Author Topic: 2020 Presidential election  (Read 21997 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #450 on: January 11, 2020, 09:31:39 PM »
Exactly so  :evil: :-D

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #451 on: January 12, 2020, 05:40:23 AM »
Funny but the votes he would need in a fight with a so called moderate come from the Sanders AOC wing. An alliance with any Republican would make that worse.  IMHO. Think of Pelosi as the center of the party and the delegates as more liberal than the primary voters. The fight at hand will be for the delegates, not the Presidency.

Different scenario but McCain talked about Lieberman but picked Palin. He needed to excite his own party.

The only person with star power inside the party outside of the candidates is M.O. If Biden was a strong candidate it would be her easiest and most non-political path to the Presidency.  But he isn't.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
gaff free as far as I know for past month
« Reply #452 on: January 12, 2020, 06:51:38 AM »
"Depends if Biden starts sh*tting himself on stage, which is quite possible."

his handlers have done . a good job keeping the gaff machine under wraps

he must be getting more naps
maybe started on aricept
and everything he does / says more controlled and scripted

plus  the media covers for him


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Sanders leads in Iowa?
« Reply #453 on: January 13, 2020, 06:18:32 AM »
[Actually, trump leads in Iowa.]

Both Iowa and NH show the top 4 Dems at a near tie, but in the details of it, Butti has dropped to 3rd rather than continue his climb.  People are starting to take seriously the fact that this process everyone thinks is so long is coming up soon at lightning speed.  Why pick untested over a real socialist?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

Butti leads in NH (statistical tie) now but that too may fizzle on a similar schedule as the real voting approaches.  The vote coming up in these states is real and binding, not a ...wouldn't it be nice if... kind of contest.

Good to see Klobuchar stuck in single digits.  Her MN name doesn't carry weight even as far as Iowa.  If Biden wins or looks strong, she looks (even more) irrelevant.  If Biden stumbles, the fight to replace Biden in the center left lane will heat up.

Who-drops-out-when becomes a factor.  If Rubio or Cruz had dropped early, the other would have competed better against Trump.  If Butti under-performs in both Iowa and NH, he may want to bank his big money and shoot for VP.  Warren probably isn't smart enough to drop out unless she runs out of money.  With her in, Sanders probably can't beat Biden.  In a narrower field, Bloomberg can make a bigger impact.  How long do Booker, Yang, Steyer, Gabbard hang in there?  (I guess it doesn't matter.)

I think the Republican hope is for the Dem field to remain crowded and divided.

Can you believe Marianne Williamson didn't catch on with the love agenda.  The general election with Trump won't be a love contest.
----------------
Update:  Booker out.  Everyone running only for VP needs to get out now. 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 09:08:27 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #454 on: January 13, 2020, 09:53:54 AM »
Well, Booker's "Hail Mary" appeal for the "affirmative action because Dem primary voters are racist vote" fell flat and so he is out.  What a putz!

As far as I can tell, Biden & Warren are the same voting block.  Seen in that light Biden is a distant second.

I've seen reports Steyer is picking up sharply in Super Tuesday states in response to his heavy spending.

I've made some noise about Bloomberg previously and continue to think he may well surprise strongly to the upside.  His ads are mainstream Dem with a strong dose of communicating his actual executive experience.

This point about executive experience could be an important factor.  I remember in the Rep debates in 2016 there was a moment when Chris Christie destroyed Marco Rubio for being a legislative debater instead lacking in experience in making real world decisions.

Bloomberg's ads speak of his building a 20,000 (or was it 50,000?) employee company and his experience as mayor of NYC.  He may have been a nanny fascist, but the way I remember it he was a competent mayor.  Bottom line?  Someone who has been responsible for real world decisions will resonate when contrasted with the polling group talking points legislator.  Add in that His ad communicates well emotionally on health care, abortion, and gun rights. 

If the Sandernista wing unites behind Bernie or Forked Tongue Lizzy, Slow Joe's sales pitch weakens considerably and the remnants of the reasonable wing of the Dem party may well turn to Bloomberg (and his self financed campaign).

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential: Biden is weak with Hispanics and young people
« Reply #455 on: January 14, 2020, 07:22:21 AM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-candidates-poll-age-gender-race-region-politics-2019#in-2016-exit-polls-showed-that-45-percent-of-clinton-voters-were-not-white-and-the-winner-of-the-democratic-primary-will-have-to-build-a-coalition-of-white-black-latino-and-asian-americans-3

This poll shows Biden extremely weak with Hispanics.  Biden is weak with young people.  Bernie is weak with old people.

Also, both Biden and Sanders are weak in the Mountain West region which includes swing states Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico.  Democrats cannot let an incumbent who won 304 electoral votes and governed way better than expected expand his map.

I suggested a mountain state, swing state, two term Governor for them, but Hickenlooper had to tell an Iowa crowd how he took his mother to see deep throat - and stayed for the whole show.  Eeeewwwww!

