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

mookie, I didn't take you for a Mayor Pete fan

Well, Bloomberg's lost my vote.

(but I don't think Dems would have controlled the senate, wouldn't it be 50-50 and Pence casting the deciding vote?)

djp otm, mookie 4 prez

i for one am shocked that a billionaire would selectively choose to support both sides of the aisle in order to further his own material interests

didn't Bloomberg support Toomey because of the Manchin-Toomey bill?

you see Rashida Tlaib booing is “Trumpian”, a billionaire Republican with a long history of sexual harassment lawsuits and racist policies who still hasn’t released his taxes trying to buy a nomination with a massive, uncritical media blitz isn’t because tone is all that matters. https://t.co/qIJhSDrIZB

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) February 3, 2020

I for one am very excited to see what happens when Humphrey Bloomberg is handed the nom without winning a single primary, I think it should work out very well for all of us.

it's both incredible and also extremely credible xp

the one conspiracy I deeply believe is that people like this are the actual Russian bots interfering in the election this year

He's running ads that are getting under Trump's skin so who cares? I mean really for God's sake. pic.twitter.com/ddtlSODeIc

— Rhonda Harbison (@rhonda_harbison) February 3, 2020

the only thing that matters is annoying the cheeto-in-chief, not actually having a coherent ideology that people might want to support at the ballot box in order to materially improve their lives

You jest, but…

man i really need to not think about this today

Study Torah instead, parashat Bo this weekend.

Oh my b that was this past weekend

i will focus on the new K Michelle i think

A post good enough that I'm just gonna reproduce it in its entirety:

HOW WILL A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ENACT A PROGRESSIVE POLICY AGENDA IN 2021?
BY PAUL CAMPOS / ON FEBRUARY 3, 2020 / AT 10:34 AM / IN GENERAL

There’s a real simple answer to that question: He or she won’t, because that’s impossible to do under current political conditions in the US.

These include:

(1) The massively disproportional political power of conservative old white people, because of The Wisdom of the Framers.

(2) The enormous status quo bias built into in the American system of governance, because of The Wisdom of the Framers.

(3) The absolute opposition of the nation’s economic, cultural, and media elites to any political changes that would cost them any money.

Joe Biden can’t do anything about this because his claims that Republicans will work with him are either delusional nonsense or strategic electoral pablum.

Bernie Sanders can’t do anything about this because his apparent belief that his election would also unleash some sort of left wing political tsunami is absurd on its face.

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have a plan for this, because there’s no plan for this. Or rather the plan would have to be “have a better system and/or a better electorate,” which is a potentially good long-term plan but doesn’t work at all in the short term.

All this would be true even if Joe Manchin turns out to be the median vote in the Senate next year, which is an extremely optimistic scenario.

This election is incredibly important because it’s about stemming the tide of ethno-nationalism and fascism. Winning the presidency is absolutely critical to that in all sorts of ways (controlling the executive branch, foreign policy, judicial appointments etc.)

But it’s not about enacting anything even vaguely resembling a progressive political agenda, because in the short term that can’t happen. It’s about triage.

So ultimately I just can’t get too worked up about who the Democratic candidate for president is, because the ONLY thing that matters is defeating Trump, and winning enough down ballot races to stem the red tide. I have no idea who the best candidate is for those limited purposes and neither do you. So support the candidate you like best, but let’s keep our eye on the ball.

This comment is also worth noting:

Whatever perceived competence the Executive Branch may have had, any illusion on the part of other countries that the US can have a stable international policy is shot to hell for the lifetime of everyone of voting age in those countries. A Democratic president may generate an overseas sigh of relief, but trust in the US is never going to be further than "will this promise be delivered on while you are still in office?"

monkeypissinginhisownface.gif

Just got back from the centrist rally. Amazing turnout. Thousands of people holding hands and chanting “Better things aren’t possible”

— absolute angel (@InternetHippo) July 1, 2017

Bernie Sanders can’t do anything about this because his apparent belief that his election would also unleash some sort of left wing political tsunami is absurd on its face.

The American Presidency, notoriously a powerless office. Barely a step ahead of the Queen of England, really.

insofar as any candidate except Bloomberg and Yang would sign executive orders and appoint administrators better than any Republican, yeah, it doesn't matter who wins the Dem nomination

all other disagreements aside, I think it's clear by now that whomst has the presidency has a psychological effect on the nation, so there's also that.

you guys are def in charge of November turnout, then xp

xxp - that line only has even a vague meaning if you think all the rest would sign the same EOs, appoint the same administrators and the same judges

I have my doubts.

