DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

Thanks. So apparently it's now a thing we're talking about.

mrincredible said:

Thanks. So apparently it's now a thing we're talking about.

 Yeah, it probably should have been mentioned in January when it became evident he wasn't going to produce them.  I think everyone was preoccupied with other things.

Fiddlesticks. It's smoke and noise.

nohero said:

mrincredible said:

Thanks. So apparently it's now a thing we're talking about.

 Yeah, it probably should have been mentioned in January when it became evident he wasn't going to produce them.  I think everyone was preoccupied with other things.

 So not only did he not produce the records as promised, the press secretary is lying about it?

Great.

I take back some of my harsh criticism. Here's a good thread on the doctor's summary that Bernie has released.

The thread makes a good point regarding the difference between raw records and the summary produced by Bernie's doctor of 29 years. Now I'm not sure why he's being pressed for more information at this time.

There is a LOT of misinformation regarding doctor's letters in lieu of the ones @BernieSanders released, in no small part because the modern journalist has no idea how to report on science/medicine, so I thought I'd take it upon myself as a physician to break it down#NotMeUs 1/?

— guek (@guek_jc) December 31, 2019

Hey here's a Bloomberg theory.

He wants Biden to be the nominee. He's stepping in with his money to try and pull support away from Sanders and Warren and back to the center. He figures there's enough support for the more centrist democrats that they will eventually consolidate behind whomever the party leadership determines is the most viable candidate the beat Trump.

His presence on the campaign trail provides some air cover for Biden. He's an even easier target for progressives than Joe and might give him a little breathing room to regroup and get his campaign back on a steady footing.

It's just a thought from an idle mind while waiting for the Nevada caucuses. 

Interesting theory but I don't see it. Propping up Joe Biden would like propping up Bernie (not Bernie Sanders, Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's). Just wouldn't work. 

Smedley said:

Interesting theory but I don't see it. Propping up Joe Biden would like propping up Bernie (not Bernie Sanders, Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's). Just wouldn't work. 

I think there's a lot of premature writing off of Biden happening. Yes history, suggests he's in a tight spot in the primaries, but this is a weird election, man. I still feel like he could pull it off if he gets the most delegates among centrist Democrats and centrist Democrats end up with the most delegates collectively. But that's hard to predict until after Super Tuesday.

I'll hedge my theory a little and say maybe Bloomberg wants the nomination but his Plan B is getting a centrist nominee.

I was also going around in 2016 theorizing that Trump was campaigning specifically to ruin Republicans chances of beating Clinton. (That seemed funnier before he won.)

mrincredible said:

I think there's a lot of premature writing off of Biden happening. Yes history, suggests he's in a tight spot in the primaries, but this is a weird election, man. I still feel like he could pull it off if he gets the most delegates among centrist Democrats and centrist Democrats end up with the most delegates collectively. But that's hard to predict until after Super Tuesday.

I'll hedge my theory a little and say maybe Bloomberg wants the nomination but his Plan B is getting a centrist nominee.

I was also going around in 2016 theorizing that Trump was campaigning specifically to ruin Republicans chances of beating Clinton. (That seemed funnier before he won.)

 it's certainly premature to write off any of the candidates at this point.  But as some of us pointed out months ago, Biden's only real claim to the nomination was that he was the most "electable." Once that illusion wears off, there's not much for voters to get excited about.  He's not looking sharp in the debates, he's not raising money like some of the other candidates, and his finishes in IA and NH were pretty poor.  It's not like he's Warren and Klobuchar, who at least have come with their A games at the debates.  Right now the case for Biden is weak and getting weaker.

I'm tuned in to Warren's Town Hall and she is on fire.  What a rebound.

Asked her pick for a VP from those running, she asked if it could be from those who were no longer in the race. Declining to be specific she did give a shout out to Cory, Kamala and Julian. Woo Hoo.

Meanwhile, so many TV pundits seem very concerned that citizens are voting for who they prefer. How dare these people pick someone, like this, inna, ya know, democracy?

The prognostication is thick with these people. I guess it's their job to sound like they know what is going to happen. 