The shallow bench of Democrat qualified contestants with executive and Washington experience is Obama's and Pelosi's fault.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #456 on: January 14, 2020, 07:57:11 AM »
Well, Booker's "Hail Mary" appeal for the "affirmative action because Dem primary voters are racist vote" fell flat and so he is out.  What a putz!

As far as I can tell, Biden & Warren are the same voting block.  Seen in that light Biden is a distant second.

I've seen reports Steyer is picking up sharply in Super Tuesday states in response to his heavy spending.

I've made some noise about Bloomberg previously and continue to think he may well surprise strongly to the upside.  His ads are mainstream Dem with a strong dose of communicating his actual executive experience.

This point about executive experience could be an important factor.  I remember in the Rep debates in 2016 there was a moment when Chris Christie destroyed Marco Rubio for being a legislative debater instead lacking in experience in making real world decisions.

Bloomberg's ads speak of his building a 20,000 (or was it 50,000?) employee company and his experience as mayor of NYC.  He may have been a nanny fascist, but the way I remember it he was a competent mayor.  Bottom line?  Someone who has been responsible for real world decisions will resonate when contrasted with the polling group talking points legislator.  Add in that His ad communicates well emotionally on health care, abortion, and gun rights. 

If the Sandernista wing unites behind Bernie or Forked Tongue Lizzy, Slow Joe's sales pitch weakens considerably and the remnants of the reasonable wing of the Dem party may well turn to Bloomberg (and his self financed campaign).

I like your take on this better than mine.  I see Steyer as a loser, but if he can win delegates, that takes away from whomever is the leader.

Same for Bloomberg.  Yes he is a successful executive and mostly successful mayor.  That plays well with some centrists on the Dem side, not a majority.  I don't see him winning over more delegates in a convention than his actual vote count.

Interesting that the rest all lack executive experience.  The former VP, like the former first lady, never won an election or held ultimate responsibility for results.  Being mayor of Burlington or South Bend-over is executive experience at the beginner level.  At least Howard Dean was governor of one of those small states, still miles below the responsibility of being President.  Fully untested. 

In his prime, Bloomberg could manage and motivate people and make key decisions on market dominance and profit exploitation (detested by most of the left).  He won elections but NYC is not a cross section of the country and stop and frisk among other things will not bring out all of the key constituencies needed to win.

Good to see Sanders and Warren begin to fight.

One thing they underestimated with Trump (and Reagan) is the value of experience in show business.  Bloomberg and Steyer have ads with narrators.  With Steyer, a narrator makes the case for term limits, an issue outside the scope of the Presidency.  Their best consultants tell them the point is better made by the same  paid narrator that does all the political ads.  Biden, Sanders and Warren are all unpleasant to listen to.  Trump ads will be making his case in the first person - in front of roaring, enthusiastic crowds.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #457 on: January 14, 2020, 10:36:59 AM »
"One thing they underestimated with Trump (and Reagan) is the value of experience in show business."

Yes.  This includes the experience of dealing successfully with some of the most skillful and amoral liars on the planet-- an exceedingly valuable life experience; witness Reagan as head of the Screen Actors Guild.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Dem Debate Iowa
« Reply #458 on: January 15, 2020, 06:41:23 AM »
Maybe I am alone in not subscribing to cable but the debate was literally impossible to watch.  Presidential debates are now sold to the highest bidder.  Money trumps viewership?  Good luck with that.  The previous debate had the lowest ratings ever.  This one didn't even get a rating?
https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/latest-democratic-debate-had-lowest-viewership-yet/t

CNN's first two words on  it, "Caution ruled..."  Highlights are just as hard to come by, apparently there weren't any.   Warren is a woman.  She is electable (nationally) because she beat a republican (barely) in Massachusetts.  (What's wrong with this math?)  Bernie denied saying a woman can't win. (Warren is a liar.)  Hunter shouldn't face scrutiny because Biden's good son died.  (Beau wouldn't have done this.)   Warren refused to shake Bernie's hand at the end.  Butti addressed his lack of black support by asking black asking black voters to join him.  Brilliant.  All want the Iran deal back, paving the path to a nuclear Iran.  None were asked about sending another planeload of cash to do that or tie terrorism to it which the previous deal did not.  Nothing on China, peace through deterrence or GDP growth?  They were not asked to comment on lowest unemployment for EVER blacks and Hispanics or that the lower end wage earners made the biggest income gains in the Trump economy or the new China trade deal.  Nothing said about Iran launching missiles at American troops. The blacks and Hispanics on the stage... okay, just kidding, they don't even have a Cherokee anymore.   Even liberals like Van Jones saw nothing to show that any of them are ready to take on Trump much less be President.

