US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

[lancerman]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gonna make a prediction you can call me on later - South Carolina is going to go hard for Biden and fuck up all the narratives. 

I don't think there is a single narrative that didn't have Biden as a clear winner in SC. That was his money state in the opening. If he can't win it, he really needs to get the hell out of the race. Even the biggest Sanders supporters or Biden hater have to think that's in the cards. Especially since by all accounts Clyburn is going to endorse him Wednesday. 

I think the really situation now is the map. South Carolina is Saturday. That means for most of the country you have two days to shape narratives and change momentum before Super Tuesday resets the stage. That's probably the biggest thing Sanders has going for him as many pundits pointed out. This is a tough schedule for someone to stop him. 

Personally I think the debate tomorrow will be more impactful than SC. If Biden wins, it's kind of a "yeah you were supposed to win that one" and still might not mean much with all the Super Tuesday early voting going on and then the short turn around. But a particularly bad debate performance... now that's something that will get play all week long going into Super Tuesday. If I was all the other candidates, I get dirty and hit Bernie Sanders with everything I got right now because you don't want to let him continue to roll. If he's up big at the end of that day, it's going to be near impossible to turn it around. 

If I'm Sanders campaign, I am planning for the debate of the election tomorrow. I'm forming some alliance with Warren so she can dilute the attacks by going after Pete and Bloomberg again. I'm thinking of how many ways to call Bloomberg a racist who shouldn't be taken seriously and calling Buttigieg out on everything I can get him (who is the flailing candidate that is turning into an attack dog right now). I'm thinking of all my best hits on Biden. It's going to be all on him that day and it's the big one for his campaign. He comes out in any way perceived as not a loser of that debate and it's a tough road. It still might be. But if you want to stop him, that's the night 

[DMC]

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Gonna make a prediction you can call me on later - South Carolina is going to go hard for Biden and fuck up all the narratives. 

Well, Biden "winning big" in SC isn't really bold.  It changing the narrative?  Sure, I guess lots of people will talk about it for a few days, but I doubt it will have much of an impact on Super Tuesday - which its important to note many states have already started voting, some for awhile.

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

it is now supposedly legal for black people to vote in South Carolina now!

Thanks Obama.

10 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

She lost and nobody did anything about it. It meant nothing. Stacy Abrams is a media generated narrative that impacts our political reality 0 percent until people start talking themselves into believing she's a savior based on nothing but fucking wishes.

Oh, fuck that shit, no.  It matters what happened to her, it's distinct from regular voter suppression.  I'm inclined to agree with your overall point that, hey, prove you can win in a tough contest first.  But now you're just being contrary for contrarians' sake.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Biden will win SC by between 5-10 points (actually, I would say 3-8, so peaks about 5 points). Is that a big win? I don't know but it allows him to continue into Super Tuesday.

Anyway, the VP pick will deliver exactly 0 electoral votes, so the best thing to do is not have a f*ck-up. I think Tim Kaine was a neutral candidate no one was excited about, but even I would be hard pressed to claim someone else would have changed the dynamics of 2016. Still, I think Sanders should ask Bloomberg to be his running mate.

[Fragile Bird]

Just before I went out today to do a Pokémon ex-raid, I was watching CNBC and there was a panel talking about what would happen to the markets if Sanders wins the nomination (not too too much, Covid-19 is going to have more impact) and the impact if he’s elected (potentially a huge impact). One of the panel members, a CNBC regular, made the comment that if you only read Twitter you’d think Democrats across the country want revolution, but if you actually talk to people what they really want is more or less what they have right now, a strong economy and low interest rates, just a lot fewer tweets. I suspect that’s a pretty good comment.

[Lollygag]

.....and this is exactly what I was expecting to start coming up again. Howard Schultz II: when the right has gone so far right and the left so far left causing the middle to revolt. Note Bloomberg is keeping his massive, nation-wide infrastructure in place regardless of his own nomination status though I'm not convinced that Bloomberg would run himself.

https://theweek.com/articles/897624/real-third-way-2020

Quote

But of course there is always a third way, even if there's no third party or candidate. (I'll return below to the question of what to do when there is a third party or candidate to choose from.) The third way is simple: Refuse to vote for either candidate. Don't vote for the corrupt, incompetent demagogue and aspiring authoritarian — or for the socialist ranter and raver with a soft spot for communist dictatorships. Go ahead, keep your hands clean. Express your preference by refusing to endorse either of the two bad options. When you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice.

...

But what if there's a third party candidate available — say, Michael Bloomberg or some other centrist option who runs as an independent in the general election? For voters strongly opposed to both Trump and Sanders, this would seem to be an ideal solution. Now their supposed civic duty to vote can be fulfilled without requiring a compromise of conscience.

Except for one problem: America's electoral system nearly always turns third-party candidates into spoilers.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

41 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Biden will win SC by between 5-10 points (actually, I would say 3-8, so peaks about 5 points). Is that a big win? I don't know but it allows him to continue into Super Tuesday.

Anyway, the VP pick will deliver exactly 0 electoral votes, so the best thing to do is not have a f*ck-up. I think Tim Kaine was a neutral candidate no one was excited about, but even I would be hard pressed to claim someone else would have changed the dynamics of 2016. Still, I think Sanders should ask Bloomberg to be his running mate.

Sanders would be dead by the end of January 2021

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

.....and this is exactly what I was expecting to start coming up again. Howard Schultz II: when the right has gone so far right and the left so far left causing the middle to revolt. Note Bloomberg is keeping his massive, nation-wide infrastructure in place regardless of his own nomination status though I'm not convinced that Bloomberg would run himself.

https://theweek.com/articles/897624/real-third-way-2020

 

But why vote for bloomb who is the same problem as trump?

