Biden is finished, and Warren has some issues.

Acadia said:

I have to hand it to Warren. She's campaigned smartly and is working hard to earn her steady increase in the polls.
At least she's earning her front-runner status, unlike Hillary.

Click to expand...

She's much smarter too: she's managed to convince the crime bosses in the back room that NOTHING she claims to stand for in public will ever come to pass, and that every word she speaks to the rank and file is a lie.

This one private expression of truth will propel her all the way to an ignoble loss to Trump.

As repugnant as she was, at least Hillary was honest in expressing her sociopathy.

Warren appears profoundly allergic to speaking the truth under any (public) circumstances.

Surrealistik said:

Going to be honest.

Gabbard completely lost me with her rejection of key and pillar progressive policies like Medicare for All. She is utterly dead to me now, and it gives me no pleasure to say this.

Total misreading. If AOC's endorsement went to Warren, as it conceivably could have, _that_ would have been the kiss of death, encouraging his base to jump ship.

Click to expand...

Well, with Gabbard we're talking about two different things:

Best best to win vs. ideologically preferable.

Gabbard's genuine conservatism is what would give her huge support against Trump, just as Sanders' genuine social democrat positions (& now age) are what would kill him against Trump the incumbent.

2020 is the stillborn bastard child of DNC self-ravaging in 2016; an utter abomination.

The Year of the Populist is long gone, and the fake one prevailed, and will again.

As far as AOC endorsing Warren, and the effect on Bernie's core supporters in 2019/2020?

They would have stood true, but Bernie's done as of 2016.

Now the Democrats are in full "ANYONE THAT ISN'T TRUMP!!!" mode, but they still won't support their best bet, and that's Gabbard.

The Democrats have learned NOTHING from 2016, and are doubling down on self-destruction in backing Warren, one of the most despicable and duplicitous politicians I have ever witnessed stammer through a string of lies.

:hm

Acadia said:

Do you think the black vote will line up behind Warren?

Click to expand...

The “black vote” will vote for anyone with a D after their name 8 times out of 10. But if you’re expecting huge turnout...don’t unless a black person is the nominee.

Surrealistik said:

Regardless of how he wins in SC, if he has sharply declined support everywhere else, that's not going to help him, especially if he loses Iowa, NH and Nevada, and momentum has already built behind one of his competitors; this looks pretty likely, with Warren in the lead in the first two, and within spitting distance per Nevada polls as her trajectory continues to improve and Biden keeps sinking.

Click to expand...

That is very true UNLESS the South Carolina primary is a preview of other primaries where the African American vote comes out heavy for him and allows him to win other states..... particularly if he loses those states you name but is still competitive just the same.

haymarket said:

That is very true UNLESS the South Carolina primary is a preview of other primaries where the African American vote comes out heavy for him and allows him to win other states..... particularly if he loses those states you name but is still competitive just the same.

Click to expand...

It's Warren no matter what - done deal.

3leftsdoo said:

Well, with Gabbard we're talking about two different things:

Best best to win vs. ideologically preferable.

Gabbard's genuine conservatism is what would give her huge support against Trump, just as Sanders' genuine social democrat positions (& now age) are what would kill him against Trump the incumbent.

2020 is the stillborn bastard child of DNC self-ravaging in 2016; an utter abomination.

The Year of the Populist is long gone, and the fake one prevailed, and will again.

As far as AOC endorsing Warren, and the effect on Bernie's core supporters in 2019/2020?

They would have stood true, but Bernie's done as of 2016.

Now the Democrats are in full "ANYONE THAT ISN'T TRUMP!!!" mode, but they still won't support their best bet, and that's Gabbard.

The Democrats have learned NOTHING from 2016, and are doubling down on self-destruction in backing Warren, one of the most despicable and duplicitous politicians I have ever witnessed stammer through a string of lies.

Click to expand...

Disagree on pretty much all of this, especially the notion that Gabbard's more conservative stances are an asset given that aggregate polling repeatedly and solidly confirms the popularity of Bernie's core agenda.

Bernie still has a solid chance, and it will be interesting to see how the endorsements and his strong debate performance affects his numbers in the coming weeks.

Further, while Warren is not my preference between electability and concerns about how far she'll enact the progressive agenda and to what extent she holds party loyalty above commitment to her principles, she does have a legitimate track record of opposing powerful interests, Wall Street despises her, her success has made Biden's megadonors panic, and she is certainly no friend of monied interests.

haymarket said:

That is very true UNLESS the South Carolina primary is a preview of other primaries where the African American vote comes out heavy for him and allows him to win other states..... particularly if he loses those states you name but is still competitive just the same.