CNN's Chris Cillizza has Biden and Bernie as the Losers of the debate:
"the former vice president is the worst (debater of the 6). On Tuesday night he consistently seemed to forget or misstate a point, forcing him to go back and restate it to make sure he got it right. It made for a halting performance, in which he came across as less forceful and sure of himself than others on the stage. Biden also spent a lot of time talking about mistakes he had made on past votes -- support for the war in Iraq being the most prominent -- which doesn't strike me as how his campaign wanted him to spend much debate time."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/who-won-the-debate/index.html
* Tom Steyer. "Simply put, the billionaire businessman looked badly out of his depth. He struggled badly to make the case that he was better equipped than his rivals to manage the country's foreign policy -- his answer amounted to the fact that he has traveled a lot internationally (and, no, I am not kidding) -- and things didn't get much better for him from there. For most of the debate, it felt like the Top 5 were involved in one conversation and Steyer was just, well, there."

Did anyone watch?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 06:43:36 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
My take on the 10 minutes I watched
« Reply #459 on: January 15, 2020, 07:01:54 AM »
 "Tom Steyer. "Simply put, the billionaire businessman looked badly out of his depth. He struggled badly to make the case that he was better equipped than his rivals to manage the country's foreign policy -- his answer amounted to the fact that he has traveled a lot internationally (and, no, I am not kidding) -- and things didn't get much better for him from there. "

Hi Doug.  I saw a shot part of it but got bored and changed back and forth the stations between Laura Ingraham and some cable show about the history of Alcatraz (that by being the most interesting)

As for foreign policy it doesn't even matter who they ask the prescriptions is always the same

Hillary like:

" I would reach out to our allies "  (lets go ask France what they would do)
"I would use diplomacy "  (you mean you would not nuke the m f ers off the face of the Earth)
" I would use sanctions and diplomacy "   
" I would never use troops unless there is no other option"
      (when is there no other option.  - even if Pearl Harbor was bombed we could send in the diplomats and apologize to Japan on CNN for the
    US transgressions due to white men)

 DOUG WROTE :

" Warren refused to shake Bernie's hand at the end. "

TO BE SURE THIS IS THE MOST INTERESTING PART OF THE DEBATE .  THE GOSSIP .
 
I guess Liz the honest injun was making a point to suggest She could not shake her "dear friends" hand because he lied about saying to her a woman could not win.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Debate continued
« Reply #460 on: January 15, 2020, 07:14:04 AM »
Proven electability?  Of the 6 on stage, four have won statewide elections only in solid blue states, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Delaware.  [If you add Bloomberg to the mix, NYC is a solid blue 'state'.]  Butti lost statewide in a state that elected Democratic Senators in 2008 and 2012.  The outsider Steyer has never run but proved he has nothing but money to offer.  Where are the swing state governors?  And who is the outsider with major crossover appeal? 

The debate established that besides Biden's idiocy, Warren and Sanders cannot do simple math.  Warren said no one else on stage has defeated an incumbent Republican in 30 years.  Sanders said I did.  Warren asked when?  Sanders said in 1990.  Then both paused to contemplate the troubling math of that (30 years ago, when the Milli Vanilli lip-synching scandal broke).  We need a video of that moment to appreciate the perplexity of these geniuses.  Were they using their fingers to count three decades?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: My take on the 10 minutes I watched
« Reply #461 on: January 15, 2020, 07:20:40 AM »
" I would reach out to our allies "  (lets go ask France what they would do)
"I would use diplomacy "  (you mean you would not nuke the m f ers off the face of the Earth)
" I would use sanctions and diplomacy "   
" I would never use troops unless there is no other option"
-----------------------------------------

Or the one we learned from the career diplomats in Ukraine:

'I would follow the "interagency consensus" '.

Because that's what a 'leader' does.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
Forgot to mention
« Reply #462 on: January 15, 2020, 07:34:01 AM »
Plugs looked like his gaffy self again

needs better earphones telling him what to say

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #463 on: January 15, 2020, 09:37:36 AM »
Plugs looked like his gaffy self again

needs better earphones telling him what to say

I think we have dodged the bullet of seeing another young exciting Barack Obama 2007-2008-like candidate with no background steal the show this year.  Butti isn't that, nor is Bloomberg.  Kamala couldn't do it, nor Cory, nor Jullian.  We'll know more after Iowa and NH but this looks like two old white guys, octogenarians, of limited ability and limited appeal, fighting for the nomination.  Make that three if we count Bloomberg.  Granted that Trump is an old white guy by most voters standards but he is younger than those 3 still standing. Warren is 3 years younger.

