against.  Amy, Pete, Bernie, Biden, Liz, you haven't built anything, ever - and you want to run against a builder!  What Mike built (8th riches man in the world?) is all about Wall Street making more money and from their point of view is a disqualifier, not an accomplishment.

Romney couldn't defend capitalism or his role in it in a Republican primary.  How is Mike going to do it with a far Left audience?  He can't.  All he can try to do is apologize for what he achieved.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 10:15:48 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50340
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #548 on: February 18, 2020, 12:30:36 PM »
*Going to be very interesting how Bloomie/Napoleon does in the debate.

*His poll numbers continue to rise strongly.

*Do not underestimate the mercenary instincts of the Dem political class.

*Frankly I am underwhelmed when Reps focus on Dem hypocrisy on Stop & Frisk, Redlining, etc.  Trump is on the record for supporting stop & frisk, and government intervention in anti-redlining WAS an important variable in the housing bubble/collapse.

Regarding Stop & Frisk, Rudy was on FOX this morning and he made some interesting but too nuanced for public comprehension distinctions e.g. Under Rudy, the S&F were "Stop, Question, & Frisk" based upon citizen complaints-- which were overwhelmingly black and Latino generated-- and that per the requirements of the Terry stop, the stops were not random, and the searches required QUESTIONS which triggered answers that met the requirements for articulable basis for search.  Rudy asserted that Bloomie blew these distinctions off and that searches went up many fold.

IMHO the better attack over time will be things such Bloomie's pro-China policies.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12239
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #549 on: February 18, 2020, 12:52:44 PM »
Yes, my point on Stop and Frisk is that a) this will not unite his side, and b) the reckless way he talked about it should end his chances, offensive to all.   And what is this apology crap; is he proud of his record or running from it?

Good point about Rudy and the distinction.  My understanding was they enforced the little crimes, ticketing litterers, and that led to a drop in major crimes, even if cause and effect are not proven.  Looking for people who just look young, black and male to bother is offensive to all races.  White libertarians believe in a right to be left alone too, for all.  In my inner city neighborhoods some people just toss whole their fast food waste out the door or window into the street.  Going after some of that might lead LE to people who also do much worse.

Trump has many other things to talk about, school choice, wage growth, record unemployment, pro-life and a lot of  things that benefit everyone.