US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[Freshwater Spartan]

Yeah I remember the last couple of cycles and the media always gets pretty geeked about this poll. What a weird caucus. So many candidates but few in town because of impeachment. You gotta think that if Biden wins tomorrow the primary is all but determined. Sanders wins and it can be a long spring. How much longer can the others stay in before the pressure mounts to get out. Honestly don't know what is going to happen. I am praying for a Pete upset and/or a Sanders nonvictory. Dumbest vote I ever made was for Sanders in 2016.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

8 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Yeah I remember the last couple of cycles and the media always gets pretty geeked about this poll. What a weird caucus. So many candidates but few in town because of impeachment. You gotta think that if Biden wins tomorrow the primary is all but determined. Sanders wins and it can be a long spring. How much longer can the others stay in before the pressure mounts to get out. Honestly don't know what is going to happen. I am praying for a Pete upset and/or a Sanders nonvictory. Dumbest vote I ever made was for Sanders in 2016.

 

That's how I feel about my Clinton vote. High five.

[Freshwater Spartan]

Trump supported then?

 

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Are you sure your neighbor to the left didn't just move to the house on your right to fuck with you?

I don’t think he did, because the face is different.

Unless he is super committed to the bit and got his face redone. 

[GrimTuesday]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

So did anyone see the Des Moines Register (and CNN) scrapped their highly anticipated final poll before Monday because of a survey error?  Sounds like one surveyor accidentally cut off the randomized list of candidates to at least one respondent.  And it looks like Buttigieg's camp was the squeaky wheel:

I appreciate the abundance of caution, but gotta think there's a lot of disappointed reporters on the Iowa beat this morning that were counting on it for something to file today.

If Pete was did well in that poll they wouldn't care if he was left off one pollster's questions, I think his numbers were not good on that poll. That said, if it was a broader more widespread issue, fair enough.

One to watch out for with Iowa is that even if Bernie wins the popular vote, Iowa uses a electoral collage type system where delegates are awarded by county, which Biden very well could win due to his more consistent support across the state rather than in the population centers. I think it is high time we stop giving smaller numbers of people outsized influence.

Also can't help but laugh at Tom Watson already calling Iowa results invalid

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

33 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Trump supported then?

 

What? Are you a Trump supporter? I don't follow.

[Freshwater Spartan]

No question caucuses are less democratic. It probably goes a little too far to suggest that they 're invalid. The just measure enthusiasm and organizational prowess better than raw support.  As much as I love Pete you are probably right. His camp must have heard that his support was down.

[DMC]

@A True Kaniggit

Quote

Unless he is super committed to the bit and got his face redone. 

Hey, if it confuses some stupid liberal with the temerity to still live in Louisiana, it's totally worth it.

26 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

If Pete was did well in that poll they wouldn't care if he was left off one pollster's questions, I think his numbers were not good on that poll.

It's very unlikely the Buttigieg camp ever was aware of the results of the poll.  Unless the DMR gave every campaign a heads-up before public release, and that would be against standard practice.  Hell, it's not even clear Selzer & co./DMR/CNN had finalized the results before deciding to scrap it.

[Freshwater Spartan]

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

What? Are you a Trump supporter? I don't follow.

Apologize. I pushed respond too quickly without thinking. I felt my vote for Sanders in 2016  was a mistake because I just assumed Hillary would win the Michigan primary. I liked Bernie and I thought I would reward him for his support for national health care. When the returns came in that night and Bernie had won I was shocked. If you recall Bernie stayed in the race longer and was justified in doing so because of that win. This weakened Clinton and I helped make that happen. Clinton then lost Michigan in the general for many reasons but Sander's primary victory and subsequent behavior helped make it happen. Again my vote helped make that happen.

I don't know how one could feel that a vote for Clinton was the worst vote that they could have made. She was the stronger candidate of the two and eminently qualified to be President but I am sure you had your reasons. I'll think more before I hit reply next time.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

So did anyone see the Des Moines Register (and CNN) scrapped their highly anticipated final poll before Monday because of a survey error?  Sounds like one surveyor accidentally cut off the randomized list of candidates to at least one respondent.  And it looks like Buttigieg's camp was the squeaky wheel:

I appreciate the abundance of caution, but gotta think there's a lot of disappointed reporters on the Iowa beat this morning that were counting on it for something to file today.

I did.  Sounds like the responsible decision was made.  How ... unexpected.

[DMC]

One thing to keep an eye on tomorrow in Iowa is for the first time ever, the state party will release the results of the first vote - which will not reflect the final delegate tally - at all - in a caucus system but does reveal the more "democratic" winner for those that are opposed to the caucuses.  And rivals are already concerned that the Sanders camp is going to confuse the outcome by claiming victory solely based on the results from the first vote:

Quote

In previous caucus years, the Iowa Democratic Party has only provided the delegate counts. But this year, the party plans to release results of the first preference vote, a second realignment vote and the final delegate count, all at the same time.

The Sanders campaign has not said if it will publicize the first round totals before the state party releases its official results, only that it believes the first round vote totals are an accurate indicator of who won the caucuses.

 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

30 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Apologize. I pushed respond too quickly without thinking. I felt my vote for Sanders in 2016  was a mistake because I just assumed Hillary would win the Michigan primary. I liked Bernie and I thought I would reward him for his support for national health care. When the returns came in that night and Bernie had won I was shocked. If you recall Bernie stayed in the race longer and was justified in doing so because of that win. This weakened Clinton and I helped make that happen. Clinton then lost Michigan in the general for many reasons but Sander's primary victory and subsequent behavior helped make it happen. Again my vote helped make that happen.

I don't know how one could feel that a vote for Clinton was the worst vote that they could have made. She was the stronger candidate of the two and eminently qualified to be President but I am sure you had your reasons. I'll think more before I hit reply next time.

I really think saying that weakened Clinton isn't fair, and I don't think it's logical to make this argument. Hillary held on right until the end when Obama won the primary (and then the presidency), and she worked less for him than Sanders did for her, yet Obama won. Bernie staying in the race is no different than anyone else, and it did a lot of good for people getting disenfranchised with the party in general (people like me): We felt there might be a chance for reforms that would actually help us. For example, I have more college education than my parents did, yet I will never make close to the amount they made, I will likely never own a home, etc. Dems and Republicans both love to say things like the economy is great, things are good, but people in the middle and working class, and the lower SES especially, never feel any relief. Sanders pushed the party back to the left where it should be. 

Clinton was a bad vote for me because I allowed even minded friends to convince me she was the right choice, the pragmatic choice. If it came down to her and Trump again, I'd vote for her again, but I'm tired of all the excuses she gets. She lost. She didn't run a good campaign. If Bernie's winning hurt her, then she didn't do enough to get over it like previous candidates. She looked at him and his policies and put her nose up, and didn't do anything to channel some of that energy of his supporters. Instead, she labeled them as misogynist, angry men. 

I mean, think about her campaign mottos, specifically, "I'm with her." This is a perfect example of how she didn't understand how she came across to people while the racist, bigoted Trump (who is a con man and great at grifting people) looked at that motto and said something like, "Clinton wants you to say, 'I'm with her!' That's bullshit. For me, it's 'I'm with you!'" That example showed how Clinton presented herself as an elite, and that rubbed people the wrong way. I'm tired of the pragmatic choices who always lose (Gore, Kerry). I want a president who gets people excited for positive change. Sanders, with three years life expectancy left, somehow does that. Klobuchar and Biden? Yikes. Pete maybe. Warren maybe. But they're becoming more and more irrelevant every day.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

28 minutes ago, Triskele said:

O'Malley dosn't want it to be Bernie, but he brings up something interesting in this column.  Does Bloomberg become more viable if Sanders is otherwise winning the nom?  

 

 

 

I saw this. At first, I thought, "Who?" Then I kind of remembered him from 2015(ish). I don't know why he felt the need to weigh in. When I saw he had initially thrown his support to Beto, and I saw the descriptions of O'Malley as this cool dad who plays the guitar and stuff, I thought, hey! Beto ripped him off!

As for Bloomberg--if he wins, that signifies to me that any grassroots movement is useless in this country. Big money will always win. And Bloomberg is terrible. Stop and frisk in New York was awful and set a terrible precedent around the country for people of color being harassed by law enforcement. If we want to elevate issues of race and misogyny (we should), then Bloomberg would be a huge signal that we're not serious about that.

[Darryk]

1 hour ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Apologize. I pushed respond too quickly without thinking. I felt my vote for Sanders in 2016  was a mistake because I just assumed Hillary would win the Michigan primary. I liked Bernie and I thought I would reward him for his support for national health care. When the returns came in that night and Bernie had won I was shocked. If you recall Bernie stayed in the race longer and was justified in doing so because of that win. This weakened Clinton and I helped make that happen. Clinton then lost Michigan in the general for many reasons but Sander's primary victory and subsequent behavior helped make it happen. Again my vote helped make that happen.

I don't know how one could feel that a vote for Clinton was the worst vote that they could have made. She was the stronger candidate of the two and eminently qualified to be President but I am sure you had your reasons. I'll think more before I hit reply next time.

Hillary's support for trade deals that had destroyed communities in the Rust Belt played a much larger role in her losing those states than anything Bernie did. The fact that she skipped Wisconsin on the campaign trail obviously didn't help.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I saw this. At first, I thought, "Who?" Then I kind of remembered him from 2015(ish). I don't know why he felt the need to weigh in. When I saw he had initially thrown his support to Beto, and I saw the descriptions of O'Malley as this cool dad who plays the guitar and stuff, I thought, hey! Beto ripped him off!

As for Bloomberg--if he wins, that signifies to me that any grassroots movement is useless in this country. Big money will always win. And Bloomberg is terrible. Stop and frisk in New York was awful and set a terrible precedent around the country for people of color being harassed by law enforcement. If we want to elevate issues of race and misogyny (we should), then Bloomberg would be a huge signal that we're not serious about that.

The worst part is that Bloomberg is a Republican.

[Ran]

33 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The worst part is that Bloomberg is a Republican.

Nope.

He was a Republican party member for a handful of years, compared to some 40 years as Democrat before that and a decade as an independent after. He's socially liberal in a number of areas -- pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-welfare, pro-environment -- but fiscally conservative (especially pro-business, naturally). This works fine in New York City, because the Republican party there is by circumstances more moderate than the national party, but he'd not really  be comfortable in the RNC. If he were a senator, he wouldn't even be the most conservative of the Democrats, but probably somewhere in the middle.

See this for an example of where he stood in 2007 as a left-leaning moderate and how it jibes  with his position in 2016 (somewhat more to the left and slightly less libertarian).

Personally, I hope his campaign doesn't go anywhere for him personally (don't like the idea of his self-funding so massively -- it's one thing to be wealthy, quite another to buy all the exposure you need to be a competitive candidate), but he keeps driving money into ads to slam the present administration.

[The Anti-Targ]

53 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The worst part is that Bloomberg is a Republican.

My understanding is he became a Republican to be able to run for NYC mayor, because he had no chance of becoming the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Ran said:

Nope.

He was a Republican party member for a handful of years, compared to some 40 years as Democrat before that and a decade as an independent after. He's socially liberal in a number of areas -- pro-abortion, pro-gun control pro-environment -- but fiscally conservative (especially pro-business, naturally]. This works fine in New York City, because the Republican party there is by circumstances more moderate than the national party, but he'd not really  be comfortable in the RNC. If he were a senator, he wouldn't even be the most conservative of the Democrats, but probably somewhere in the middle.

See this for an example of where he stood in 2007 as a left-leaning moderate and how it jibes  with his position in 2016 (somewhat more to the left and slightly less libertarian).

Yeah well he also aggressively defended Stop and Frisk and set up a massive illegal surveillance network specifically targeting Muslims not just in New York but also in neighboring states, so fuck that guy.

[Freshwater Spartan]

53 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Hillary's support for trade deals that had destroyed communities in the Rust Belt played a much larger role in her losing those states than anything Bernie did. The fact that she skipped Wisconsin on the campaign trail obviously didn't help.

As I said, there were many(dozens?) of reasons why Clinton lost in Michigan but 2 or 3 of them had to do with Sanders and his supporters. As a Sanders voted I share partial responsibility for Clinton's loss.  

Of course none of this changes the fact that Clinton was the stronger of the two candidates in 2016. Trump outsmarted everyone to win. As for 2020 I am bullish on just about every Dem except for Sanders. Circle your calendars everyone. This week might be historic. Trump acquitted by the Senate the same week Sanders wins Iowa ushering in a Trump reelection.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Freshwater Spartan said:

As I said, there were many(dozens?) of reasons why Clinton lost in Michigan but 2 or 3 of them had to do with Sanders and his supporters. As a Sanders voted I share partial responsibility for Clinton's loss.  

Of course none of this changes the fact that Clinton was the stronger of the two candidates in 2016. Trump outsmarted everyone to win. As for 2020 I am bullish on just about every Dem except for Sanders. Circle your calendars everyone. This week might be historic. Trump acquitted by the Senate the same week Sanders wins Iowa ushering in a Trump reelection.

That is bullshit, Sanders worked his butt off to get Clinton elected, that narrative is garbage. Bernie did 36 rallies in 13 different states in the last three months of the election. I'm gonna trot out this statistic that has been said a thousand time but apparently needs to be said again, 13% of 2016 Bernie supporters voted for Trump vs 24% of 2008 Clinton supporters voted for McCain. Sure, a higher percentage may have voted third party or may have just not voted, but those are valid votes whether Clinton wants to admit it or not. Clinton was never entitled to our votes, the Democratic party ran the primary like a coronation and Clinton got offended we didn't all bow down.

I voted for Clinton in 2016, but that was me holding my nose and voting maybe it's time the conservative wing of the party is the one that gets in line and we will see what the left wing can do.