Assuming its not Warren or Butti, it's not going to be a black, an Hispanic, an Asian American, a woman or a gay.  There goes the identity thing.  Will they really have to compete on substance??
----------------------
Mentioned previously:  CNN’s Van Jones Buries 2020 Field After Debate: ‘Nothing I Saw Tonight Would Be Able to Take Donald Trump Out
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-van-jones-buries-2020-field-after-debate-nothing-i-saw-tonight-would-be-able-to-take-donald-trump-out/
----------------------
Last great hope was Michelle O.  It just isn't going to happen after others win all the delegates.  Mo-Joe?  Bernie-mania?  She would just piss all of them off.  And she isn't exactly honing her issue and policy skills by selling books about childhood and family.  She is competing to be greatest first lady of all time, not POTUS.
https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Michelle-Obama/dp/1524763136
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 10:44:33 AM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #465 on: January 15, 2020, 01:36:17 PM »
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-democratic-state-of-stasis-at-the-democratic-presidential-debate?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_011520&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&cndid=50142053&esrc=&mbid=&utm_term=TNY_Daily

FOX had a snippet of Bloomberg on The View commenting on the dueling soundbites debate of the Dems last night.  IMHO he struck an effective and deservedly condescending above the fray tone.

It may well turn out that the "debates" will stain ALL concerned with the stink of them, with Bloomberg sweeping in as the true adult in the room, unstained by any of the verbal farts of the debaters.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
Michael Bonaparte
« Reply #466 on: January 15, 2020, 04:21:40 PM »
"FOX had a snippet of Bloomberg on The View commenting on the dueling soundbites debate of the Dems last night.  IMHO he struck an effective and deservedly condescending above the fray tone.

It may well turn out that the "debates" will stain ALL concerned with the stink of them, with Bloomberg sweeping in as the true adult in the room, unstained by any of the verbal farts of the debaters."

That is his game plan - as always - he is the "wise man" who is above all the acrimony who "knows how to work with 'both' sides"

has zero personality

spent more than anyone in history so far
has avoided the fray so has no pushback yet.......

all the while playing the wise man who "knows how to fix problems (mostly a pro business globalist leftist lib)"

If anyone wants to complain his vision is good for HIS businesses we have not heard it yet.

I agree with you Crafty - he cannot be dismissed
He will play the Hillary dream of "riding in on his white horse to save the day" .

(for the LEFT - while screwing over everyone  on the Right)

We ask can a black win can a women win can a gay win

What about a little Jewish version of Napoleon?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election, Bloomberg, Biden, Trump
« Reply #467 on: January 17, 2020, 05:44:22 AM »
Interesting point here:

"Although Biden, on the surface, would have a good chance of beating Trump, recent presidential elections have shown that the candidate with the ability to generate more enthusiasm among their base fares better than a candidate chosen by default. Just think of the failed candidacies of John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton. In contrast, Trump enjoys a passionate following and the GOP is more unified around him than when he won the first time around."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/its-looking-more-like-trump-will-be-reelected-in-2020
-------------------------------------------
Same would apply to Bloomberg if he is chosen for his supposed competence and ability to defeat Trump.  Will the AOC-Sanders wing with all its ground support be motivated to get out the vote for the other billionaire - who defeated them with his ill-gotten (in their view) money?  The energy in the Dem party is built around ideology.  Bloomberg lacks that and has "zero personality".  If Bloomberg reaches out in policy positions to the far Left, he loses his natural support in the center.  A billion dollars or two won't change that dynamic.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 01:36:48 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #468 on: January 17, 2020, 06:39:27 AM »
enthusiasm FOR a candidate is no doubt a tail wind for any candidate

Trump has that for a fixed number of the electorate
it remains to be seen how much in the undecideds

But he also has unusually high numbers of people who are repulsed by him - more than normal without any doubt - this effect may tough to predict - but Bloomberg - or anyone will get the benefit of "anyone but Orange Man" crowd.

Probably the only candidate in my personal history of voting who I was really enthusiastic about was Ronald Reagan

Maybe Bush 1 too . I don't recall .

I guess one could say I am enthusiastic to vote again for Trump
   for his policies and fight spirit .   and distaste for liberals .........

« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 06:53:02 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election - Bloomberg, independent?
« Reply #469 on: January 17, 2020, 04:46:09 PM »
Steve Hayward suspects Bloomberg may intend to run as an independent, especially if a Lefty like Bernie is the nominee. Loser's bracket?   (One more path for Trump to win; Divided Democrats.)

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/a-new-theory-about-bloombergs-grand-strategy.phpy

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17425
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election - Bloomberg, independent?
« Reply #470 on: January 17, 2020, 05:00:36 PM »
Steve Hayward suspects Bloomberg may intend to run as an independent, especially if a Lefty like Bernie is the nominee. Loser's bracket?   (One more path for Trump to win; Divided Democrats.)

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/a-new-theory-about-bloombergs-grand-strategy.phpy

Nice. Divide the take your guns and soda voters from the re-education camp voters.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #471 on: January 17, 2020, 06:29:32 PM »
Interesting that Sanders is hiring Hispanic staff in Calif and Bloomberg is spending millions there, but a lot of these Democrat delegate states are not contested states in the general election. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17425
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #472 on: January 17, 2020, 08:24:46 PM »
Interesting that Sanders is hiring Hispanic staff in Calif and Bloomberg is spending millions there, but a lot of these Democrat delegate states are not contested states in the general election.

