Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

won't be enough for the Bernie Didn't Campaign for Clinton fantasists

the idea that Sanders will bring in people that Warren wouldn't is pretty compelling though

Warren has been my top choice since the campaign began, but this is what's making me reconsider. Of course, by the time I vote in mid-March, who knows what the field will look like.

i for one am dropping out of the presidential race

Brad won't settle for being my VIP

I kind of relate to this (I haven't spent any time around active Warren campaigners, but the realization that the Warren base is demographically narrow was disheartening):

“I had always liked Warren and I liked the idea of having another candidate with progressive stances, who was a woman and a little younger than Bernie, that I could potentially support,” said Lauren Rinaldi, a Philadelphia-based artist who was an early organizer of the "Philly for Warren" Facebook group and first spoke with POLITICO at a Warren campaign event in July. “I was also thinking that maybe she could be the candidate to sort of bridge the Hillary people and the Bernie people.

She described the experience as "fun and a bit exhilarating at the beginning, but then I started to feel a little turned off by the whole thing; I found that I was in a bubble of mostly white, college-educated supporters with, what felt like to me, almost an artificial 'wokeness.'" Rinaldi is now supporting Sanders, as she did in 2016.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/09/elizabeth-warren-2020-closing-argument-097023

artificial wokeness
sets the body free
artificial wokeness
baby you & me

Not that true real authentic American wokeness we all crave

BREAKING:

2 ex-warren staffers told me that in a confidential meeting between Bernie and Warren, Bernie kept insisting that "boys go to college to get more knowledge" and that "girls are from jupiter, because they are stupider"

he would sing the song and clap until we cried

— mister angry at oscar (golden man bad) (@mistermoviespod) January 13, 2020

"and that commuting & downtowns & neighbourhoods & parks are all improved by public transport, is more effectively done when you have a few years to message, rather than three seconds."

A campaign won't be three seconds and actually a lot can be done over a couple of months. Job if the campaign to put into place a set of messages that can resonate. There has been quite a lot of messaging over the Green New Deal so it would be an extension of that.

"two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting"

is this just a fancy way of saying "four people who were not present at the meeting"?

Bernie campaign has instructed volunteers to say that Kid A is “overrated.”

— noah kulwin (@nkulw) January 13, 2020

I finally wised up and muted the word "Bernie" on Twitter. It was that or unfollow some IRL friends.

uh so Marianne has endorsed Sanders?

sorry, someone posted a 2015 link

can y'all keep the bernie lol tweets in his devoted lol thread

This is why the Politico story is a thing, btw:

A fraying non-aggression pact
The New York Times first reported over a year ago that Warren and Sanders met in Washington in December 2018. That initial report said that neither senator sought each other's support, and that they did not try to dissuade one another from running in the 2020 election.
If Warren and Sanders agreed on a non-aggression pact of sorts that night, that agreement has become increasingly frayed.
Over the last year, Sanders aides and advisers have taken to social media to criticize Warren on numerous issues, including "Medicare for All," student loan debt cancelation and the "wealth tax." Some of his allies have also implicitly and explicitly gone after Warren on the broader question of who has the rightful claim to the progressive mantle in 2020.
"People have to decide do they want originals or do they want copies," Nina Turner, Sanders' campaign co-chair, told CNN over the summer. "He's the original."
Politico reported over the weekend on the Sanders campaign's talking points instructing volunteers to say that Warren's supporters are "highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what" and that "she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party."
Campaigning in Marshalltown, Iowa, Warren told reporters that she was "disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me."
"Bernie knows me, and has known me for a long time," Warren said. "He knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for, and the coalition and grassroots movement we're trying to build."
Sanders himself appeared to distance himself from the memo, saying on Sunday that his campaign has "hundreds of employees" and that "people sometimes say things that they shouldn't."
"I have never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren, who is a friend of mine," Sanders said.

Politico, true to its roots, back to sowing discord.

