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

I will stan first two albums but nothing beyond its true

Buttigieg 2020: What a Hundred Men or More Could Never Do

Great combo of headline and photo: https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-democratic-establishment-2020-0f6ee9ad-8665-4620-9a1b-db5abb0b537e.html

Mayor Pete is like the band you never heard of that gets the huge opening slot on a tour (cause their label bought on) & all the sudden they have ads everywhere & write ups in big mags but you go to a show & never see 1 shirt of theirs in the crowd.

Ok I kinda see where you're going with this my dude, but I thought the conventional wisdom was that you DO NOT go to a show wearing a shirt that is of the same band.

I mean, sheesh. I thought this is common knowledge?

^^ people who insist on this are cops

If the band were a true plant they'd throw a bunch of t-shirts into the crowd

I think this deserves its own thread: Wearing a band's t-shirt to one of their concerts: Classic or Dud?

Heh. This is why when I went to Obama rallies I always wore my authentic Paul Wellstone 2000 shirt.

For tonight's Warren speech in Arlington I am thinking of bringing out some vintage Mondale/Ferraro merch that I've been saving for a special occasion.

good tweet

Growing up as a bi kid in the 2000s I heard a lot of homophobic jokes about Republican men being closet homosexuals, so I can’t tell you how inspiring it is to be alive now during the era of Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay man to be a closet Republican

— 🅺🆁🅸🆂 🆁🆄🅵🅵 (@BuffTuffKRuff) February 12, 2020

I thought the conventional wisdom was that you DO NOT go to a show wearing a shirt that is of the same band

Counterexamples (some now defunct, but still): Iron Maiden, Slayer, Slipknot, Rush, Motörhead, AC/DC, Grateful Dead...

So basically, that was a "rule" promulgated by indie-rock pseuds.

:|

No one should attack @Culinary226 and its members for fighting hard for themselves and their families. Like them, I want to see every American get high-quality and affordable health care—and I’m committed to working with them to achieve that goal. https://t.co/onVqAcZRoB

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 13, 2020

vicious, man, vicious!

this is already the Olympics of bad faith

when neera tanden turns up approvingly in yr menchies there's a pretty good chance it's a bad-faith attack

it really bummed me out to see

I don't know. I hear someone got hit with a flower.

typical exchange on the Gay Clintonite Centrist blog:

Why even go through the charade of primaries anymore? Just give Bloomberg the nod already and get it over with. He's paying for it, isn't he?

At least Bloomberg is paying in dollars, not rubles.

the mayo pete platitude generator is fun

Pareene:

Bloomberg has explicitly argued that “our interpretation of the Constitution” will have to change to give citizens less privacy and the police more power to search and spy on them. In fact, he does not seem to believe that certain people have innate civil rights that the state must respect. If the NYPD wanted to spy on Muslims, even if they lived outside New York City, solely because of their religion or ethnicity, Michael Bloomberg thought it was a great idea. And as Jack Shafer recently pointed out, his dedication to ensuring submission began before he was an elected official—when he was the boss at a company notorious for its tyrannical treatment of employees.

Bloomberg’s three victorious mayoral election campaigns are depressing evidence that a substantial number of Americans are amenable to authoritarian politics and uninterested in protecting civil liberties. So long as the person overseeing the police state claimed to be surveilling people for their own good, it was easy to turn a blind eye, especially if the surveillance was concentrated in certain neighborhoods. ...

https://newrepublic.com/article/156560/michael-bloombergs-polite-authoritarianism

xp probably thought he was some kind of gay blade

Unions who block universal benefits to protect their own private welfare states are killing the labor movement. https://t.co/o8YhvcL5Ec

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) February 13, 2020

wow liz is sounding a lot like amy

it's all moot, says Ryan Grim (Intercept/Sanders stan):

Hey @Culinary226, check in with your government affairs people. There are not 60 votes in the Senate to ban the private health insurance you got in your union negotiations, nor will there be after the election. You're gonna be okay.