Unpossible! Everyone loves the Sh*t caked eutopias created by dem supermajorities!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #473 on: January 18, 2020, 02:04:06 PM »
The billion or so they spend in most of the primary states won't move the needle an inch in the general election because they are uncontested one way or the other. 

All the time they are spending in Iowa is wasted too.  Trump will win Iowa.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 04:19:17 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
health care
« Reply #474 on: January 20, 2020, 04:59:16 AM »
looks to be dominant issue that might turn election

to my knowledge the Republicans or Trump have no real answer
other then lower drug prices better economy ,........yada
« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 05:21:45 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #475 on: January 20, 2020, 05:23:35 AM »
Trump also has his fight to make prices known-- which the hospitals are challenging in court apparently.

But your larger point is correct-- our current health care system understandably scares the hell out of a lot of people and the perception is that the Reps have nothing for it.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Warren- Sanders
« Reply #478 on: January 20, 2020, 11:06:30 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: Warren- Sanders
« Reply #479 on: January 21, 2020, 08:17:16 AM »
https://imgflip.com/i/3mgrlp

Too bad he's not that fast on his feet.  She never would released the audio. 

Her accusation (pre-planned) is meant to make it look like she was telling the truth, but that isn't what she would have said if she was.  She would have said, "Yes you said that, that's exactly what you said", not 'you exposed me in front of everyone as a liar.'

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
2020 election - NYT endorsement, Dem's best (bad) choices for President
« Reply #480 on: January 22, 2020, 07:02:15 AM »
I post it here for the record so you don't have to enrich them with your click to see such drivel.  My test of leftists is to see if they can make their point without lying - usually in the first sentence.  In this case, their first point about Trump is that he is pushing "white nativism".  When did he say that, or did they just make it up?  Bragging abut lowest black and Hispanic unemployment ever is white nativism??Talk about bunk.

Amy has charisma?  Where??

They endorse because they have different approaches, different policies.  Is that an endorsement?  Or just Orange Man bad?
--------------------------------------------------------------

The Choice The Endorsement Bernie Sanders Tom Steyer Cory Booker Elizabeth Warren Andrew Yang Amy Klobuchar Pete Buttigieg Deval Patrick Joe Biden
Next
In a break with convention, the
editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate
Democratic candidates for president.
Amy Klobuchar
and
Elizabeth Warren
 
Opinion
The Democrats’ Best Choices for President
By The Editorial Board
Published Jan. 19, 2020

+
American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.
The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.

The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives. To some extent that’s true. But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.

Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up to the challenge of the moment.
Many Democratic voters are concerned first and foremost about who can beat Mr. Trump. But with a crowded field and with traditional polling in tatters, that calculation calls for a hefty dose of humility about anyone’s ability to foretell what voters want.
Choosing who should face off against Mr. Trump also means acknowledging that Americans are being confronted with three models for how to govern this country, not two. Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic.
The party’s large and raucous field has made having that clean debate more difficult. With all the focus on personal characteristics — age and race and experience — and a handful of the most contentious issues, voters haven’t benefited from a clarifying choice about the party’s message in the election and the approach to governing beyond it.
It was a privilege for us on the editorial board to spend more than a dozen hours talking to candidates, asking them any question that came to mind. Yet that exercise is impossible for most Americans, and we were left wanting for a more focused conversation for the public. Now is the time to narrow the race.
The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.
There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.
That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
At the dawn of 2020, some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic Party. That’s a testament to the effectiveness of the case that Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren have made about what ails the country. We worry about ideological rigidity and overreach, and we’d certainly push back on specific policy proposals, like nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border. But we are also struck by how much more effectively their messages have matched the moment.

Senator Sanders has spent nearly four decades advocating revolutionary change for a nation whose politics often move with glacial slowness. A career spent adjacent to the Democratic Party but not a part of it has allowed him to level trenchant criticism of a political party that often caters more to rich donors than to the middle class. Many of his ideas that were once labeled radical — like paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, universal health care and limits on military intervention — are now mainstream, and may attract voters who helped elect Mr. Trump in 2016.
Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.
Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.

‘All I Can Do Is Get Out and Tell You What I’ll Fight For’

