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

Can't believe Bernie hasn't defeated an incumbent Republican since 1990.

the elephant that isn't really in this room

^another klobuchar thing, in the same run-in sentence that also mentioned her third marriage

I think this debate is turning me into a Bernie bro

Amy: “you should have a plan not a pipe dream”

Lol, another casino metaphor

you know what i love talking about? the deficit.

oh! I am in the US and have a tv to watch this.

I am drinking unfiltered sake.

oh my god just let me vote and die already

— Harron Walker (@HarronWawker) January 14, 2020

The mamas and the papas

“mommas” must be testing a lot better than I’d imagine

I’m not sure Biden has the energy for a two hour debate, or maybe he’s coming down with a cold or something but his answers seem to be getting progressively incoherent. Seems like Sanders is the winner here. Steyer and Klobuchar have also been fine but as always it seems they lack a certain quality that would make them seem viable. Maybe because they’re too normal? America likes their presidents to have some razzle dazzle maybe.

who was Reaganesque

Steyer and Klobuchar... lack a certain quality

Steyer and Klochubar do not inspire the necessary trust that they know how to do what they say must be done. Being the head of state is not like being a US senator or a CEO.

imo, Buttigeig only inspires trust among voters who think they are nearly the same as he is and that they would be a good president, too. That's a dismaying number of deluded middle class white people, but not enough to elect him.

it's pretty amazing how Nate Silver totally fucked up the last election and didn't seem to take any lasting hit to his credibility

Silver did just fine in the last election, estimating a Dem seat gain in the house in the high 30s when many were doubtful the Dems would take the majority, and getting most of the individual calls right too, even in the competitive races.

damn

What did they say!!!!!! pic.twitter.com/4hBhUJNB3r

— Karol Markowicz (@karol) January 15, 2020

godddam so this is going to be the next week of dem primary coverage huh

anyway, super weird if Bernie shat all over the notion of a female candidate against Trump and Warren only came out with it now hmm

I still wonder if the phrase “he said _a woman_ couldn’t win” actually means he named a specific woman

maybe anticipating Hillary would try again in 2020 lol

$4000/mo for anyone willing has its drawbacks.

Mike can telepathically communicate with dolphins. #BloombergFacts #DemDebate

— Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) January 15, 2020

anyway, super weird if Bernie shat all over the notion of a female candidate against Trump and Warren only came out with it now hmm

― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Wednesday, January 15, 2020 5:42 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

They agreed to not attack each other at the meeting, so it makes perfect sense that any attack only comes after the truce has been broken. By Bernie btw.

It really was incredibly stupid for the Sanders campaign to go after Warren right now, and, no matter how high up it happened, to then act so defensively about it. Major breach of trust, and only Biden benefits.

lol at Tom Steyer in that Sanders-Warren exchagne

It really was incredibly stupid for the Sanders campaign to go after Warren right now

Ah yes, the time-honored tactic of never saying anything even politely critical about the candidate whose voters are by far the most likely to be persuadable to vote for your candidate. If only they'd listened to Fred!

Or honored the agreement they made.

Look at what the consequences has been. You seriously think this was worth getting some volunteers to say that Warren's base is quite wealthy?

cory booker’s campaign just released a statement alleging that during a private meeting between booker & bernie sanders in 2019, sanders indicated that he was going to “take booker’s girl” [rosario dawson] because booker “wasn’t hittin it right”

— 💰TRILLIONAIRE💰 (@maltyhops) January 14, 2020

stfu Fred

fred i honestly don't know what you're talking about

this Sanders/Warren beef is gonna be well forgotten by the time we get to the actual caucus

http://i.imgur.com/kj65ZRD.jpg

By playing the Sanders good/staffers suck Fred gets to tell you that it's great if Sanders wins but also to also say why he lost if it goes the other way.

Pretty neat huh?

He should pitch this to some publication, reckon there's good money to be made from this grift.

that... is some top quality pure uncut fred right there

tmi

Ah yes, the time-honored tactic of never saying anything even politely critical about the candidate whose voters are by far the most likely to be persuadable to vote for your candidate. If only they'd listened to Fred!