Not a big, thing, I'd still vote Sanders if I was in Iowa, anyone who changes their mind based on those talking points is insane. But I have to say I find the sanctimonious bullshit also displayed in this thread so offputting. What's wrong with just saying 'yeah, guess that's new, but now is probably the time to do so.' But instead it's both 'probably the lying media, don't ever trust them' and ALSO 'of course he does, this is completely the right thing to do' at the same time. The inability to discuss anything on any parameter other than whether or not it's good for Sanders.

what

let's all adopt Fred's parameters whatever they be arrrrrr

this is where Fred mistakes a bunch of posters saying different things for one poster saying a bunch of contradictory things

so... it's a thread on ILX

lolz

Lol, come on. Every Berner on here would have followed Calzino's twitter-lead here if it hadn't been shot down immediately.

Not a big, thing

I'd estimate that about 95% of the campaign details we discuss in this thread are so abstruse or unimportant that they will have zero impact on the outcome of the nomination. That politico article falls somewhere in the bottom 5%, even by this thread's eager-to-dissect-every-nuance standards.

the most important thing that we don't really talk about is that if Bernie really does manage to identify, turn out, and win the votes of people who polling, modeling, and conventional wisdom don't think will vote, things are gonna get wild

he better, because that's his plan to deal with mcconnell and the gop

though tbf, it's not like any other democrat has a plan either. either a democratic candidate wins with enough of a landslide to overpower mcconnell and get legislation signed, or they win and wait another two to thirty-six years to get a veto-proof majority. i guess there's the possibility that the GOP will realize the foolishness of their postures and change thei.....haaa...ahahah.aa.ahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha

I think if that plan worked, the midway primaries would have looked a lot different. I don't think it's needed though, I could see him win Iowa and New Hampshire, and it just rolls from there. He is well positioned in the Midwest, so a good candidate against Trump. It doesn't really need new voters.

to balance that with a little optimism - i actually DO think there's a good chance that sanders could win in a landslide

But yeah, I don't get how he thinks he will do anything with the filibuster still in place, even with the best election night possible this november.

So do I! I just doubt how much that would impact the Senate.

Every presidential election cycle I contemplate the possibility that some portion of the roughly third of eligible voters who don't vote will finally decide to cast a vote. Last election seems to have been decided by a few thousand disgruntled white male non-voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan who finally decided to stick their finger into the eye of The Establishment.

Maybe Sanders can motivate a few hundred thousand 18-25 year olds who've never voted before to find out if they really can get their student debt cancelled if they take the time to register and vote. Stranger things have happened. Trump winning, for example.

With every new executive act of deregulation and inflammatory foreign policy (not to mention RGB health) I'n getting tired fast of "but what about McConnell"

The president as we have seen has changed dramatically in just the past twenty years, there's a shit ton to be undone irrespective of legislation

"Presidency"^

that's true, but i don't know, legislation seems prettttty important too

especially since things that aren't legislation can be reversed under a new administration (executive orders esp, but also rules and regulations, albeit at a slower pace)

yeah I think we just just let Trump have a second term tbh, let him deal with McConnell - who needs the headache!

xp no doubt, but in the meantime there's nothing much to be done about it and all this hand wringing over whether Candidate A's relatively more progressive policies are less likley to make senate passage than Candidate B's more moderate polcies is a joke, nothing *any* Dem prez proposes is going to make it out of this senate

this being the case it seems obviously preferable to have a president who will message hard on ideals

Legislation won't matter if the courts are just going to overturn it. And, I mean, Trump hasn't really passed that much legislation, and he still has managed to destroy so much. Even without the landslide, Sanders is going to be so good for the US.

i am not "counting chickens"

It's certain Clinton & Obama vets will pool their firepower on Sanders if they see him headed for the nomination. Like, worse than thus far.

pic.twitter.com/VIsBr9qlVn

— emotionally distant dad drinking seagram’s escapes (@ambienvalent) January 11, 2020

Steyer with the subliminal bid for the stoner vote

https://i.imgur.com/6rRpTzu.png

lol

vote for tom steyer, he will legalize weed in illinois

I tuned out for a couple weeks and just realized tomorrow’s debate is in my neighborhood. There was no chance I’d get a ticket, so maybe I could watch it nearby and gawk at the candidates arriving?

What is the purpose of the president making fun of each candidate when they drop out? I have a suspicion that he believes everyone that remains in the race is running against him simultaneously, so if someone drops out, it's one less opponent to beat.

You’re once again making the truly day one mistake of trying to explain Donald Trump’s actions based on beliefs about the world he may hold.

Yes but WHY did the child throw the bowl of guacamole into a ceiling fan

to get to the other side