2020 Democratic presidential primary

13. Taylor Swift

14. "sense of humor"

The Hillary issues page is unchanged since 2017.

smdh

The Democrats are Putin's puppets, Hillary is running third party, its the only way

I take back the nice things I said about Chris Hayes the other day

.@chrislhayes talked up @amyklobuchar's appeal and electability during his appearance on @PodSaveAmerica.

Klobuchar, "in terms of an electability argument, just looking at the numbers, probably has the best argument in the field," he said.@dcexaminerhttps://t.co/098bqoDpXz

— Mike Brest (@MikeBrestDC) October 22, 2019

"if you're only looking at the numbers"...even then it doesn't make sense, but especially when you watch her in action. there's just no other reaction that is possible other than "you're not going to be president"

the electability delusion is strong with the punditocracy

hayes is a politics nerd - mostly in the best ways, but sometimes it manifests itself in horserace bullshit

somebody who is broadly electable should probably get double-digit poll support, but what do i know?

I take back the nice things I said about Chris Hayes the other day

.@chrislhayes talked up @amyklobuchar's appeal and electability during his appearance on @PodSaveAmerica.

Klobuchar, "in terms of an electability argument, just looking at the numbers, probably has the best argument in the field," he said.@dcexaminerhttps://t.co/098bqoDpXz
— Mike Brest (@MikeBrestDC) October 22, 2019
― Simon H., Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:08 PM (five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I actually listened to the pod and he made it explicitly clear that he was divorcing his comments about Klobuchar from ideology, it was simply an acknowledgment that she won fairly handily in a purple state.

how do numbers in one state give her an "electability argument"

it really wasn't about comparing Klobuchar with Warren or Sanders but moreso Mayor Pete, wondering why Pete has emerged as the centrist favorite when he's never won an election where he had to convince more than like 10,000 people to vote for him.

how do numbers in one state give her an "electability argument"

― Simon H., Wednesday, October 23, 2019 1:19 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

presumably Klobuchar has convinced a fair number of people who identify as Republican/conservative to vote for her in the past. I think that's the extent of the argument, it certainly wasn't any kind of endorsement of her as a nominee

gotcha

yeah they should try that converting the moderate republicans in suburbia tactic again

so diamond joe criticized the republicans for the foul use of lynching to describe the impeachment only for it to come out that he used lynching to describe the impeachment of clinton.

just like with Trump you can always say "there's a Tweet for that" with Joey B it's always "there's a gaffe for that"

Reagan called the Iran-Contra hearings a "hi-tech lynching."

did he?

that was the Thomas hearings

(and it was Thomas that said it iirc)

clarence thomas, 1991:

"When Thomas returned to the witness table shortly after 8 p.m., he was even angrier than he had been in the morning. "This is a circus, it's a national disgrace and from my standpoint as a black American...it's a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks," he said. "It is a message that...you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

https://www.newsweek.com/anatomy-debacle-204540

xps

some Reagan supporters said the Iran Contra hearing were run by a "liberal lynch mob"

those were actually the last words that clarence thomas ever spoke out loud

oh he probably had some things to say about some websites he saw

Reagan called the Iran-Contra hearings a "hi-tech lynching."

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:04 PM (twenty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

did he?

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:29 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

that was the Thomas hearings

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:29 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

(and it was Thomas that said it iirc)

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:29 PM

Yeah, that's from Thomas' hearing, sorry, but Reagan did refer to the lynch mob attacking him for Bitburg and I-C.

I knew I hadn't dreamed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/review/Phillips-t.html

Ronnie was really upset by Bonzo Goes to Bitburg eh

Ronny was such a peach:

“There is a kind of lynch mob atmosphere,” Reagan said, in which accusations against government officials are widely reported but are without substantiation.

In other press conference highlights, Reagan:

--Maintained that rioting by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip over the last two months was instigated by “outsiders,” whom he refused to name. “We have had people suspected of being terrorists, outsiders, coming in, not only with weapons, but stirring up and encouraging in those areas.”

--Offered the opinion that South Africa’s policy of racial apartheid “is a tribal policy more than it is a racial policy.”

terrible that Trump took away the dignity of the office

It bothers me a lot when contemporary pols quote Reagan favorably to get a point across, which even Sanders does. Don't do that!

it's too late, he's been fully rehabilitated

Saw this on Facebook, and thought it had some good analysis:

Adam Berliant
51 mins

The latest PRRI.org report is freakin' amazing. It’s also really long. I’ve been digging into it for days now, cross-referencing with other data, asking myself: What/who has the best chance to defeat Trump in 2020?

With the usual caveat that I will vote for any of them (I’d vote for a blue balloon with a face drawn on it), I’m now convinced the nomination needs to go to Elizabeth Warren. The data are screaming at us.

I know this is a lot to absorb, but I really hope you’ll read it.

1. Many are decided, but not enough. The PRRI report says there’s a very healthy number of voters (37%) who are “vote blue no matter who” people. And this is way more than the 28% who say they’ll vote for Trump no matter what. But – and this will be a super influential point as you continue reading – voters over the age of 50 are disproportionately represented in this group (26%). The Democrats who are going to show up to the polls and say they’ll vote for “any of them” skew over 50.