Click to expand...

My estimation is that SC will be little more than a speed bump at best for his primary competitor then; doubly so if things persist as they are.

3leftsdoo said:

It's Warren no matter what - done deal.

Click to expand...

You could be right - and your prediction could well come true. She certainly appears the favorite right now.

But let us see how the first six weeks of primary voting goes before we crown anyone. Lots and lots can happen between now and the end of winter.

Surrealistik said:

My estimation is that SC will be little more than a speed bump at best for his primary competitor then; doubly so if things persist as they are.

Click to expand...

If SC proves to be that - why then would not other Southern and Border states present the same speed bumps?

Napoleon said:

The “black vote” will vote for anyone with a D after their name 8 times out of 10. But if you’re expecting huge turnout...don’t unless a black person is the nominee.

Click to expand...

Hahahahaha, cya there!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

haymarket said:

If SC proves to be that - why then would not other Southern and Border states present the same speed bumps?

Click to expand...

The south can't and won't carry Biden if a competitor solidly accumulates momentum in the first states; especially if that momentum causes his southern support to falter. If he loses the first three and California, you may as well forget it.

It's possible he might right his currently sinking ship and recapture those states, but I would doubt it. It strikes me as being very unlikely, particularly after his miserable debate performance, where his competitors did well by contrast.

Surrealistik said:

Disagree on pretty much all of this, especially the notion that Gabbard's more conservative stances are an asset given that aggregate polling repeatedly and solidly confirms the popularity of Bernie's core agenda.

Bernie still has a solid chance, and it will be interesting to see how the endorsements and his strong debate performance affects his numbers in the coming weeks.

Further, while Warren is not my preference between electability and concerns about how far she'll enact the progressive agenda and to what extent she holds party loyalty above commitment to her principles, she does have a legitimate track record of opposing powerful interests, Wall Street despises her, her success has made Biden's megadonors panic, and she is certainly no friend of monied interests.

Click to expand...

Gabbard's stances would be an asset in the general in that she's genuinely committed to what she claims; she has character.

None of the things we support - Bernie's core agenda - are going to happen anytime soon regardless of who wins or loses; that's just reality.

Bernie does NOT have the support of the crime bosses in the Democrat back room; this is all that matters as far as the nomination goes.

Warren is the 2nd ballot pick, period.

Democrat crimes of 2016 are coming back to haunt them because they will NOT learn; they steadfastly refuse to learn.

Warren has a legitimate track record of pretending to be what she is not; she IS monied interests.

She's IS an utter fraud.

She LITERALLY cannot answer a public question honestly - she is stunningly duplicitous.

People do NOT like that.

It's down to Trump the blatant pirate - honestly despicable - vs. whoever the Democrats put up to lose to him.

Gabbard - the honest anti-war centrist - is their best bet to take Trump on.

Again:

The Democrats burned their own house down when they went all-in for the deplorable Hillary.

There was never any 2020 for Bernie, which is why his supporters were so furious about Democrat criminality in 2016.

2020 is not 2016; Bernie is done.

:hm

Surrealistik said:

The south can't and won't carry Biden if a competitor solidly accumulates momentum in the first states; especially if that momentum causes his southern support to falter. If he loses the first three and California, you may as well forget it.

It's possible he might right his currently sinking ship and recapture those states, but I would doubt it. It strikes me as being very unlikely, particularly after his miserable debate performance, where his competitors did well by contrast.

Click to expand...

Right now, this is the primary schedule per wikipedia

February 3: Iowa caucuses
February 11: New Hampshire primary
February 22: Nevada caucuses
February 29: South Carolina primary
March 3: Super Tuesday (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia primaries); American Samoa caucuses; Democrats Abroad party-run primary for expatriates features a March 3–10 voting period.
March 10: Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, and Washington primaries; North Dakota firehouse caucuses (identical to a party-run primary).
March 14: Northern Mariana Islands caucuses
March 17: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio primaries
March 24: Georgia primary[310]
March 29: Puerto Rico primary[311]
April 4: Alaska, Hawaii, and Louisiana primaries; Wyoming caucuses
April 7: Wisconsin primary
April 28: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island primaries
May 2: Kansas primary; Guam caucuses
May 5: Indiana primary
May 12: Nebraska and West Virginia primaries
May 19: Kentucky and Oregon primaries
June 2: Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota primaries
June 6: United States Virgin Islands caucuses
June 16: District of Columbia primary (bill proposing a move to June 2 has been approved by the DC Council and now only awaits final approval by the US Congress for enactment)[312][313]

My feeling is that by March 17 we will know if have a sure nominee of if it is still one big mess. If two or even three candidates win a number of states by then and nobody has a majority of delegates, it is going to be very very interesting.