This video excerpt has been edited by “The Weekly.”
Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of “our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country,” as she put it in a speech last month. In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country. The word “rigged” feels less bombastic than rooted in an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality.
She is also committed to reforming the fundamental structures of government and the economy — her first commitment is to anti-corruption legislation, which is not only urgently needed but also has the potential to find bipartisan support. She speaks fluently about foreign policy, including how to improve NATO relations, something that will be badly needed after Mr. Trump leaves office.
Her campaign’s plans, in general, demonstrate a serious approach to policymaking that some of the other candidates lack. Ms. Warren accurately describes a lack of housing construction as the primary driver of the nation’s housing crisis, and she has proposed both increases in government funding for housing construction, and changes in regulatory policy to encourage local governments to allow more construction.
She has plans to sharply increase federal investment in clean energy research and to wean the American economy from fossil fuels. She has described how she would reduce the economic and political power of large corporations and give workers more ability to bargain collectively. And she has proposed a sweeping expansion of government support for Americans at every stage of life, from universal child care to free public college to expanded Social Security.
At the same time, a conservative federal judiciary will be almost as significant a roadblock for progressive change. For Ms. Warren, that leaves open questions — ones she was unwilling to wrestle with in our interview. Ms. Warren has proposed to pay for an expanded social safety net by imposing a new tax on wealth. But even if she could push such a bill through the Senate, the idea is constitutionally suspect and would inevitably be bogged down for years in the courts. A conservative judiciary also could constrain a President Warren’s regulatory powers, and roll back access to health care.
Carrying out a progressive agenda through new laws will also be very hard for any Democratic president. In that light, voters could consider what a Democratic president might accomplish without new legislation and, in particular, they could focus on the presidency’s wide-ranging powers to shape American society through the creation and enforcement of regulations.
As an adviser to President Barack Obama, Ms. Warren was the person most responsible for the creation of a new regulatory agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In her interview with the editorial board, she demonstrated her sophisticated understanding of the different levers of power in an administration, particularly in the use of regulation in areas such as trade, antitrust and environmental policy.
When she first arrived in Washington, amid the Great Recession, Senator Warren distinguished herself as a citizen-politician. She showed an admirable desire to shake off the entrapments of many Washington interests in favor of pragmatic problem-solving on behalf of regular people. In her primary campaign, however, she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.
This has been most obvious in her case for “Medicare for all,” where she has already had to soften her message, as voters have expressed their lack of support for her plan. There are good, sound reasons for a public health care option — countries all over the world have demonstrated that. But Ms. Warren’s version would require winning over a skeptical public, legislative trench warfare to pass bills in Congress, the dismantling of a private health care system. That system, through existing public-private programs like Medicare Advantage, has shown it is not nearly as flawed as she insists, and it is even lauded by health economists who now advocate a single-payer system.
American capitalism is responsible for its share of sins. But Ms. Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country needs a more unifying path. The senator talks more about bringing together Democrats, Republicans and independents behind her proposals, often leaning on anecdotes about her conservative brothers to do so. Ms. Warren has the power and conviction and credibility to make the case — especially given her past as a Republican — but she needs to draw on practicality and patience as much as her down-and-dirty critique of the system.
Ms. Warren’s path to the nomination is challenging, but not hard to envision. The four front-runners are bunched together both in national polls and surveys in states holding the first votes, so small shifts in voter sentiment can have an outsize influence this early in the campaign. There are plenty of progressives who are hungry for major change but may harbor lingering concerns about a messenger as divisive as Mr. Sanders. At the same time, some moderate Democratic primary voters see Ms. Warren as someone who speaks to their concerns about inequality and corruption. Her earlier leaps in the polls suggest she can attract more of both.
The lack of a single, powerful moderate voice in this Democratic race is the strongest evidence of a divided party. Never mind the talented, honorable politicians who chose to sit this fight out; just stop and consider the talents who did throw their hat into the ring and never got more than a passing glance from voters — Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet, Deval Patrick, Jay Inslee, among others.
Those candidates who remain all have a mix of strengths and weaknesses.
Pete Buttigieg, who is 38 and who was elected mayor of South Bend, Ind., in 2011, has an all-star résumé — Harvard graduate, Rhodes scholar, Navy veteran who served in Afghanistan, the first serious openly gay presidential candidate. His showing in the lead-up to the primaries predicts a bright political future; we look forward to him working his way up.
Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, is an engaging and enthusiastic candidate whose diagnoses are often thought-provoking. He points to new solutions to 21st-century challenges rather than retrofitting old ideas. Yet he has virtually no experience in government. We hope he decides to get involved in New York politics.
Michael Bloomberg served three terms as New York’s mayor (and was endorsed twice by this page). A multibillionaire who built his namesake company from scratch, he is many of the things Mr. Trump pretends to be and would be an effective contrast to the president in a campaign. Mr. Bloomberg is the candidate in the race with the clearest track record of governing, even if that record has its blemishes, beginning with his belated and convenient apology for stop-and-frisk policing.

Still, Mr. Bloomberg’s current campaign approach reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it. Rather than build support through his ideas and experience, Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $217 million to date to circumvent the hard, uncomfortable work of actual campaigning. He’s also avoided difficult questions — going so far as to bar his own news organization from investigating him, and declining to meet with The Times’s editorial board under the pretext that he didn’t yet have positions on enough issues. What’s worse, Mr. Bloomberg refuses to allow several women with whom he has nondisclosure settlements to speak freely.
Few men have given more of their time and experience to the conduct of the public’s business than Joe Biden. The former vice president commands the greatest fluency on foreign policy and is a figure of great warmth and empathy. He’s prone to verbal stumbles, yes, but social media has also made every gaffe a crisis when it clearly is not.
Mr. Biden maintains a lead in national polls, but that may be a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention. His central pitch to voters is that he can beat Donald Trump. His agenda tinkers at the edges of issues like health care and climate, and he emphasizes returning the country to where things were before the Trump era. But merely restoring the status quo will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.
Good news, then, that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.
The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.

