US Politics - Primary Numbers

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I’m excited as fuck for Warren. I’m also preparing for this country to break my heart on that count and overlook the person who, as far as I’m concerned, is the best candidate by a mile.

Rephrasing, excited for a viable candidate. Warren appears to be done.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No lie, I am super excited to support anyone very, very heavily after the primary. None of the candidates have earned my absolute undivided love, but all of the frontrunners I'd happily go and work for. Yes, that includes Bloomberg too. I can find good things about each and every one of them.

I have my preferences - probably Warren and Buttigieg out of the ones remaining - but I'm entirely going to go all in no matter what. 

That's a different conversation though. I too will be happy to canvass and phone bank and do whatever else is required for the nominee, but none of the remaining candidates excite me that much and I used to work for one of them. 

Why god why did you kill Harris' chances?!?!?

Quote

And honestly based on the math I had I'm really tempted to just start going whole hog on Sanders, simply to get the primary done faster and unite dems earlier, and so far he's the only one who appears to have any chance of that. 

Who are you and what have you done with The Bear of Kalington?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Agree with all of this. And if the math suddenly changes, I'm ready to jump on whatever new bandwagon comes along.

Typical Oklahoman, jumping bandwagons at a moments notice. That's why you need the Crisco you slippery mofo.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a different conversation though. I too will be happy to canvass and phone bank and do whatever else is required for the nominee, but none of the remaining candidates excite me that much and I used to work for one of them. 

It isn't a different conversation though. I am genuinely excited to support them quite wholeheartedly and passionately. I am legitimately excited for every single one to be our next POTUS. I get what you're saying and for you I suspect that's accurate, but for me I am absolutely super pumped to evangelize and get on board with the enthusiasm and glee of a 2012 Seattle Seahawks bandwagoner. 

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who are you and what have you done with The Bear of Kalington?

I know, right? But again, really happy to support Sanders and endorse him, especially if he wins Super Tuesday strongly. I'm going to go try and convince my friends who absolutely hate that fucker to vote for him and support him too. It's genuine, happy enthusiasm.

I'm not looking forward to associating with some of his supporters, mind you, but I think Sanders the candidate is going to be perfectly great. 

[Freshwater Spartan]

I know we have been dogging 538's model but I found it concerning that no majority is listed as the most likely outcome. Might be interesting/horrible if this happens. If Sanders has 45% of delegates I say give him the nomination. If he has 26% we might have a real convention and all the chaos that goes with it. Perhaps an Amy/Pete ticket? 

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I agree with you. I wish more die hard Bernard supporters also agreed with you. Any Democrat is better than Trump.

There are far too many techbros that subscribe to variations of dark enlightenment and have a strong tendency towards accelerationism and it very much sounds like what you're seeing in them. Having future proof employment skills (at least for the near term future), a large salary and a bunch of inherent privilege really buffers you from all the harm and suffering that comes from the bottoming out that they imagine is the rock bottom they accelerate towards before the rebound that will of course leave them even higher on the pecking order (or so they think).

They suck.

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m just floored he criticized Trump.  I didn’t think I’d see the day.

 

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't know about all that. A lot of DoJ watchers are dubious that Barr's statement is anything more than show, and the fact that Jim Acosta just reported that they've been told Trump isn't upset by Barr's remarks is kind of telling (if it holds). 

Yeah, I parse this as nothing more than theatre to give him cover. As long as he keeps doing whatever Trump asks there is no evidence of even a single vertebrae. 

[ThinkerX]

A fairly standard add from Alaska's Senator Dan Sullivan appeared on my Facebook - one of the 'help me keep the evil liberals at bay' type deals.  He got roasted in the comments, and many of the people lighting the fires were republicans.  The impeachment thing and blind toadyism did not go over well at all. 

 

maybe a teeny tiny alarm bell for Koch brothers type conservatives?  (Sullivan is basically wholly owned by them)

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

Michael Bloomberg on twitter this evening:

"If it's any consolotion, his tweets make it impossible for him to do his job too"

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

I’m excited as fuck for Warren. I’m also preparing for this country to break my heart on that count and overlook the person who, as far as I’m concerned, is the best candidate by a mile.

Me too.  They weren't about to have her, Them, Those and Their's.  Certainly the media wasn't about to have her, that's for sure, and sure as hell bloomie wasn't.  It was with her rise in the polls that he made up his mind he HAD to jump in and up and down on his billions and billions trampoline.

~~

Ya why are people excited about Barr's comments?  Because the MEDIA CAPTIONS THEM INCORRECTLY.  He wasn't criticizing what Trump told him to do, he was criticizing Trump for telling the world that's what he wanted and told him to do.  And DOJ people are quitting on Barr's DOJ and that doesn't, not really, no it does not, make for a good look across the board and future for Barr.

 

 

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Michael Bloomberg on twitter this evening:

"If it's any consolotion, his tweets make it impossible for him to do his job too"

Bloomberg isn't my #1, but I have to admit that's a pretty sick burn.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed and Bloomberg instead of Sanders was well positioned to win the nomination. Concerns about Sanders ability to unify the party are considered straightforwardly valid, but any conversation about Bloomberg's ability to do so (like Clinton's in 2016) would consist mostly of blistering criticism of the left-wing voters who resisted falling in line. 

Maybe by some, but I don't think so overall.  There's plenty of level-headed analysts that would (rightly) view Bloomberg's weaknesses in marshaling the Dem party's full resources as clearly more of an issue than Sanders' significant vulnerability there.

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

What's the sound I hear?  Why it's the world's smallest violin! 

Yeah Trump's administration is a master's class in lowered expectations on behalf of the media.  I mean, what did Barr actually say?  

Quote

“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.

Bold.  Bold and brave to say something that's just rudimentarily fucking obvious for any other major official, elected or otherwise, let alone the goddamn president.  His entire administration has worn down the American public and thus the media like exhausted parents of a "problem child," or hell, even a pet that you're just fed up with.  Reminds me of when growing up we had a cat that just would not stop pissing and shitting everywhere, even was so stupid he would eat the foamy carpet cleaner when we tried to clean up after him, just a lost cause.  Your average daily review by my parents on that cat's - Mickey - behavior must have gone something like this.  "Dad:  So, how was Mickey today?  Mom:  Pretty good!  He only shat in your slippers once, and even seemed to feel bad about it afterwards.  Dad:  ...Well, that's progress I guess."  To finish the metaphor, my parents eventually had to re-carpet our entire house due to Mickey always pissing everywhere, and when doing so my dad insisted we give Mickey away, and we did.

[Guest]

Wait, just one fucking minute. Are we actually, mostly...getting along?

What the fuck am I supposed to do at work now if I can't vent my apoplexy at a minor disagreement with fellow ASOIAF fans???

Welp, time for a new fucking hobby!

[Kalbear]

Another good burn

https://twitter.com/bjoewolf/status/1228134061169922048?s=20

[Martell Spy]

How Pundits Manipulate Math to Dismiss Sanders
His rise has led the media to look everywhere except the ballot box for the real winner of elections in Iowa and New Hampshire.

https://newrepublic.com/article/156575/pundits-manipulate-math-dismiss-sanders

Quote

 

Perhaps the most egregious example of the media’s data innumeracy is the argument that Sanders is weaker than he was in 2016. “Four years ago, Bernie Sanders won 60 percent of the vote” in New Hampshire, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell said. “He’s going to get half that if he’s lucky tonight. That was not enough of a launching pad to actually win the nomination. The story of the Sanders campaign so far this year is how much ground he’s lost from four years ago.”

Yes, Sanders won with 60 percent of the vote in New Hampshire in 2016. But he would have been lucky to have received half of that in 2020, in a far more crowded field—and, in fact, won with 25 percent of the vote. That Sanders is rather handily fending off a whole slate of viable presidential candidates, as opposed to just one, is a clear sign of strength, not weakness.