Informative story on why Sanders is not electable in the general election. I disagree that Bloomberg is the best hope. Also a major reason why Clinton failed.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-memo-to-mike-bloomberg-20200222-v4fuckgwena3zlijlqlu6rod6u-story.html

The other players in the field went after you, not Bernie, because they’re afraid of Sanders’ oh-so-Trumplike Bro and bot army. They think attacking him will “depress turnout” or that it will “divide the party” or that they’ll “need his voters later.” Hillary Clinton thought that and didn’t do what needed to be done. She believed to the last he would help her campaign, and he didn’t.
...
Don’t fall for the bogus logic that attacking Bernie will depress Democratic turnout in the fall. Sanders’ voters aren’t loyal Democrats anyway. They are fanatics, they are cultists, they are the other side of the ideological and political horseshoe from Trumpers. The fact that about 12% of his voters went for Trump in 2016 is a permanent screw-you to the establishment Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton learned this lesson four years ago: You can’t negotiate with political terrorists. You can’t placate the implacable. Nothing you ever do will make Sanders and his people happy. The only thing you can do is win. There is no progressive uprising in the wings, and Trump motivates your base more powerfully than Bernie’s campaign of Free Stuff and revolutionary babble, but first you have to do the work.
...
Sanders is racing ahead of the field right now borne on a tidal wave of stupid, short-term thinking on the part of the Democratic electorate. You know — as do most sane people — that Trump is salivating to run against Red Bernie. Unfortunately, the Democratic primary electorate isn’t most people. They live in a land of magical realism where imaginary armies of progressive rural Wisconsin voters can’t wait to march the aristocrats off to the metaphorical guillotine.
...
Ask yourself why Donald Trump is working so hard to pick Bernie as his opponent. Trump’s staff recognizes that the imaginary movement exists in Bernie’s head of a proletarian wave of progressive voters throughout the Midwest swing states is an utter illusion. There is no there there. There’s no outcry in the heartland or another in swing states like Florida and Arizona for Medicare for All, or whatever collectivist fantasy motivates Red Depends baby Bernie Sanders.

BG9 said:

Informative story on why Sanders is not electable in the general election. I disagree that Bloomberg is the best hope. Also a major reason why Clinton failed.

Regarding some of the information in that opinion piece: 

• It says Sanders didn’t help Clinton. He stumped as much for her as she did for Obama in 2008. 
• It says “the fact” (well, a polling result, anyway) that about 12 percent of Sanders voters went for Trump was a screw-you to the establishment. About 9 percent of 2012 Obama voters also voted for Trump. 
• It cites a Texas poll to support how winnable that state is. It writes off Sanders’s chances in Wisconsin without noting that the polling average there currently has him and Trump neck and neck. 
• It lumps all Sanders voters together as fanatics and cultists. The depth of that analysis speaks for itself.

I don't know why people are certain that candidates polling around 15% right now are necessarily more "electable" than Bernie. Sure the support for so-called moderates is the majority of Democrats. But when not a single one of them is generating any great enthusiasm by him or herself it doesn't suggest a higher degree of electability than Bernie. Maybe none of the Democrats are "electable." 

The election is a referendum on Trump anyway. Maybe the Democrat just needs to be more electable than the incumbent. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Regarding some of the information in that opinion piece: 

• It says Sanders didn’t help Clinton. He stumped as much for her as she did for Obama in 2008. 
• It says “the fact” (well, a polling result, anyway) that about 12 percent of Sanders voters went for Trump was a screw-you to the establishment. About 9 percent of 2012 Obama voters also voted for Trump. 
• It cites a Texas poll to support how winnable that state is. It writes off Sanders’s chances in Wisconsin without noting that the polling average there currently has him and Trump neck and neck. 
• It lumps all Sanders voters together as fanatics and cultists. The depth of that analysis speaks for itself.

All valid points.

However, my concern is, how will Sanders reach middle America, not the just liberal bubbles like M/SO. The electoral college is weighted towards that.

The UK public is much less conservative than ours, having accepted and liking things like their NHS. Yet, Corbyn, with his brought his party down a historic 100 years defeat with his democratic socialist agenda. He lost, as expected in the conservative constituencies, but unexpectedly lost most of northern England labor constituencies, what was the core of his party. Will Bernie repeat this? How are we different that it won't?