[Jace, Extat]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, fuck that shit, no.  It matters what happened to her, it's distinct from regular voter suppression.  I'm inclined to agree with your overall point that, hey, prove you can win in a tough contest first.  But now you're just being contrary for contrarians' sake.

No, I'm being frank. We have passed a threshold as a society. It no longer matters what happened. It no longer matters what the rules are. Or what they were. Or what you want them to be. What matters is who carries the authority. Because, you may notice, THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. That bell won't be unrung. There will be no justice or fairness or equalizing factor.

Shady men did shady shit in broad daylight for naked political gain and will never be held to account for it. That's the reality you live in. Because that's what the people who carry the authority say is the reality. I'm not unsympathetic to Stacy Abrams, I'm just long past the point of seeking virtue from defeats. At the end of the day, and I'll say again, at the end of the day. She lost. And if you think Donald J. Trump is above doing shady shit in broad daylight for naked political gain and never being held to account for it, well you're... not paying attention. 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But why vote for bloomb who is the same problem as trump?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF A SQUIRREL

STRIKE THAT

A FUCKING INSECT

There are children in cages you goddamn animal. But their suffering is no cost to your glorious vision of a worker's revolution delivered by a 78 year old man whose described method of delivery is

 

I didn't forget to end my sentence, there's just nothing to put in that space.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Zorral said:

But why vote for bloomb who is the same problem as trump?

Bloomberg is literate at least. But like I said, I'm not at all convinced that he'd be the one to run. At this point, him running third party would mean he'd be running after having lost the D nomination and that would be pretty bad.

[Darzin]

I think Stacey Abrams is a good choice for Bernie, or really Biden and Buttigieg as well. I think she has pretty good odds of being VP, Biden strongly implied he'd choose her. As for Sanders she balances him, she's a female black moderate with some progressive bonafides. And the most important thing is she is from Georgia where there are two open Senate seats, if the democrats can win Georgia it would go a long way toward taking back the Senate. Will Bernie choose her? Maybe if he goes for a "movement" pick I feel like he'll choose Ayanna Pressley because AOC is too young and the other members of the squad are Muslim. 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Gonna make a prediction you can call me on later - South Carolina is going to go hard for Biden and fuck up all the narratives. 

I agree, I think Biden will win South Carolina ( I don't even think it needs to be by much) and when he does it will raise confidence in him and lead to a Biden strikes back narrative. 

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Bloomberg is literate at least. But like I said, I'm not at all convinced that he'd be the one to run. At this point, him running third party would mean he'd be running after having lost the D nomination and that would be pretty bad.

Uh, I don't know myself, not being an American, but according to Kalbear Bloomberg could not run as a third party candidate because of, I think he called them loser's laws, in many states.

[Lollygag]

Just now, Fragile Bird said:

Uh, I don't know myself, not being an American, but according to Kalbear Bloomberg could not run as a third party candidate because of, I think he called them loser's laws, in many states.

Yeah, I'd think there's some complication(s) there though I can't say exactly what.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

What matters is who carries the authority. Because, you may notice, THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT. That bell won't be unrung. There will be no justice or fairness or equalizing factor.

This is just ranting like Carville.  What happened in Georgia to Abrams is not going to happen everywhere.  And if it is, we're screwed anyway.  So, there's no logic where you saying Abrams' ordeal is bad thing actually makes any electoral sense.  All you're doing at that point is dismissing her based on one aspect of a VP prospect's attributes, while ignoring the potential gains.  It's bad analysis, and I expect better from you.

 

[Fragile Bird]

I just saw Sanders being interviewed on the question of his sympathetic comments in the past about Castro and others. As he quite correctly pointed out, he’s not the one exchanging love letters with a dictator in North Korea and he’s also not buddies with Putin.

I think that’s the best answer he can give to the question.

The clip of Sanders was followed by an interview with a Florida D congresswoman who came out strongly against anyone who dared say a positive word about Castro or the regime. They showed Obama on 2016 saying he told Castro it was good to see he brought health care to his people but a drive around Havana shows the economy is not doing well. I gathered even that much was too much for the congresswoman. I suspect she must take that position if she wants to be re-elected.

 

[Kalbear]

To be more clear, I'm predicting Biden wins by like 20.points. 

[Lollygag]

Obama did praise Castro and Cuba, but there's a big difference.

Bernie implied the good things about Cuba were the result of their form of government. And he did mischaracterize the literacy program. Also, Bernie had no specific diplomatic reason to compliment Cuba or the others.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/democratic-reaction-bernie-sanders-cuba-comment/index.html

Quote

".@SenSanders comments on Fidel Castro are ill-informed & insulting to thousands of Floridians," tweeted Rep. Stephanie Murphy earlier Monday. "Castro was a murderous dictator who oppressed his own people. His 'literacy program' wasn't altruistic; it was a cynical effort to spread his dangerous philosophy & consolidate power."

 

I'm guessing that this was said when Obama was trying to normalize relations with Cuba and to pull them away from their form of government with some sweet talk. This is a 180 from Bernie trying to reinforce it despite its terrible flaws as Obama was clearly telling them to get rid of it.

 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To be more clear, I'm predicting Biden wins by like 20.points. 

I'll take the under on that, yeah.

[Kalbear]

The myth of the bernie bros is just that - it is just a few lone kooks, like (check notes) a regional field director

 

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Sanders would be dead by the end of January 2021

Oh come now... he’s not Hillary Clinton.