Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

2020 Election

Recommended Posts

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/14/biden-sanders-faceoff-looms-iowa-nevada-races-narrows-democratic-debate/4453553002/

Exclusive: Nevada poll shows Biden-Sanders showdown in a tightening Democratic race

USA TODAY

It's not just Iowa: An exclusive Suffolk University/USA TODAY Poll of Nevada finds another early-voting state where the Democratic presidential race is tightening, former Vice President Joe Biden is struggling to hold front-runner status and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is showing strength.

As Democratic contenders prepare to debate Tuesday in Des Moines – the final debate before the opening caucuses in Iowa – the field is shrinking and the race may be heading toward a showdown between a familiar centrist and a firebrand liberal who represent starkly different choices for the party. 

In Nevada, the third state on the calendar, the new survey shows Biden leading Sanders by a single percentage point, 19%-18%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is third at 11%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Don’t Take the Bait,

Progressive Leaders Warn, After Sanders-Warren Spat Overtakes the News Cycle -

 

........ Several progressive leaders and groups — some who’ve endorsed Warren, some who back Sanders, and some who’ve yet to endorse either candidate — strongly disagreed. In conversations with The Intercept, they called for a truce, insisting that a slugfest between Warren and Sanders, less than a month before the Iowa caucuses, only helps the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Leaders from MoveOn, the Working Families Party, Justice Democrats, Democracy for America, the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Sunrise Movement, and Indivisible all called on the two candidates to cease attacking each other and focus on the issues. ......

 

“These new hostilities have been needled and fostered by people who want to maintain control in this current system. It’s the age-old ruling-class strategy of divide and conquer,” said labor leader Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA.

“The only way the people win is through solidarity. So stop beating up on each other, figure out how to find common ground, and get back to talking about the issues that matter, like health care, the dignity of all work, and the existential threat of climate crisis.”

....... “Infighting between Sanders and Warren only benefits big oil, fossil fuel billionaires, the GOP, and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” ........

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/14/sanders-warren-feud/

 

 

This is amusing considering that the commentator represents people who make their living from the extremely high use of fossil fuels provided by big oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Sound advise.     But I do wonder why these same progressive are not providing similar advise to their followers when it comes to attacking the "age-old ruling-class" Dem nominees like Biden,  or moderates like Mayor Pete.

I.e. that last sentence could be re-worded as:  “Infighting between Dem progressives and moderates only benefits big oil, fossil fuel billionaires, the GOP, and Trump.” 

 

Because they represent the extremist left wing of the Dem Party and do not want a moderate to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Because they represent the extremist left wing of the Dem Party and do not want a moderate to win.

I don't agree with the use of "extremist" since that is an inflammatory talking-point used by the "other-side" to represent that these pols are out of touch with reality.

I define "extremist" as representing the views of < 10% or so within a group.      Thus Tea Party conservatives were not "extremist" anymore than these democratic socialist.

If Sanders wins the nomination,  Sanders is a mainstream Dem by default.       I.e. what were  "extreme" policy POVs would now be a POV a majority of Dem that voted in the primary support,  and thus mainstream by default.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't agree with the use of "extremist" since that is an inflammatory talking-point used by the "other-side" to represent that these pols are out of touch with reality.

I define "extremist" as representing the views of < 10% or so within a group.      Thus Tea Party conservatives were not "extremist" anymore than these democratic socialist.

If Sanders wins the nomination,  Sanders is a mainstream Dem by default.       I.e. what were  "extreme" policy POVs would now be a POV a majority of Dem that voted in the primary support,  and thus mainstream by default.

 

And that is why I think he and Warren, et. al. will lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/01/politifact-wrongly-lets-biden-off-the-hook-the-truth-about-social-security-cuts.html

PolitiFact Wrongly Lets Biden Off the Hook: The Truth About Social Security Cuts

Recently, a newsletter from the Bernie Sanders campaign laid out Joe Biden’s long record of supporting cuts to Social Security. The website PolitiFact weighed in on one part of that record, a speech Biden gave in 2018 in which he expressed enthusiasm for former House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plans to cut Social Security.

PolitiFact wrongly ranked the statement from the Sanders newsletter as “false” because they willfully refused to understand what Biden said in the speech—and how it represents decades of Washington establishment consensus on cutting the American people’s earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.

In the speech, Biden says, “we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare” and that Social Security “needs adjustments.” Biden did not elaborate on what these “adjustments” were, but a look at his long history on Social Security is telling.

In the 1980s, Biden sponsored a plan to freeze all federal spending, including Social Security. In the 1990s, Biden was a leading supporter of a balanced budget amendment, a policy that the Center for American Progress and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (two center-left think tanks who are hardly in the tank for Bernie Sanders) agree would be a catastrophe for Social Security.