Why are pundits downplaying Sanders’s early success? The assumption is still that the Democratic primary will ultimately be decided between Sanders and a moderate (or two). Klobuchar’s rise is thus supremely important and worth emphasizing over Sanders’s victory. Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have made it apparent that there is a sizable group that is concerned about Sanders’s electability and vision, suggesting a ceiling to Sanders’s support that will end up hurting him as the moderate field is winnowed.

 

 

[Paladin of Ice]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, he's basically complained that his primary job of covering up for Trump's crimes is impossible to deal with while Trump openly talks about on Twitter doing crimes.

Yeah, the way I read it is that Barr = Vader and Trump = Emperor Palpatine from this comic.

"Sir, if you just shut up and stop implicating yourself in new crimes, I could finish covering up for your last ones and help get you reelected!"

[IheartIheartTesla]

According to Gallup, only 45% of Americans will vote for a well-qualified socialist, so lets go ahead and assume more than 50 of Americans will vote for one.

[SpaceChampion]

There's a lot more on that thread.  Bloomberg is exactly the same kind of racist, misogynistic asshole authoritarian that Trump is.  Do not fool yourself otherwise.

[Fez]

I was looking at the state elections happening this November, and there's some really important ones going on. I think folks would find a much better return on their donations and efforts if they paid more attention to them. The closest state legislative races are:

In Alaska, Republicans would have a governing trifecta right now; except that the House is run by a coalition of all 15 Democrats, 7 breakaway Republicans, and 2 Independents instead. All these seats, and the state senate, are up for re-election. 

In Arizona, Republicans have a governing trifecta right now. Democrats only need 1 seat to flip the House; they can flip the Senate with 3 seats.

In Colorado, Democrats have a governing trifecta right now. If Democrats lose 2 seats, they lose the Senate though.

In Delaware, Democrats have a governing trifecta right now. If Democrats lose 2 seats, they lose the Senate though.

In Florida, Republicans have a governing trifecta right now. If Democrats pick up 4 seats, which is a major long-shot, they'd take the Senate. It's such a big deal though that it's worth mentioning.

In Michigan, there's a Democratic governor and Republican legislature. If Democrats took 4 seats, they'd flip the House. Unfortunately, the Senate isn't up in 2020, so there's no way for Democrats to get a governing trifecta prior to redistricting. But it would significantly strength Democrats in that ongoing fight, if the legislature wasn't united under Republicans. There's already been court battles in the state.

In Minnesota, there's a Democratic governor and House, and Republican Senate. If Democrats took 2 seats, they'd flip the Senate and get a governing trifecta.

In Wisconsin, there's a Democratic governor and Republican legislature; but Wisconsin was the state where the legislature took a lot of the governor's powers away after Walker lost in 2018. Democrats need 2 seats to flip the Senate.

There's other states where control isn't skewed too much and things could flip if the state swings hard one way or the other at the presidential level; but these are the states where legislative control is the closest.

There's also 11 states with governor races: Washington, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire. NC will get the most attention, but Republicans have enough legislative seats to override vetos when they really want, so its not really the most important. Republicans hold VT and NH right now, so Democrats need those back to get trifectas there; unfortunately those governors are relatively popular, so it'll be tricky. I don't think any of the other races are that interesting.

To me, Arizona is maybe the most important state in 2020. Winning it makes the Democratic path to 270 electoral votes so much easier; McSally is a weak Senate incumbent and Democrats almost certainly need to beat her to get a senate majority; and they are so close to taking the state legislature (and therefore ensuring that Republicans can't get up to any shenanigans in future elections to hinder Democrats). Also, I was just in Arizona; the state (and its large and growing population) would seriously benefit from a more responsible state government.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, I was just in Arizona; the state (and its large and growing population) would seriously benefit from a more responsible state government.

QFT.

 

Thanks for the breakdown of state election dynamics.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

So…………how long can Jim Jordan survive this? The testimony this week was pretty damning.

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So…………how long can Jim Jordan survive this? The testimony this week was pretty damning.

I thought he was done when this shit surfaced well over a year ago, so... [spreads hands]