I think the Campos post is reductive but I agree with the sentiment. This past week left me especially Sick of This Shit and I'm at the point now where I'll vote for Biden with a raging hard-on if it comes to that.

tmi

fair

This comment is also worth noting:

_Whatever perceived competence the Executive Branch may have had, any illusion on the part of other countries that the US can have a stable international policy is shot to hell for the lifetime of everyone of voting age in those countries. A Democratic president may generate an overseas sigh of relief, but trust in the US is never going to be further than "will this promise be delivered on while you are still in office?"_

xxp - that line only has even a vague meaning if you think all the rest would sign the same EOs, appoint the same administrators and the same judges

I have my doubts.

Ah shit fucked yo my quote tags

Trump's opponent, whoever it is, gets 47% by having a heartbeat. The rest will come by how hard people are motivated to bang the drum.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) February 3, 2020

please kill me

omfg pic.twitter.com/ujTchzgNP6

— Brock Wilbur (@brockwilbur) February 3, 2020

haha yes the burns will be epic

uh what

#Final #Iowa, David Binder Research/@focusonrural Poll:

Buttigieg 19%
Sanders 17%
Biden 15%
Warren 15%
Klobuchar 11%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 3%
The rest 1% or less pic.twitter.com/1nb65JU3kH pic.twitter.com/0FfyAnzeXI

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) February 3, 2020

iirc that poll has consistently been a bit of an outlier, no need to freak out just yet afaik

xps unperson, the only way to stem the tide of right wing nationalism is to beat it, and the only way to do that is to put forth a vision for the future that voters en masse can actually embrace. If people liked the way it was before they wouldn’t have voted for trump in the first place.

ah ok that's more rural focused which means....Bernies gonna win

Given the mechanics of how caucuses work, a 4% difference between 1st and 4th place could fall out in a very wide range of final outcomes. So, if you live in Iowa, just go caucus, and if you don't, don't sweat bullets over the polls because it won't help at all.

iirc there was some rules change that rural/small caucuses count for more or something?

looking forward to 2020

A note from the Republican Iowa Secretary of State about the repeated misinformation put out by Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that routinely spreads absolute garbage about voter rolls. pic.twitter.com/vpyChUtsAG

— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) February 3, 2020

Joe Biden's healthcare plan: dead dick Alprostadil injections 4 all

when your campaign is saying this in public = internal polling shows you taking a drubbing

Joe Biden’s campaign team is setting expectations low for the Iowa caucuses Monday night.

While some campaign aides were unsure how the results would turn out hours before the caucuses would begin, they expressed some apprehension about the outcome.

“Most [aides] feel it’s not going to be great,” one longtime Biden ally who has had conversations with top aides inside the campaign, acknowledged Monday.

Biden’s aides and allies said they were hoping to place in the top three. But even if they fall short, the campaign is “built for the long haul,” one Biden confidant said.

lmao if he doesn't make the top 3

trust no chatter

biden being crushed under the weight of klobmentum

Joementum 2: The Doddering

when your campaign is saying this in public = internal polling shows you taking a drubbing

as with debates, isn't it a pretty standard move to set low expectations, so you can artificially create an "outperformed expectations" narrative? He may still be taking a drubbing but simon h otm, a "longtime ally" pretend-leaking what "aides and allies" are saying is just noise.

the canceled DMR poll apparently showed a bernie/buttigieg/warren 123?

^^^

We have the Glasgow, Scotland satellite caucus results

1st Alignment:

Sanders: 9
Warren: 4
Buttigieg: 3
Yang: 2
Klobuchar: 1

Yang and Klobuchar not viable. One Yang person left

2nd Alignment:

Sanders: 9
Warren: 6
Buttigieg: 3 pic.twitter.com/2Dl6cYSmGU

— Iowa Starting Line (@IAStartingLine) February 3, 2020

After the second alignment (round), the final count for the Paris satellite Iowa Caucus:
8 #Warren
6 #Sanders
3 #Klobuchar
Warren and Sanders each picked up a #Buttigieg supporter. The 3 remaining candidates get 1 delegate each.@France24_en @FRANCE24 #IowaCaucuses #IowaCaucus pic.twitter.com/jDQdGkLYlM

— Charli James (@charli) February 3, 2020