‘I Am Someone That Has a Record of Bringing People With Me’

This video excerpt has been edited by “The Weekly.”
She promises to put the country on the path — through huge investments in green infrastructure and legislation to lower emissions — to achieve 100 percent net-zero emissions no later than 2050. She pledges to cut childhood poverty in half in a decade by expanding the earned-income and child care tax credits. She also wants to expand food stamps and overhaul housing policy and has developed the field’s most detailed plan for treating addiction and mental illness. And this is all in addition to pushing for a robust public option in health care, free community college and a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour.
Ms. Klobuchar speaks about issues like climate change, the narrowing middle class, gun safety and trade with an empathy that connects to voters’ lived experiences, especially in the middle of the country. The senator talks, often with self-deprecating humor, about growing up the daughter of two union workers, her Uncle Dick’s deer stand, her father’s struggles with alcoholism and her Christian faith.
Ms. Klobuchar promises a foreign policy based on leading by example, instead of by threat-via-tweet. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she serves on the subcommittees responsible for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the nation’s borders and its immigration, citizenship and refugee laws. In 13 years as a senator, she has sponsored and voted on dozens of national defense measures, including military action in Libya and Syria. Her record shows that she is confident and thoughtful, and she reacts to data — what you’d want in a crisis.
All have helped Ms. Klobuchar to be the most productive senator among the Democratic field in terms of bills passed with bipartisan support, according to a recent study for the Center for Effective Lawmaking. When she arrived in the Senate in 2007, Ms. Klobuchar was part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers that proposed comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for 12 million undocumented immigrants, before conservative pundits made it political poison. Her more recent legislative accomplishments are narrower but meaningful to those affected, especially the legislation aimed at helping crime victims. This is not surprising given her background as the chief prosecutor in Minnesota’s most populous county. For example, one measure she wrote helped provide funds to reduce a nationwide backlog of rape kits for investigating sexual assaults.
Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people. Surrounding the president with a team of seasoned, reasoned leaders is critical to the success of an administration, not doing so is often the downfall of presidencies. Ms. Klobuchar has acknowledged she’s a tough boss and pledged to do better. (To be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump — not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability.)
Ms. Klobuchar doesn’t have the polished veneer and smooth delivery that comes from a lifetime spent in the national spotlight, and she has struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail. In Minnesota, however, she is enormously popular. She has won all three of her Senate elections by double digits. In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried nine of Minnesota’s 87 counties. Ms. Klobuchar carried 51 in 2018. And it’s far too early to count Ms. Klobuchar out — Senator John Kerry, the eventual Democratic nominee in 2004, was also polling in the single digits at this point in the race.
There has been a wildfire burning in Australia larger than Switzerland. The Middle East is more unstable at this moment than at any other time in the past decade, with a nuclear arms race looking more when than if. Basket-case governments in several nations south of the Rio Grande have sent a historic flood of migrants to our southern border. Global technology companies exert more political influence than some national governments. White nationalists from Norway to New Zealand to El Paso use the internet to share ideas about racial superiority and which caliber of rifle works best for the next mass killing.
The next president will shape the direction of America’s prosperity and the future of the planet, perhaps irrevocably. The current president, meanwhile, is a threat to democracy. He was impeached for strong-arming Ukraine into tampering with the 2020 election. There is no reason patriotic Americans should not be open to every chance to replace him at the ballot box.
Yet, Mr. Trump maintains near-universal approval from his party and will nearly certainly coast to the nomination. Democrats would be smart to recognize that Mr. Trump’s vision for America’s future is shared by many millions of Americans.
Any hope of restoring unity in the country will require modesty, a willingness to compromise and the support of the many demographics that make up the Democratic coalition — young and old, in red states and blue, black and brown and white. For Senator Klobuchar, that’s acknowledging the depth of the nation’s dysfunction. For Senator Warren, it’s understanding that the country is more diverse than her base.
There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.
Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.
May the best woman win.
Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the most votes Mayor Pete Buttigieg previously won. It is roughly 630,000 votes in his loss in the 2010 race to be Indiana state treasurer. He won roughly 11,000 votes to become mayor of South Bend, Ind.





DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election: Gloomy, getting gloomier for Dems
« Reply #481 on: January 25, 2020, 01:02:53 PM »
A few people like Steve Hayward seem to mirror a side of my brain.  His rambling here matches my thinking and saves me the from trying to put it to words.  Dems are screwed if they do and screwed if they don't - choose Bernie - or Biden - or whomever.  [Meanwhile Republicans are united for the moment.]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/the-state-of-things-for-dems-gloomy-getting-gloomier.php
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 05:17:12 PM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: Dems getting even gloomier; Yang?!?
« Reply #483 on: January 25, 2020, 06:03:33 PM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/the-state-of-things-for-dems-gloomy-getting-gloomier.php

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/24/yangsurge-trends-as-andrew-yang-jumps-to-fourth-in-national-poll/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=best_of_the_week&utm_campaign=20200125

8% of Democrats only is still next to nothing but I'm glad he is the one gaining ground. As my old boss said about my division doubling its sales, two times sh* is still sh*t.

Funny that the two the NYT picked dropped coincidental to that news. 

Some good aspects to Yang's rise: He would be a better President than Butti, Klob. or Warren.  He will probably cap out below Biden and Bernie but split the delegate field if he rises enough.  If he won the nomination he would make for a better campaign and general election for the nation than the others mentioned.

From the Trump or Republican view, that looks like a Biden Bernie tie, both miserable candidates in different ways.
--------------------------
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/25/andrew-yang-2020-candidate-calls-out-dnc-for-exclu/
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 07:00:59 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #484 on: January 25, 2020, 10:19:05 PM »
My present assessment is this:

More bad news in the Biden & Son Grifters and Grafters pipeline coming soon.  The Sandernistas will get ornery in response to the treatment of their guy by the Dem establishment and their running dogs in the Pravdas.  Forked Tongue Lizzy will bleed votes to him.  Wife Pete has peaked.  Tulsi, Yang et al are there for color in the reportage.

The first four primaries may well not yield a nominee apparent.

The one to watch for is Bloomberg.  IMHO his ads are effective and he may well surprise upside on Super Tuesday.

Considerable chance of no one winning on the first round at the Convention, at which point the super delegates come in.

Hillary will try making a move.

My present prediction is the final three will be Bernie, Bloomie, and the Dowager Empress with the DE getting laughed out of the building and the Super Delegates going for Bloomie.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
2020 Presidential election, Bloomberg doubles down on past Dem failed policies
« Reply #487 on: January 29, 2020, 07:57:24 AM »
Shall we give him his own thread if he hits 10% of Dem support?

I think his importance to the electorate is overestimated outside of the NYC awareness sphere.  I see his ads bragging he is 100% pro-choice.  They all are so it strikes me as being a little bit defensive. 

Latest from Calif, where money should make the most difference:

Sanders 26, Warren 20, Biden 15, Buttigieg 7, Bloomberg 6, Klobuchar 5, Yang 4, Steyer 2
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/bernie-sanders-grabs-lead-in-california-presidential-primary
----------------------------------------------------------------
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/22/bloombergs-plan-for-black-americans-doubles-down-on-the-lefts-failures/
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 02:47:03 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election
« Reply #488 on: January 29, 2020, 01:42:25 PM »
"Shall we give him his own thread if he hits 10% of Dem support?"

Sounds good.  I thought I saw a poll to that effect recently , , ,


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile
bern a mensch
« Reply #490 on: January 29, 2020, 03:29:06 PM »
best laugh all week

Bernie is suddenly a mensch:

https://apnews.com/38d217df36e903a671089dfb4e669218

He is a prototypical Commie Jew
dedicated to to the Communist Party (Democrat Party) and born a Jew .
(though has never to my knowledge ever identified with being Jewish as an adult in or politics)

Don't worry Bern 80 % of us Jews will (not me ) vote for you if you are the Com/Dem Party candidate.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
Sanders promo clip
« Reply #491 on: January 31, 2020, 07:11:00 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile
DNC super delegates
« Reply #493 on: February 01, 2020, 12:24:43 AM »
« Last Edit: February 01, 2020, 12:52:21 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10132
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12028
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 Presidential election: Game on!
« Reply #497 on: February 03, 2020, 10:07:44 AM »
Iowa tonight.  State of the union Tuesday.  Acquittal Wed.  NH next week.  Super Tues one month away.

Polls say Bernie wins Iowa and NH.  Biden second, then wins SC, NV?  Then mixed results Super Tues.

Who falls, drops out?  Who survives, gains momentum?  Klob, Butti, Fauchahantas, will they all under-perform or will someone bump up?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/01/questions-2020-iowa-caucuses-will-answer/4615168002/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/03/four_scenarios_for_tonights_caucuses_142298.html

It is not just who will prevail but will they re-unite a badly divided party?  Four years ago Hillary Clinton tried to unite and win by adopting Bernie's agenda in the general election, fearing an uprising or desertion of the Left.  This year we will either have the Left on the ticket in Bernie, or we will have someone who defeated the radical side of the Left.  Then perhaps we will see the uprising or desertion that the so-called moderates feared.

I've asked my liberal friends, which Dem?  I've only heard unenthusiastic "Biden" mutterances in response - except for one who works for Amy.  Nobody new has caught on.

Who do YOUR liberal friends and relatives like?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2020, 10:49:50 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49644
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17425
    • View Profile