More recently, Biden led “grand bargain” negotiations with Republicans during his time as vice president. This “grand bargain” would have given Republicans structural, permanent cuts to Social Security in return for tax increases on the wealthy that would be rolled back as soon as a Republican president got elected to office.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TheCid said:

And that is why I think he and Warren, et. al. will lose.

I assume you mean lose the General election and NOT the Dem primary because:  not enough moderate \ independent support for what is viewed as a too-far-left candidate.     

But as I have been saying a moderate Dem could also lose due to not enough progressive support for what is viewed as a too-much-like-a-repub candidate.

It all comes down to Dems putting their differences aside  and backing the Dem nominee,  PERIOD.   Easier said then done.   Also a moderate Dem is more likely to get independent support than a progressive Dem and thus the most electable Dem is still a moderate  (even though the party has moved-left).     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I assume you mean lose the General election and NOT the Dem primary because:  not enough moderate \ independent support for what is viewed as a too-far-left candidate.     

But as I have been saying a moderate Dem could also lose due to not enough progressive support for what is viewed as a too-much-like-a-repub candidate.

It all comes down to Dems putting their differences aside  and backing the Dem nominee,  PERIOD.   Easier said then done.   Also a moderate Dem is more likely to get independent support than a progressive Dem and thus the most electable Dem is still a moderate  (even though the party have moved-left).     

We've been discussing this for months, but it still comes down to getting the independents and moderate Republicans in swing states to vote for the Dem candidate.  WHILE getting as many Dems as possible to actually vote.

My opinion is that even if the progressive/liberal Dems do get out and support a liberal candidate, the Dems will lose the independents and moderate Republicans.  AND some of the moderate Dems. they need to win the Electoral College.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

We've been discussing this for months, but it still comes down to getting the independents and moderate Republicans in swing states to vote for the Dem candidate.  WHILE getting as many Dems as possible to actually vote.

My opinion is that even if the progressive/liberal Dems do get out and support a liberal candidate, the Dems will lose the independents and moderate Republicans.  AND some of the moderate Dems. they need to win the Electoral College.

I believe we view "this" in a very similar manner,  but others may view us as being too pessimistic.    Instead I believe we are just being realistic based on what we have seen before.     

The only other point I have is that Trump is such a different political animal that history may NOT repeat itself,  making it much more difficult to predict an outcome.   Thus a Warren or Sanders maybe able to win the EC over Trump (if  either faced a more "standard" repub,  that repub would likely win).

And yes all about the EC  because whoever Trump faces I"m predicting he will NOT get more popular votes.    60% or more of CA will vote for anyone-but-Trump and voter turnout will be massive.    That right there is 4 - 5 million "wasted" votes for the Dem.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's campaign manager made an interesting point.  He thinks the DNC made a huge mistake by not rearranging the dates of their primaries.  While the democrat candidates are spending an inordinate amount of time campaigning and messaging in the first states like Iowa, Donald Tump is concentrating his rallies on the swing states.  This is a move that the DNC may not recover from come 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Bloomberg's campaign manager made an interesting point.  He thinks the DNC made a huge mistake by not rearranging the dates of their primaries.  While the democrat candidates are spending an inordinate amount of time campaigning and messaging in the first states like Iowa, Donald Tump is concentrating his rallies on the swing states.  This is a move that the DNC may not recover from come 2020.

That is a very old battle in both parties as to who goes first in primaries and caucuses.  Every time the national party tries to move them, the state parties just move them again.  If the states move them, the "first" states just move theirs to an earlier date.  Ultimately NH, IA, SC and NV would be having them two years before the election.

It may be a valid point, but the national parties can't/won't fix it.

I have long believed that they need to have four or five "super" primaries.  One in each region on the same days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Bloomberg's campaign manager made an interesting point.  He thinks the DNC made a huge mistake by not rearranging the dates of their primaries.  While the democrat candidates are spending an inordinate amount of time campaigning and messaging in the first states like Iowa, Donald Tump is concentrating his rallies on the swing states.  This is a move that the DNC may not recover from come 2020.

The Dems did a lot of rearranging of the dates for their primaries.     E.g. CA was moved up to March from June.      I'm thankful for that since my vote will finally count (I re-registered as a Dem just so I could vote in the Dem Presidential primary).        Biden and Mayor Pete have all been in So Cal the last month or so.

OK,  the DNC should have moved Iowa and NH to that same day in March as well (assuming they have the power to do so).      Bloomberg's complaint is mostly just sour grapes because he couldn't make up his mind and joined the contest too late.      I.e. he knew when the Iowa caucus and NH primary were scheduled back in 2018!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The Dems did a lot of rearranging of the dates for their primaries.     E.g. CA was moved up to March from June.      I'm thankful for that since my vote will finally count (I re-registered as a Dem just so I could vote in the Dem Presidential primary).        Biden and Mayor Pete have all been in So Cal the last month or so.

