Jump to content
Zeffolia

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juicy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians say the darndest things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

cnn is in a very weird position

TL;DR: bernie is winning, and he's never won so that's weird for him :cerious:

 

Interestingly enough he lost his first run for mayor by like 15% or so, then two years later he wins by about 6% (or so). Let's hope we get a repeat of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3isu2cD.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This election is fucking exhausting. I look forward to the primaries being concluded, hopefully with Bernie nominated. As much my gut-reaction is to not vote for Bloomberg in the general, I'd still also have this other gut-wrenching feeling that I should vote for the biggest opposition candidate to Trump regardless of whoever it is. I often get too into my more hardline leftist echo chambers, but then I veer into the more moderate and centrist ones and it feels like the goddamn twilight zone. I will admit that many Bernie supporters are aggressive to the point of it backfiring (including the Chapo Trap House lead effort to abstain from the general if it's not Bernie) but at the same time for the DNC and HRC and Bloomberg supporters to tell Bernie's camp "to play nice" while shoving the same failed, polarizing, and flat out elitist horseshit strategy into the primaries in 2020 is infuriating, esepcially since it just weaponizes the GOP even more.

If I check into the pro-Trump side, I'm reminded that while liberals and leftists are knee-deep in political sea change there's this solid pro-Trump base not just of visceral right-wingers but also of truly naive and exploited populist voters. I was reading the comments of a local New Mexico news site I follow and the paper has started uncharacteristically cranking out a lot of  neutral but mostly positive sounding Trump stories and I felt like I was being gas-lighted. Most of the pro-Trump comments were by Latinos, Native Americans, etc. and they all echoed these vague rambling sentiments about how the Dems are driving them to Trump and Trump gives them hope, etc. Never any specific ideological reasons why they vote GOP or Trump. Not one substantive reason they oppose any liberal or progressive movement. Any valid criticism launched and they return a flurry of snopes-debunked psuedo-news copypastas that melt your fucking brain if you try to pick them apart.

I still subscribe to the theory that Bernie will gather more new voters than Bloomberg or any other centrist could swing over anti-Trump Republicans but that debate over what the better tactic is will remain a mystery, especially since I know a couple of people IRL who have said they'd vote for Bloomberg against Trump but not voter otherwise. Then I have to also remind myself the electoral college makes a lot of this null and void anywhere the margins aren't tight. Goddamn, I think I'll vote in the primary and just fucking go offline until late October. 

Edited by joshuatxuk
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points.

I'd add that Bloomberg is -imo- wrongfully regarded as just another candidate running for office, though.

As far as I can tell, he's doing what he is doing with the sole purpose of keeping Trump from winning in 2020. To me, Bloomberg is closer to the Kochs than to an actual candidate. Eventhough-yes- he currently sells himself as a candidate running for office.

I consider this a tactic which enables him to directly attack Trump. Which is arguably more effective this way, as another candidate, rather than being simply the next billionaire anonymously pushing ads. Whether his tactic is also to influence the dem platform/ticket is another discussion. Given his current attacks on Sanders, I guess thats a yes. And if I'm right about Bloomberg not really being interested in winning the election as a candidate, his attacks on Sanders are more about moving him to a more electable position for the general election.

Whether or not you agree with this ( Sanders not suitable for general election), is a discussion in and of itself. And one which I would rather stay away from. I think the discussion should be more about the blatant influence money has on US politics. As Bloomberg is basically a billionaire trying to use his money to influence US politics. Even if you agree with the outcome ( eg.: he pushed millions into getting dems to win seats in the House in 2018), the method has little to do with democracy, imo.

It is yet another example of the uber rich using their money to move the political landscape in one direction, or another. The fact this is considered legal is just way beyond me. Bloomberg, like Trump, is another symptom of the sickness that US democracy is currently in. Even if I agree with Bloomberg on Trump, and possibly even Sanders, this just shouldn't be possible. If this is "freedom of speech", you can count me out. Buying elections is the opposite.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one way of looking at it, another is socialism bad money good

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bloomberg is worse than trump. full stop. him winning would be a definitive signal that our country is fully and irreparably broken. I would vote for Trump.