Ask yourself why Donald Trump is working so hard to pick Bernie as his opponent. Trump’s staff recognizes that the imaginary movement exists in Bernie’s head of a proletarian wave of progressive voters throughout the Midwest swing states is an utter illusion. There is no there there.

DaveSchmidt said:

Regarding some of the information in that opinion piece: 

• It says Sanders didn’t help Clinton. He stumped as much for her as she did for Obama in 2008. ...

I'm not as ready to accept that claim as a given, nor am I ready to accept the notion that his "stumping" was as effective. 

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Last time most Sanders' supporters voted for Hillary and he endorsed her and did 39 events for her (she did something like 13 for Obama).

Clinton did at least 38 events (27 rallies, 11 fund-raisers plus “a variety of” speeches) for Obama in 2008, according to this 2016 blog post from MSNBC. I know that’s not a source you trust; I’ll wait to see your source for 13 before deciding for myself how MSNBC stacks up against it.

I say this as a 70-year-old: I don't need no stinkin' medical records for Bernie. The guy's 78 and has had a recent heart attack. We can't do better than that? Seriously. Biden? Mike? If any of this trio is the nominee, we'd better start looking at a serious VP candidate and a one-term promise.

Let's go with one of the kids: 70-year-old Warren.

DaveSchmidt said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Last time most Sanders' supporters voted for Hillary and he endorsed her and did 39 events for her (she did something like 13 for Obama).

Clinton did at least 38 events (27 rallies, 11 fund-raisers plus “a variety of” speeches) for Obama in 2008, according to this 2016 blog post from MSNBC. I know that’s not a source you trust; I’ll wait to see your source for 13 before deciding for myself how MSNBC stacks up against it.

 Same comment from me.

nohero said:

 Same comment from me.

If and when you’re ready, you’ll no doubt let us know. Until then, noted, both times.

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

 Same comment from me.

If and when you’re ready, you’ll no doubt let us know. Until then, noted, both times.

I also don't think hashing that out is relevant to discussing the 2020 election. 

nohero said:

I also don't think hashing that out is relevant to discussing the 2020 election. 

You let us know your opinion of that bullet point anyway. Thank you. It allowed me to elaborate. Thanks again.

This provocative New York Review of Books essay (Warren in the Trap) is behind a paywall, but here are a few excerpts. The writer, Caroline Fraser, is an author who won a Pulitzer Prize for her biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder.

Yet Warren’s approach to handling blatant misogyny as well as the bias cloaked in pollsters’ lingo—“authenticity” and “likability” are among the terms—has lacked force and clarity. Although she was late to formulate her controversial support for Medicare for All, she has famously had a plan for just about everything: a wealth tax, student loan debt forgiveness, gun violence, criminal justice reform, climate change. But she seems not to have had a plan for tackling a form of bias entrenched for centuries. Indeed, at times, she has appeared to be running two races simultaneously—the real one, involving her actual positions, and an amorphous one involving an obsession with women’s gender differences.

In 2016 Clinton struggled to respond to charges that she was “cold,” “aloof,” and not “authentic,” bigoted code for being different, as in not male. This time around, Warren had a chance to shift the debate by comprehensively rejecting such coded language, challenging voters to confront the history, costs, and consequences of prejudice.

Briefly, she appeared to recognize the opportunity. When the issue broke out into the open in January, she said, “It’s time for us to attack it head on.” But she didn’t, instead employing a superficial zinger about having won every election she’s been in, unlike the men on the stage. Since then, she has insisted that “this is not 2016,” citing the women’s march and the 2018 midterms, in which women in both parties did, in fact, outperform men. But presidential elections are different, and between the January debate and the New Hampshire primary—and throughout her candidacy—Warren chose not to tackle the topic of sexism in any substantive way.

She often introduces herself, as she did at Grinnell College in Iowa last November, by revealing that “I am what used to be called a late-in-life baby.” She stays with it, insisting that in her family, her brothers were always called “the boys,” but “my mother always just called me ‘the surprise!’” It’s her idea of a laugh line, and the audience does laugh, a little. But there are layers of discomfiture here. Aside from its irrelevance, the confession plays into yet another form of bias, the perception that women aren’t funny—because this isn’t funny. It’s more Sally Field than Fleabag, a plea for sympathy in which Warren compares herself with “the boys,” perpetuating a veiled sense of gender resentment. This too is an unforced error, and a minor one compared to the unfortunate Medicare roll-out or the completely avoidable claims to Native American heritage, which touched off Trump’s “Pocahontas” frenzy. But it’s too bad, since she’s capable of coming up with a deadpan comeback. (Asked how she’d reply to an “old-fashioned” supporter who favored marriage between a man and a woman, she said, “I’m going to assume it is a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, ‘Well, then, just marry one woman. I’m cool with that. Assuming you can find one.’”) Yet on the chaotic, inconclusive night of the Iowa caucuses, she was still playing the Okie card, declaring that “as the baby daughter of a janitor, I’m so grateful to be up on this stage tonight,” asking voters to overlook a Harvard career and lifetime of experience, and instead see her as daddy’s little girl.

Warren’s experiences are recognizable—no woman who remembers the 1970s could question them—and, for a certainty, her campaign is being held to a different standard. When a black man whose middle name is shared by a notorious despot ran for president, he too had to run an almost impossibly disciplined and flawless race. Whatever woman is going to win the highest office will have to display the same “ruthless pragmatism,” as Obama put it, that he brought to the job, the unswervingly calm, eloquent, uncompromising leadership that lays doubt to rest. The few women who have held on to long-term power across the centuries, from Elizabeth I to Margaret Thatcher and Nancy Pelosi, have always wielded that ruthlessness. When you’re in a knife fight, you don’t ask to be liked.

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

I also don't think hashing that out is relevant to discussing the 2020 election. 

You let us know your opinion of that bullet point anyway. Thank you. It allowed me to elaborate. Thanks again.

I don't think I was being inconsistent. 

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nohero said:

I also don't think hashing that out is relevant to discussing the 2020 election. 

You let us know your opinion of that bullet point anyway. Thank you. It allowed me to elaborate. Thanks again.

I don't think I was being inconsistent. 

 Dafuq are you two even arguing about?

@DaveSchmidt, I've been wondering myself why none of the female candidates have tackled the gender issue. I agree with the writer that Warren seems to skirt, no pun intended, the issue.

Maybe political advisors warn against it, "don't play the gender card" but I don't think it should be taboo. I pester women all the time about it. And yes I realize I'm not a candidate, but why do these candidates think it is toxic?

As for the Oklahoma childhood story, I guess it works with some voters. I; can't think of a single candidate ever who won my vote with personal stories.

The only person who ever won the White House and came from my county, just happens to be the worst President in history. Proud to say I didn't vote for the hometown boy.

I wish I knew what was going on.

Morganna said:

@DaveSchmidt, I've been wondering myself why none of the female candidates have tackled the gender issue. I agree with the writer that Warren seems to skirt, no pun intended, the issue.

Maybe political advisors warn against it, "don't play the gender card" but I don't think it should be taboo. I pester women all the time about it. And yes I realize I'm not a candidate, but why do these candidates think it is toxic?

“When you’re in a knife fight, you don’t ask to be liked” — unless the fight’s outcome depends not just on your cutting abilities but, in the end, rests with a panel of judges. That is, confronting prejudice and winning an election strike me as two different kinds of battles, and it’s a rare voter who appreciates being informed that he or she has something all wrong.

For a contrast to Warren, Fraser writes that when Obama “attacked racism in his pivotal speech in 2008, he took it seriously, analyzing it incisively and at length.” Yeah, but. It was one speech, and it didn’t exactly tell white America it was FOS. I’d argue that Obama — whom Fraser calls “arguably one of the most nimble and preternaturally gifted presidential candidates in American history” — won, in part, because the subject of even that careful speech was the exception in his campaign, not the rule.

STANV said:

I wish I knew what was going on.

Somebody and I were arguing over which one of us missed paulsurovell more. It was fun while it lasted.