― bold caucasian eroticism (Simon H.), Wednesday, January 15, 2020 6:15 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I see it's time for the the daily "something is bad because the guy we don't like said it" session but it seems, based on data, that one candidate slowly gaining ground in battleground-state polls and another candidate backtracking somewhat on a popular policy idea have already been quite effective at persuading supporters, in a way that a very dumb beef that causes persuadable voters to instead hate one another more probably wouldn't

this bernie/warren conflict has been one of the most inconsequential much-ado-about-nothing non-stories i've ever seen so predictably it has brought out the best from the idiot machine at ilx including our top 2 US posters xyzzz and fred, the latter of whom keeps peddling nonsense about why this meaningless nothing is actually bernie's surrogate's fault and the former who has now posted his 30th tweet making the same joke about 'things bernie told people in confidence' and now the confetti at the supermarket is raining down and he has won a free turkey. hopefully this celebration will suffice and he will not longer feel compelled to dennis perrin up the site.

Let's hope it stays inconsequential. It's really really close in Iowa, and it won't take much to tip it from Sanders to Biden.

And yeah, as katherine points out, it's just so unnecessary.

like, how exactly are people supposed to be persuaded by this? sanders supporters dislodged by their candidate maybe having said something in a private one-on-one meeting years ago that might have had sexist undertones? warren supporters dislodged by a bunch of people tweeting them snake emojis and donald trump's old pocahontas jokes? supporters of either becoming convinced that the person they might otherwise have been persuaded to switch to is a liar?

at any rate, donald trump has already jumped on it, with characteristic muddle of "obviously nothing sexist has ever happened, but shit, gotta also make sure to call bernie a 'nasty person,' despite his having one of the higher popularity ratings among politicians and maybe even a sliver of my base, and despite my swearing immediately afterward that he'd never say the nasty thing, hey, maybe she'll win!" so the inconsequential ship has probably sailed

I didn't speak to the effectiveness of tactics, I only know that a permanent hands-off policy when it comes to criticizing your political opponents isn't really tenable

yeah but it sometimes just means that Christie torpedoes Rubio or Gephart cuts Dean down

My basic stance on alll this is that I like Bernie Sanders and dislike Nathan J Robinson and fortunately Nathan J Robinson isn't running for president

I don't have every syllable of this controversy committed to memory but my recollection is that Bernie initially said his "a woman can't win" statement was more along the lines of observing that it'd be something Trump would weaponize and be particularly awful about. which certainly isn't a particularly profound or brave thing to say but seemed like a decent enough explanation for a potential misunderstanding that would allow everyone to move on. I don't really understand why he didn't reiterate that position last night but instead decided to double down on essentially treating the whole thing like a lie. It's either that he doesn't possess the mental acuity to make that pivot when it's necessary, or that he's just the kind of person who gets so incredibly annoyed when the conversation is on something he (rightly) deems to be trivial that he can't be bothered to finesse the situation appropriately. and the people who love him indeed love him for exactly that kind of "no BS" mindset but it ignores the unfortunate realities of 21st century political media.

like, it's not going to cause me to change my own vote, but it seems to me pretty undeniable that when he decided to pick nits with the whole "I HAVE beaten a Republican incumbent" exchange, he came off like a huge asshole.

It's either that he doesn't possess the mental acuity to make that pivot when it's necessary, or that he's just the kind of person who gets so incredibly annoyed when the conversation is on something he (rightly) deems to be trivial that he can't be bothered to finesse the situation appropriately.

seems a third possibilty is missing here

That he is lying?

xxxp There's a difference between the two parts of that first sentence though - no-one, I'm sure, is under any illusions that Trump and surrogates will be amazingly horrific if Sanders gets the nomination, but if Warren had phrased this as "a jew can't win", it'd deservedly be a pretty big story.

like, it's not going to cause me to change my own vote, but it seems to me pretty undeniable that when he decided to pick nits with the whole "I HAVE beaten a Republican incumbent" exchange, he came off like a huge asshole.

Well, he has.

Whatever point Warren was making there in the first place seemed pretty dumb to me - women by virtue of their gender are more able to win elections and defeat Republican incumbents? And Bernie's doesn't count because it happened 30 years ago (and he won every VT election since)?