2. SO much depends on who gets nominated. Amazingly, 29% of all Americans across the political spectrum say who they vote for -- or whether they vote at all –depends on who the Democratic nominee is. You’ll see a ton of data points about this in the report, but the theme is that large percentages of these ‘wait and see’ voters won’t vote – at all – if they don’t like the name on the ticket. Note: These “wait-n-see” voters tend to be liberals (21% firmly identify as Blue vs. 15% Red). So, it’s important to know who these people are, and what they’re ‘waiting’ to see.

3. “Wait and See” voters tend to be young. While those “wait-n-see” voters are of all ages and in both parties, the number of these voters who are under the age of 30 is disproportionately high: 28% vs. the average of 21%. And there’s A LOT of them. You may have heard that Millennials are now as powerful of a voting demographic at Boomers. Younger generations (Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z) now make up a clear majority of America’s voting-eligible population. They’re liberals, but they’re also the least bought into “vote blue no matter who.” Note: When you look at 5 year age ranges instead of 10, voters aged 25 to 30 are actually the biggest segment of eligible voters, and they are roughly 65% liberal politically. Yet, they had historically low voter turnout in 2016. They waited, they saw, they didn’t vote.

4. Why it can’t be Joe Biden. The demographic MOST likely to say “my voting depends on who is nominated” is also the LEAST supportive of Joe Biden. This makes Biden the worst choice out of the top three. For favorability, Bernie Sanders actually ranks first among Democrats at 75%, Biden second at 71%, and Warren third at 61%. But note: While Biden is popular, he also commands the second highest UN-favorable rating behind Marianne Williamson. That’s because of voters under the age of 30 – the people we most need to get to the polls. Only 7% of younger voters support Joe Biden according to Pew research. This is the second WORST percentage of ANY demographic about ANY candidate Pew evaluated. (The worst was only 4% of voters over 65yo support Bernie Sanders). This is the same reason, among others, that HRC resulted in historically low voter turnout among voters 18 to 24.

5. Why it can’t be Bernie Sanders. The problem with Bernie Sanders is, unfortunately, the same problem as Joe Biden, just in reverse. If ONLY 18 to 30 yos voted, it would be Sanders in an absolute landslide. Young Democrats are 30% more likely to vote for Sanders over Warren (and 245% more likely to vote for Sanders over Biden). It is pretty tough to argue this away. But, alas, older voters just aren’t on board with Bernie Sanders. Only 7% of voters over 50 support Bernie Sanders – the same dismal number as young voters who support Joe Biden.

6. So, Elizabeth Warren. She’s not as favored among young voters as Bernie Sanders, but she’s well liked. She’s the second choice for 75% of voters under 30, according to Pew. Warren is not as favored among older voters as Biden, but she’s the clear second preference, with almost double the favorability of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the field. And remember, these older voters are the most likely to ‘vote blue no matter who.’ With Warren on the ticket, you’re going to capture the majority, if not all of the older voters, and you’re going to have a candidate that’s going to have significant appeal to 3 out of 4 very-much-at-risk young voters.

I was previously of the mind that, hey, support whoever you want to support. But once there’s a name on the Democratic ticket, get on board. Ok, so I still am of that mind. Joe, whatever. Bernie, fine. Half eaten pickle, I’d vote for that, too.

But the data are clear. Elizabeth Warren is, right now, the best choice if what you want is to actually win in 2020.

If during the primaries, you have half the room shouting Joe, and the other half shouting Bernie, and we end up with one of those guys on the ticket, we’re going to screw this up. Start shouting EW! I know I will be.

Sources

https://www.prri.org/…/fractured-nation-widening-partisan-…/

https://www.people-press.org/…/most-democrats-are-excited…/…

https://www.pewresearch.org/…/the-politics-of-american-gen…/

I'm all for Warren, but I think that's overthinking it. The numbers simply don't say that much about the general election this far in advance.

Is there such a thing as “overthinking it” on a thread with 12,250 posts

"Start shouting EW!"

Probably not the best rallying cry.

But, alas, older voters just aren’t on board with Bernie Sanders

And remember, these older voters are the most likely to ‘vote blue no matter who

🤔

Amazingly, 29% of all Americans across the political spectrum say who they vote for -- or whether they vote at all –depends on who the Democratic nominee is.

lol "amazingly"

I could believe that Warren is the candidate who has the broadest appeal across the left spectrum, and across age groups.

Here (Ontario) we tend to be cagey about it. At least historically.

I could believe that Warren is the candidate who has the broadest appeal across the left spectrum, and across age groups.

― Lucky Pierre Delecto (crüt), Wednesday, October 23, 2019 5:56 PM (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think this is it. bernie is the one who pushes the democratic coalition left. warren is the one who can capitalize on that while retaining some centrists. (im still voting bernie tho).

Tim Ryan dropped out, idr who he is tbh

he was the main guy who challenged pelosi for the speakership last year. i heard him on NPR around the time and it was clear within 10 seconds that he had no idea wtf he was doing

I thought you were a Liz lad, bison. Maybe I’m confusing you with someone else

go fuck yourself, you Gap-buying piss ant

In this @Cosmopolitan interview, @PeteButtigieg speaks favorably of the judgment of former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy when discussing the potential for his own court picks as president. That is utterly disqualifying for me as a primary voter. https://t.co/HmH3wnewXf

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) October 24, 2019

does he even KNOW the careers of Justices Marshall and Brennan?

The idea here is you get more justices who think for themselves. Justices like Justice Kennedy or Justice Souter, and there are many legal scholars who think this could be done without a constitutional amendment under current law.

this is all?

Kennedy gave us Kavanaugh so he can eat shit in hell forever.