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) February 12, 2020

"You should vote for the guy whose signature policy is M4A because M4A has no chance of being enacted" is a weird pitch but OK

Yeah I think the much better argument is "not having healthcare as a bargaining chip actually harms the bosses and benefits unions."

which seems correct to me. The idea that having healthcare as a negotiating chip is good for unions somehow reminds me of the same flawed thinking that says it's good to have a mortgage for the tax breaks.

xp (I mean it's actually a very good general election pitch for anti-war, pro-choice, pro-LGBT Dem voters who don't want to ban private insurance when/if Sanders is nominated!)

What’s a good basic primer on ways to address healthcare as negotiated compensation for labor in the face of restructuring to governmental universal insurance?

there’s at least issues of the comparative coverage, and the value of the private coverage as compensation in contract, and i’m sure tons more-

the same flawed thinking that says it's good to have a mortgage for the tax breaks.

you'd be amazed how many people think this makes sense though

i dont mean “why is one better” as much as “how are people proposing to resolve.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/

Not sure anything this election cycle has been more depressing than Bloomberg's plan actually working as much as it is

Seeing loads of randoms falling for it, not paid micro influencers and not bots. Seems like everyone who spent the last 3 years calling trump Cheeto in Chief suddenly thinks bloomberg is the only one who can beat him

I’ve been contacted by numerous people about this. Do you know anyone who has been paid by the Buttigieg campaign to attend an event? Did you respond to the (since-deleted) craigslist ad below? Has the Buttigieg campaign contacted you about attending an event in exchange for $? https://t.co/KMsiDccmX6

— Colin Kalmbacher (@colinkalmbacher) February 13, 2020

c'mon.

Buttigieg campaign responds via email—says the craigslist ad was fake and notes that it was removed (checked and it was removed by the author):

“This was actually fake and taken down. Someone else flagged as well. Town hall is free and open to the public.”

Imagine that, a fake Craigslist ad.

We're about a month away from virtually every moron who spent the past four years on here complaining Bernie isn't "intersectional" enough to support, all lining up to back Bloomberg, the guy who ran an explicitly racist police state

— Will🧙‍♂️Menaker (@willmenaker) February 13, 2020

how hypocritical these idiots are hypothetically

ok I Do Not Like the media's rush to prematurely eulogize Warren's presumed-dead campaign. Nor do I like some folks in this thread's apparent eagerness to buy into (and therefore legitimize and reinforce) this self-fulfilling pre-obituary, thxbye

I realized that I was doing that, so I decided to throw some money her way yesterday.

well she's not done for but her showing so far has been poor enough that another candidate in her shoes may have dropped out after NH--plus she doesn't seem to have much prospect of improvement ahead. also her tendency to attack Bernie when the chip are down is bumming us out.

she doesn't seem to have much prospect of improvement ahead

You really don't think she's gonna do better in Nevada, South Carolina and on Super Tuesday than Klobuchar and Buttigeig? I do. She may not go 1-2 with Sanders, but she'll be up there. If she's not, I suspect she'll drop out then.

her tendency to attack Bernie when the chip are down

A. Examples please

B. When other candidates (Bernard included) are specific about their differences from other candidates, one hears something along the lines of "This is a one-winner contest in which it's kinda okay to try to draw distinctions between yourself and other candidates." Is Warren specifically not allowed to do so, or what?

quoting ballotpedia for reference:

Alabama
American Samoa
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Democrats Abroad
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

With both California and Texas—the two most populous states in the United States—holding their primaries on Super Tuesday, more than one third of the U.S. population is expected to vote on March 3.

I want Bernie to win those states but it would be nice to see a better finish for Warren as well, just to counter the narrative of the moderate vote beating the progressives. I don’t really see her having a path to victory though.

again, self-fulfilling. you (general "you") not seeing a path for her victory is actively affecting whether or not she has a path to victory.

True of every candidate, I know, but seems egregiously to be aimed at Warren specifically right now. Pppl saying "I don't think she can win" is part of making her not be able to win and this cycle is pernicious

ok

if bernie had gotten sub 10 percent in new hampshire I'm sure warren supporters would not be calling for him to drop out.

YMP is otm insofar as this is how Chuck Todd create "winners and losers."

YMP it's about these recent instances where she's *not* drawing distinctions, though: disingenuously glomming onto Klob/Buttigieg attack line that Bernie is "my way or the highway," and today's (?) oppoortunism re: Nevada culinary union and M4A.

It's hard to sqaure this campaigning with last year's, when she was actually making thoughtful distinctions