  • Facepalm 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dr lopez said:

bloomberg is worse than trump. full stop. him winning would be a definitive signal that our country is fully and irreparably broken. I would vote for Trump.

vote 3rd party or abstain from the general, I know Bloomberg's entire entry and campaign is nightmare material but if he gets the nom don't fucking vote for the baron harkonnen of 21st century american fascism out of spite

11 hours ago, Gocab said:

That's one way of looking at it, another is socialism bad money good

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, goDel said:

Whether or not you agree with this ( Sanders not suitable for general election), is a discussion in and of itself. And one which I would rather stay away from. I think the discussion should be more about the blatant influence money has on US politics. As Bloomberg is basically a billionaire trying to use his money to influence US politics. Even if you agree with the outcome ( eg.: he pushed millions into getting dems to win seats in the House in 2018), the method has little to do with democracy, imo.

It is yet another example of the uber rich using their money to move the political landscape in one direction, or another. The fact this is considered legal is just way beyond me. Bloomberg, like Trump, is another symptom of the sickness that US democracy is currently in. Even if I agree with Bloomberg on Trump, and possibly even Sanders, this just shouldn't be possible. If this is "freedom of speech", you can count me out. Buying elections is the opposite.

This at the heart of what bothers me about Bloomberg and his support. It's so goddamn overt to compared to other establishment Dems and Republicans in the past. Even though I think "I'll vote for Trump over Bloomberg" hot take is wrong, I get the anger and fuck it attitude behind it. Bloomberg vs Trump actually makes that rather superficial "Douche and Turd" South Park episode from 2008 relevant. This hypothetical choice is that absurdly anti-democratic and disingenuous, especially compared to previous presidential elections.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big business is attacking democracy pretty hard there, kinda worrying if ya think about it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

debate tonight's been interesting, actually. Warren ripped into Bloomberg's shittiness right away, and kept at it all night tearing into others on their records as well. Sanders looked pretty good, but he was getting some heat from every angle. Buttigieg and Klobuchar did alright but idk that they have a path forward. will be curious what happens with Bloomberg after tonight, he seemed like he was in over his head for a good chunk of it all...almost like he's a rich asshole who's been a rich asshole for so long that he's forgotten what it's like when people attack him and he can't just fire them or walk away (wouldn't surprise me if he ran away and quit the race relatively soon tbh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried watching it but caught the following:
Biden being given (and taking up) a large portion of time to basically say he's the only person who can beat Donald Trump because trump hates him and mitch is "a thorn in his backside"

liz Warren telling him he's wrong much to Biden unraveling.

Klobuchar vs Buttigieg on who's the better democrat. Each ended thinking they won, and both ended up being wrong.

stopped watching then. there's too many people on stage and it's kind of a mess


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is generally looking good in most States (haven't looked at every state or anything). However I wonder how much that will change as more and more people drop out of the race. I wonder how much the centrist DEM's voter base is spread out among what.. like 5 people, vs Sanders being spread out with Warren? I worry that Bloomberg would have a higher voter percentage if Biden, Peat Bog Pete, and Klo-whatvs dropped out. I imagine some would be Sanders supporters are in the centrist camp, however there is a weird cognitive dissonance for people who have Sanders as their second pick below Pete or Biden, etc. 

IF Bloomberg wins that will show that money in politics is that powerful of a force and how brute forcing name recognition is (probably) best way to win office in our screwed up political system. And even tho 90% of people are against money in politics, it ain't going anywhere, anytime soon.

Edited by Brisbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The septuagenarian age of most of the serious candidates is a turn off from an external observer. I like to feel that I can vote for someone without worrying whether they'll live out their 4 or 8 year stint. 45-65 on gaining office feels ideal, and more likely to be in touch with the issues affecting the majority of the population.

Edited by Roo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Roo said:

The septuagenarian age of most of the serious candidates is a turn off from an external observer. I like to feel that I can vote for someone without worrying whether they'll live out their 4 or 8 year stint. 45-65 feels ideal, and more likely to be in touch with the issues affecting the majority of the population.

I get that, though it's a really bad point from these people if they agree with Sanders but think he's too old so they go vote for a centrist. I'm pretty sure Sanders is willing to you know, "pass away" in office assuming he gets elected. Secondly I'm sure he will pick a good vice president to take up the reigns if something bad happens.

It's actually kinda sad that he has to run, showing that there is no politician that can quite take his place (yet). I'm sure many will start popping up in the next 10 to 20 years.

Edited by Brisbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every candidate except one said they want to override the will of the people and have superdelegates decide the nominee.  It should be clear to you who they all are opposing, why they're opposing him, what they have to lose, and what the country and humanity have to lose.  If you aren't on board, you need to stop being a fucking lib.  That's it

Edited by Zeffolia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

Every candidate except one said they want to override the will of the people and have superdelegates decide the nominee.

no one said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...