In the general yea.

Acadia said:

Do you think the black vote will line up behind Warren?

Click to expand...

Joe Eegah won't make it to the Iowa caucus. He's done. Stick a fork in him.

3leftsdoo said:

Gabbard's stances would be an asset in the general in that she's genuinely committed to what she claims; she has character.

None of the things we support - Bernie's core agenda - are going to happen anytime soon regardless of who wins or loses; that's just reality.

Click to expand...

Even if you're right, and I don't think you are, you're supposed to aim high during negotiations, then work down. Starting at the compromise with a half loaf and getting crumbs by the time things conclude is a proven failure; we know because that's exactly what Obama tried.

Bernie does NOT have the support of the crime bosses in the Democrat back room; this is all that matters as far as the nomination goes.

Click to expand...

I can agree on the fact that the DNC leadership despises him at least.

Warren has a legitimate track record of pretending to be what she is not; she IS monied interests.

She's IS an utter fraud.

She LITERALLY cannot answer a public question honestly - she is stunningly duplicitous.

People do NOT like that.

It's down to Trump the blatant pirate - honestly despicable - vs. whoever the Democrats put up to lose to him.

Gabbard - the honest anti-war centrist - is their best bet to take Trump on.

Click to expand...

I don't like that Warren won't give a straight and clean answer to the fact that the middle class will pay more in tax for MFA, particularly when it's so easy to blunt given that the typical person will save far more than they will pay in new taxes due to eliminated out of pocket expenses on healthcare as Bernie mentions, but an utter fraud? How? Where's the evidence? And don't say Liewartha because I just can't take that seriously. Her enmity with Wall Street is factual and a matter of public record, as was her founding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has recovered billions of misbegotten profits for Americans from the sector, and which WS utterly despises.

Also while I feel Gabbard would be a strong candidate against Trump, I certainly don't think she would be the best, especially now that she's abandoned policy repeatedly and decisively proven to be popular, and there isn't really any evidence in support of that claim.

Again:

The Democrats burned their own house down when they went all-in for the deplorable Hillary.

There was never any 2020 for Bernie, which is why his supporters were so furious about Democrat criminality in 2016.

2020 is not 2016; Bernie is done.

Click to expand...

If you say so. My outrage personally was over how unethically skewed the primaries were in and of itself, and that it took Wikileaks to disclose the details, not because Bernie wouldn't have a shot in 2020.

Dans La Lune said:

if it comes down to a battle of ideas, Bernie wins pretty handily. This is Bernie's lane. He owns it.

Click to expand...

Bernie has essentially one idea. Eat the rich. Raise taxes on the wealthy and give away free stuff.

Warren's entire career she has worked as a Bankruptcy Lawyer. She understands the nuances of these problems on a much higher level. I also trust here to choose policies more carefully that will have a real impact.

Sorry, I like Bernie, but anger isn't really a vision, and I don't think he understands how to get things done when reality sets in. There is a next to zero chance that Democrats will have 60 Senators any time in the next four years. Without it, medicare 4 all has zero chance of passing. Warren can adapt to that and choose policies that will still do a lot of good even if she can't get medicare 4 all.

MrWonka said:

Warren can adapt to that and choose policies that will still do a lot of good even if she can't get medicare 4 all.

Click to expand...

Warren takes nearly as much money from rich people as Donald Trump does. Seems to me that alone repudiates everything progressives are suppose to stand for.

MrWonka said:

Bernie has essentially one idea. Eat the rich. Raise taxes on the wealthy and give away free stuff.

Warren's entire career she has worked as a Bankruptcy Lawyer. She understands the nuances of these problems on a much higher level. I also trust here to choose policies more carefully that will have a real impact.

Sorry, I like Bernie, but anger isn't really a vision, and I don't think he understands how to get things done when reality sets in. There is a next to zero chance that Democrats will have 60 Senators any time in the next four years. Without it, medicare 4 all has zero chance of passing. Warren can adapt to that and choose policies that will still do a lot of good even if she can't get medicare 4 all.