OK,  the DNC should have moved Iowa and NH to that same day in March as well (assuming they have the power to do so).      Bloomberg's complaint is mostly just sour grapes because he couldn't make up his mind and joined the contest too late.      I.e. he knew when the Iowa caucus and NH primary were scheduled back in 2018!

 

I think you are missing the point.  It was to have the battleground states up front.  The dems flood the first primary states with their messaging.  Why shouldn't it be the battleground states which Trump is concentrating on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I think you are missing the point.  It was to have the battleground states up front.  The dems flood the first primary states with their messaging.  Why shouldn't it be the battleground states which Trump is concentrating on right now.

The DNC doesn't have the authority for when a state holds their primary.     Each state-Dem "branch" decides the date for their primary and there has always been a contest between the states that the DNC tries to avoid.       If some of those battleground states had moved their primary up,  Iowa and NH would have just moved theirs before than (something state officials already advised the DNC they would do in previous elections).      Getting all 50 states to agree on all the primary dates is like herding cats.   It has been tried many times and failed.     Cid suggestions are fine but sadly the DNC can't pull them,  or similar ideas,  off.

Anyhow,   I believe it is as good thing that the Dems candidates are not in those battleground states fighting it out this early in 2020.    This way all the attacks the Dems are making against each other may be largely forgotten in those states by the general election.     I.e.  it would be better for the battleground states to be at the end of the primary season when the Dem candidate is known.        

E.g. now that all the people-of-color candidates are out of the contest,   the remaining white ones don't have to face attacks from them about their stance on racial issue (like the attack Harris made on Biden).      This only helps ensure people-of-color will come out and vote in November for what is sure to be a white Dem nominee.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if four years of Trump are good for leftists, just imagine how great eight years of Dirtbag Donny will

be.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I think you are missing the point.  It was to have the battleground states up front.  The dems flood the first primary states with their messaging.  Why shouldn't it be the battleground states which Trump is concentrating on right now.

I think James made a good point re: why probably a good thing the battleground states are not in the forefront of the Dem primaries.

Regardless, the state Dem committees determine when to schedule primaries, not the DNC.  The DNC can negotiate with them as occurred several years ago in the South.  Don't remember the details but as I recall S.C. and FL kept moving their primaries up ahead of the others so they could be "First in the South." 

Every time a state has scheduled a primary ahead of NH, NH moves theirs up.  Same with Iowa caucuses.  They will be first if they have to schedule them three years before the elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

I think James made a good point re: why probably a good thing the battleground states are not in the forefront of the Dem primaries.

Regardless, the state Dem committees determine when to schedule primaries, not the DNC.  The DNC can negotiate with them as occurred several years ago in the South.  Don't remember the details but as I recall S.C. and FL kept moving their primaries up ahead of the others so they could be "First in the South." 

Every time a state has scheduled a primary ahead of NH, NH moves theirs up.  Same with Iowa caucuses.  They will be first if they have to schedule them three years before the elections.

Fair enough.  Tell it to Mike Bloomberg's campaign manager.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Fair enough.  Tell it to Mike Bloomberg's campaign manager.

Where you missed-it was you believed Bloomberg's campaign manager said what he said because he cared about ALL Dem candidates chances of beating Trump in the general election.    NOT.

He cared only about Bloomberg's chances in the Dem primary and the fact he leads a campaign for a candidate that came into the race way too late.      Hey,  that POV makes sense given his job title.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Fair enough.  Tell it to Mike Bloomberg's campaign manager.

How does this relate to my post?  I'm serious as I don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Mike Bloomberg, criticized by some for racial insensitivity as New York mayor, acknowledges that white privilege helped him succeed.

5QT2VQB22II6VOWK5N5M4CRUKU.jpg

Did he apologize for implementing stop-and-frisk as Mayor of NYC?       I really wonder if he feels that was a mistake or if he still supports it.

Also does anyone know his stance on reparations?     That is the slice of pie that many African-Americans are demanding.     (but now that Harris and Booker are out of the contest is being ignored by the remaining candidates).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Also does anyone know his stance on reparations?     That is the slice of pie that many African-Americans are demanding.     (but now that Harris and Booker are out of the contest is being ignored by the remaining candidates).

 

First we should have reparations for Native Americans, then for Mexicans for Southwest states and California.  Then for descendants of railroad, factory, mining, education, government, etc. workers before those industries were unionized.  In other words, reparations for descendants of people who were not wealthy white males.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...