The toxicity against her for an incident that was in no way her fault was a massive lowlight for the primary campaign. "Sure, she's not the one who lied, but can we REALLY trust that woman?!?"
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Warren is playing to her outs-a surprise showing in NV and a couple of Super Tuesday performances in places where she had strong support. She's operating in the assumption that not only will the race not shake itself out, but get more of a mess and Dems might look to her as a previous front runner in the ensuing panic.
There will be panic, too. Because I don't think NV and SC will tell us anything concrete. Meanwhile the rank and file will be like "can you just give us a normal democrat who isn't 80 years old to vote for? Why is that SO HARD?"
There will be panic, too. Because I don't think NV and SC will tell us anything concrete. Meanwhile the rank and file will be like "can you just give us a normal democrat who isn't 80 years old to vote for? Why is that SO HARD?"
The only place I think Warren could legitimately help Bernie would be California since their support is probably more tied here (and her support seems harder). Not sure about anywhere else.
Maybe? I said earlier I feel like the big 5 will all stay in until ST but yeah, if she flops hard in Nevada, that might be it. You can definitely feel her campaign gasping for air at this point. When Klob got more than double the votes she got in NH... that felt like curtains.
I kinda feel like her best bet would be to ride it out and hope for a brokered convention, otherwise she surely must realize her chances at getting the nomination are next to nothing at this point.
I think, genuinely, if Bernie gets the nomination his Veep selection is going to need to be someone to calm down older voters. I don't know who that is, but it needs to be someone pretty far to his right (which far to Bernie's right is like...still very liberal.) It's going to need to be someone that the big scary ESTABLISHMENT doesn't hate. If he doubles down on his core voters with his Veep selection, I think that would be a mistake. I also think a woman would balance the ticket nicely.
I also don't think we'll get to a second round at the convention. All this shit will be ironed out ahead of time. I imagine we'll let a few states put their delegates in, like Iowa so Pete can have his moment of being the first LGBT person to win a state and earn national delegates, Biden get a few delegates to save some face, and whomever else. Then we'll just move to nominate by acclimation.
Edit: If Bernie can manage a 100 delegate lead after Super Tuesday, I think that's ballgame.
I actually think California is a big part of her play. If, somehow, she can be the only other viable candidate with Bernie. she could still get 100-150 delegates easily.
I also don't think we'll get to a second round at the convention. All this shit will be ironed out ahead of time. I imagine we'll let a few states put their delegates in, like Iowa so Pete can have his moment of being the first LGBT person to win a state and earn national delegates, Biden get a few delegates to save some face, and whomever else. Then we'll just move to nominate by acclimation.
Edit: If Bernie can manage a 100 delegate lead after Super Tuesday, I think that's ballgame.
I really really hope that the prediction Bernie will only got for an ideology double is incorrect.
Old people are asking their doctors if Klobmentum is right for them-look at the cross-tabs. She's actually carving out a base there. If she can't be the nominee, I'd love for her to be VP for one of the older candidates, when they have to resign due to health issues we get someone normal who can run as an incumbent in four years.
I really wish Warren, Klob, and Pete would make the case for incumbency straight up-Biden and Bernie are extremely old, and will likely not be able to run as an incumbent in a second term. If you go for them, you're also voting for this primary hellscape four years down the road. At the very least, Biden and Bernie must make moves on their VP far earlier than normal, while the voters have time to consider, because it really matters in their case.
I really wish Warren, Klob, and Pete would make the case for incumbency straight up-Biden and Bernie are extremely old, and will likely not be able to run as an incumbent in a second term. If you go for them, you're also voting for this primary hellscape four years down the road. At the very least, Biden and Bernie must make moves on their VP far earlier than normal, while the voters have time to consider, because it really matters in their case.
It was very revealing about a lot of so called "progressives".
Stephanie Murphy from Florida? I feel like there are a decent number of Congresswomen that could fit that mold. But yeah, I agree that a VP pick, as much as one can which might not be much at all, should be used to cover weaknesses, not double down on ideology.
How on Earth did you possibly arrive at this conclusion? Please respond to one of the numerous users quoting your post, because I'm genuinely curious/concerned as to your thought process.
I've never posted a snake emoji before and I don't think I've ever called her a snake before, but I could be wrong (search my post history?). Overall her presidency would probably look much like Obama's if we're lucky. IMO the banks and corporate power already run wild in the US compared to most developed countries. I could vote for that a thousand times over Bloomberg and a hundred times over Biden. If Bloomberg does make himself the kingmake with enough delegates at the convention there is no way a Warren presidency (or anyone's else's for that matter) happens without concessions on her part.
Edit: First world banks with the exception of Deutsche bank. They seem to be up to their necks in Russian oil money. Just looked them up on Google and they seem to be on fire atm.
Last edited:
Almost worth it just to see McConnell and Trump's faces if this ticket actually wins.
If only there weren't a citizenship requirement. I'd pick Pramila Jayapal.
Robert Costa @costareportsOn @MeetThePress, Biden knocks Bloomberg, who has touted his ties to President Obama.
"He wouldn't even endorse Barack in 2008. He wouldn't endorse him. You know, he endorsed Bush. He endorsed, you know, the Republican before that. All of a sudden he's his best buddy."
8:09 AM - Feb 16, 2020
If Bernie loses its going to be the fault of his toxic supporters that will not allow any but the most ideologically "pure" into their cult. Their ignorant attacks on everyone and everything that is less than "I love Bernie Sanders" is already turning away people on the fence.
They aren't going to allow any room for the exact kind of voters that we need for an electoral college victory.
They aren't going to allow any room for the exact kind of voters that we need for an electoral college victory.
Bernie consistently polls ahead of Trump in GE matchups and a recent poll came out saying Bernie would beat out any other candidate head to head but sure Jan.
Sanders Demolishes Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar Head-to-Head, Says New Poll
The poll suggests that if moderates really want to stop Sanders, they'll need to coalesce around ... Warren?
Warren faces pressure to revive fighter persona after 'unity' pitch falls flat
So far, primary season contenders vying to unite the left and middle have flopped. Heading into Nevada, the Massachusetts senator is gambling she can break that streak.
www.nbcnews.com
WASHINGTON — Beto O'Rourke tried it. Kamala Harris tried it. Cory Booker tried it. And one by one, they all flamed out. Now, Elizabeth Warren is pitching herself as the Democratic candidate who can unify the party's progressive and moderate wings, a play that could lead her down the same bridge to nowhere, unless her message can quickly find some resonance.
----------
The early-state struggles put Warren in a strategic conundrum that she is delicately navigating. She wants to demonstrate her combative streak as a "fighter" without appearing divisive, lest she undercut her closing pitch that she's uniquely suited to unify the party. In recent days she has taken subtle jabs at her main rivals — Sanders and Buttigieg — while reserving her most aggressive attacks for Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire entrepreneur rising in national polls.
The bifurcated message is a gamble that could attract — or alienate — broad swaths of voters.
----------
"The problem that Warren has is all of the Bernie people think she's a neoliberal shill and all of the centrists think she's a raging Maoist," said Sean McElwee, a left-wing organizer and analyst at Data For Progress whose work has been cited by the Warren campaign. "The people who want Medicare for All don't believe she wants it, and the people who don't want Medicare for All do believe she wants it."
The Democratic establishment has a long memory and remembers Warren's successful battles against President Barack Obama on Wall Street-friendly personnel and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. On the other end of the spectrum lies a younger left-wing cohort that became aware of Warren in 2016 when she declined to endorse Sanders, and recently grew skeptical when she softened her support for the Medicare for All policy by saying she'd defer that push to her third year in office.
Uniting those factions is Warren's goal, and she's learning that it's easier said than done.
"We can't have a repeat of 2016. When we roll into the general election with Democrats still mad at Democrats, Democrats still angry, some Democrats staying home — we need to have a party that is united," Warren said on MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes, echoing her message to New Hampshire voters on Election Night.
----------
O'Rourke, Harris and Booker all tried to follow a playbook that was successful for President Barack Obama — an aspirational message and embrace of progressivism, while steering clear of the most radical ideas on the left in the hope of attracting middle-of-the-road voters. Like Obama, the three endorsed single payer health insurance before backing away from it.
----------
"One thing we've seen is that above all, voters are looking for authenticity," said Aleigha Cavalier, who was the communications director for the O'Rourke and Deval Patrick campaigns. "They are very, very wary when you change your message mid-course. It might be the right message and it might be really appealing to voters but they need to believe that you believe it."
And then there's the messenger.
"Women are held to a very, very, very different standard when it comes to authenticity," said Cavalier. "When other candidates in the race do this — and I'm thinking of Pete Buttigieg — he has been given the liberty of changing his message mid-course a number of times in a way that Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren have not."
Buttigieg, a little-known mayor of South Bend, Indiana when he launched his campaign last April, initially spoke in abstract and aspirational terms that intrigued leftists and establishment Democrats. Later in the year, he re-positioned himself as the moderate alternative to Biden and began actively running against ideas like single payer health care and free public college.
Warren's struggle is rooted in the fact that the two wings of the party aren't fond of each other, each believing deeply that one of their own should win. Moderates say a left-wing nominee would alienate swing voters, assure Trump another four years, and cost Democrats the House. Progressives say the moderates' theory of "electability" has been proven dead wrong by the failed push to elect what they view as milquetoast figures, such as John Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
But Warren allies argue she can marry those two sides in a way that Booker, Harris and O'Rourke could not: By using the "credentials," as one Democratic operative put it, that she has on the progressive side, plus the good will she's built up with the more establishment wing.
I don't see Bernies VP being someone in the moderate lane, especially with the pressure that he may only make it one term. Putting a moderate up as his successor delegitimizes his campaign and the revolution he is trying to kickstart.
At worst from a moderate perspective he will go with a Kamala or Booker to help boost credibility with minorities. Amy and Pete are absolutely not in the cards.
At worst from a moderate perspective he will go with a Kamala or Booker to help boost credibility with minorities. Amy and Pete are absolutely not in the cards.
Talking about Bernie makes me nauseous.
Anyway, so I have a question that I guess could have been a thread but I'm lazy and it'll devolve to hell. So in the progressive attacks on billionaires, one argument is 'exploit workers' as to why they're billionaires.
So I was playing with Amazon's financials and made a super high level model where I assumed they doubled worker's salaries and made a one-time distribution (I went with $7bn which is outrageous but I wanted to stress it a little) for back pay.
So with that I'm getting that, if the market were to react based on a similar multiple, Amazon (and Bezos) is about 89% it's current value.
So would people be happy if Bezos was 89% of his wealth (still way over $100bn) or is it just that the anger is misdirected and they're mad at the market valuing Amazon at $1 trillion? Or, even worse, he shouldn't own his stake in his company?
Anyway, so I have a question that I guess could have been a thread but I'm lazy and it'll devolve to hell. So in the progressive attacks on billionaires, one argument is 'exploit workers' as to why they're billionaires.
So I was playing with Amazon's financials and made a super high level model where I assumed they doubled worker's salaries and made a one-time distribution (I went with $7bn which is outrageous but I wanted to stress it a little) for back pay.
So with that I'm getting that, if the market were to react based on a similar multiple, Amazon (and Bezos) is about 89% it's current value.
So would people be happy if Bezos was 89% of his wealth (still way over $100bn) or is it just that the anger is misdirected and they're mad at the market valuing Amazon at $1 trillion? Or, even worse, he shouldn't own his stake in his company?
If Bernie wins the nomination and doesn't reverse his old voters and people of color issues then he's toast.
if he picks anyone left of Warren as a veep he's it only toast- at that point he'd be outing himself as a spoiler with no intention of winning the general. And if he picked Romney he'd basically guarantee no Trump voters would cross over and probably energize them to vote against him.
he could do worse than Klob or some younger moderate who looks like they could take over in an emergency. And man he needs to get Nina off tv. She sounds combative and angry even when she's agreeing with something.
I say he test the Obama veep constitutional theory. 22nd amendment only says "elected" president- and talks about running for president. Doesn't say anything about "happening to become president "
I'll be over here in my sovereign citizen dome...
if he picks anyone left of Warren as a veep he's it only toast- at that point he'd be outing himself as a spoiler with no intention of winning the general. And if he picked Romney he'd basically guarantee no Trump voters would cross over and probably energize them to vote against him.
he could do worse than Klob or some younger moderate who looks like they could take over in an emergency. And man he needs to get Nina off tv. She sounds combative and angry even when she's agreeing with something.
I say he test the Obama veep constitutional theory. 22nd amendment only says "elected" president- and talks about running for president. Doesn't say anything about "happening to become president "
I'll be over here in my sovereign citizen dome...
I think what makes sense is to have someone who is to the left side of the party but still within the party apparatus. It will also definitely be a woman. Given those criteria, I think Duckworth makes the most sense.
People have been mentioning Tammy Baldwin for the last week or so and she sounds pretty good. A center left lesbian female senator from Wisconsin and she opposed the Iraq war to boot. So weird how she is serving alongside Ron Johnson of all people.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. A one time payment for labor? What even is that? It also doesn't come directly from Bezos net worth. No one wants that, they want sustained wages. Margins at Amazon are razor thin as is and the only real reason the company is profitable is because of AWS. Inflatingwages over the long term for Amazon (without AWS) has the potential to make them unprofitable which in turn does not allow them to as easily reinvest into growth.
your hypothetical makes no sense. What your suggesting would just impact the stock dramatically impacting the overall market (including Bezos net worth). High taxes addresses the problem not weird PR moves that fluctuate net worth to the same tune as statistical noise in the stock market.
I'd say Tammy Baldwin's pretty firmly on the left.
As for Johnson, WI is a very politically polarized state.
A one-time distribution to normalize back pay to assume all workers were paid double their salary going back to their IPO.
Bezos' net worth is tied to Amazon. Left taxes out off the equation because that's accounting.
What is the proper net worth for a person who started a company that went on to dominate e-commerce and now hosts about half the internet? Is it his fault he got so rich? I get being angry at billionaires but I feel it's misdirected at folks whose net worth is based on the values of companies that run the infrastructure of the entire modern world. There's always going to be folks like Edison, Watson, Gates and Bezos and we shouldn't be upset about that.
If Bernie manages to win the nomination, that means he was able to win over people of color and older voters too.
I think once you pass a billion you shouldn't be able to keep anymore.
Nobody's brilliant idea builds their empire by itself. Their profits are built off the backs of countless people who they need to make it happen. And the society and governments to enable them to do anything at scale.
The infrastructure of the entire modern world was built by the people of the modern world, not three men. Three men should not control the resources of seven billion.
The smartest VP choice for Bernie, Warren and a Bloomberg (yes I hate Bloomberg but hypothetically speaking) presidency would be Booker. Not only would he give them help with black voters that they will all need. His baby bond strategy was actually something made to have cross over appeal. Who can hate investing in babies and not come off as a monster?
It would be an interesting conversatuon to think about what the maximum wage and maximum allowed income should be
Pretty much. No one is saying that these guys shouldn't get rich for coming up with good business ideas but men like Bezos' specifically became uber-rich by exploiting and unfairly compensating his employees while massively avoiding paying his fair share of taxes. No one should be celebrating that aspect of his accomplishments.
If the incentive needed for a person to put in the work to become an Edison, Watson, Gates or Bezos is that they can reach a personal net worth of 130 billion USD instead of 130 million USD, I'd rather our technological evolution completely stalled and we went back to farming instead.
Right, that's a good point too. Bezo's wealth is in part made from gaming the system to pay even less in taxes than you or I do. Even if you think Amazon is a genius idea and that Bezos is the one who deserves the credit, the fact that Amazon doesn't pay taxes is clearly wrong.
I quite like this choice since it would give Booker a good shot for a 2028 run in this hypothetical situation. He's be roughly Klob's age by that point.
Would Booker really be able to help Bernie with black voters? My understanding was that Bernie already has a lot more black support than Booker ever did.
It would clinch it, I am pretty sure that his support is with black progressive millennials. This would help him in the south where black voters are more moderate.
Jayapal was the first person I thought of that would be perfect for Bernie if she met the citizenship requirements.
Fuck YES FUCK RICOTTA CHEESE
TAMMY/TAMMY 20020
Agreed.
This might be a dumb question, but is there any significant data to show that the VP selection matters? Because it very much seems like it doesn't.
I think the data shows it rarely helps but it can hurt if you pick a bad one.
I can't think of any specific studies that have been done but McCain's and Gore's picks both had effects on their campaigns. In McCain's case it briefly gave his campaign new energy but probably added to the questions of his overall judgement later. In Gore's case the message he sent by picking the one "Democrat" that railed against Clinton during his impeachment was a horrible decision as it made it seem like he was running away from and betraying a highly popular incumbent president.
- Status