Click to expand...

I mean if you like Bernie, and were following his candidacy objectively, you would understand that there's more than anger behind his campaign and ideas, and it doesn't begin and end with 'eat the rich' and 'give away free stuff', unless you would use those critiques to describe Warren's platform, which mainly differs on the basis of more means testing and somewhat less aggressive taxation. Moreover, for all the talk about Warren's plans, Sanders' are no less detailed.

Lastly, the man set the agenda for the party that's in vogue now and singlehandedly shifted the Overton window. Barring declared 'centrists' like Klobuchar and Biden, everyone in the Dem primary is running with some variant of his ideas, so clearly, there is something real and substantive to that vision which goes beyond mere anger, the fundamentals of which clearly resonate with voters.

Surrealistik said:

Even if you're right, and I don't think you are, you're supposed to aim high during negotiations, then work down. Starting at the compromise with a half loaf and getting crumbs by the time things conclude is a proven failure; we know because that's exactly what Obama tried.

I can agree on the fact that the DNC leadership despises him at least.

I don't like that Warren won't give a straight and clean answer to the fact that the middle class will pay more in tax for MFA, particularly when it's so easy to blunt given that the typical person will save far more than they will pay in new taxes due to eliminated out of pocket expenses on healthcare as Bernie mentions, but an utter fraud? How? Where's the evidence? And don't say Liewartha because I just can't take that seriously. Her enmity with Wall Street is factual and a matter of public record, as was her founding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has recovered billions of misbegotten profits for Americans from the sector, and which WS utterly despises.

Also while I feel Gabbard would be a strong candidate against Trump, I certainly don't think she would be the best, especially now that she's abandoned policy repeatedly and decisively proven to be popular, and there isn't really any evidence in support of that claim.

If you say so. My outrage personally was over how unethically skewed the primaries were in and of itself, and that it took Wikileaks to disclose the details, not because Bernie wouldn't have a shot in 2020.

Click to expand...

You make some excellent points, and we mostly agree, especially in that there was much to be outraged about re: the DNC in 2016.

As to Warren...

The Lieawatha thing actually defines her in a word.

She is the exact OPPOSITE of all she claims to be.

Descended from genocidal settlers (can't control who your parents are; no foul so far), she claimed to be descended from the victims of her ancestors, and for personal gain. (MASSIVE foul.)

Her entire career - her life - is a fraud; she is all that she claims to despise.

Warren IS big money; she is a predator; she is the 1%; she is a fraud.

She is the fox in the henhouse, all dressed up in feathers.

Lieawatha says it all.

3leftsdoo said:

She's much smarter too: she's managed to convince the crime bosses in the back room that NOTHING she claims to stand for in public will ever come to pass, and that every word she speaks to the rank and file is a lie.

This one private expression of truth will propel her all the way to an ignoble loss to Trump.

As repugnant as she was, at least Hillary was honest in expressing her sociopathy.

Warren appears profoundly allergic to speaking the truth under any (public) circumstances.

Click to expand...

You have a very good point. It's like Bernie. He just puts his commie right out there to see.

3leftsdoo said:

Gabbard's stances would be an asset in the general in that she's genuinely committed to what she claims; she has character.

None of the things we support - Bernie's core agenda - are going to happen anytime soon regardless of who wins or loses; that's just reality.

Bernie does NOT have the support of the crime bosses in the Democrat back room; this is all that matters as far as the nomination goes.

Warren is the 2nd ballot pick, period.

Democrat crimes of 2016 are coming back to haunt them because they will NOT learn; they steadfastly refuse to learn.

Warren has a legitimate track record of pretending to be what she is not; she IS monied interests.

She's IS an utter fraud.

She LITERALLY cannot answer a public question honestly - she is stunningly duplicitous.

People do NOT like that.

It's down to Trump the blatant pirate - honestly despicable - vs. whoever the Democrats put up to lose to him.

Gabbard - the honest anti-war centrist - is their best bet to take Trump on.

Again:

The Democrats burned their own house down when they went all-in for the deplorable Hillary.

There was never any 2020 for Bernie, which is why his supporters were so furious about Democrat criminality in 2016.

2020 is not 2016; Bernie is done.

:hm

Click to expand...

Rotflmao. Did you see the wetter mitter twump wote to the pwedident in cwayon? Omg, my stomach hurts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk