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

I really have no idea why the politics of self-delusion is so tied to a generation, but it’ll make for lots of great thought pieces after we lose
― iatee, Sunday, February 23, 2020 6:40 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

v cool that humanity's faced with an existential crisis like climate change and the politically sober and reasonable position is "dont elect the only candidate promoting popular movements to fight climate change"

this is one fine moment despite everyone but iatee having pretty solid knowledge of how to wipe their ass

(but congrats dude you've joined fred in the Circle of Moronic Cynicism)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k

I would ask you for how-to-do-cynicism-real-good lessons but I guess we need to wait a little bit. maybe December?

xp

who are you backing?

is anyone gonna make a supercut of chris matthews' brain dying for my benefit

Democrats have won the popular vote in the last three presidential elections, and also in six out of the past seven presidential elections overall. Has it been tight and getting tighter? Of course. Is there a chance of procedural fuckery handing a win to the other guy? Obviously (see: two out of those past seven elections). Bernie is clearly pretty popular, Trump is clearly bad and hated beyond his coterie of unwavering mutants. There's plenty of reason to worry that things will go pear-shaped yet again but there's also plenty of reason to hope for the best without feeling like your hopes are totally delusional.

The idea that Sanders will change anything is definitely delusional

Fred, do you wanna amend this so as not to sound like a complete fucking idiot?

Also, what about the current president? Has he changed anything?

xxpost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtWVpYVuQ9g

That post single-handedly invalidates silby's line of argument in the babby thread.

I really have no idea why the politics of self-delusion is so tied to a generation, but it’ll make for lots of great thought pieces after we lose
― iatee, Sunday, February 23, 2020 6:40 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

v cool that humanity's faced with an existential crisis like climate change and the politically sober and reasonable position is "dont elect the only candidate promoting popular movements to fight climate change"

so this thread has become "condescendingly point out how difficult it is to advance a progressive agenda with a divided Congress to grown adults who learned this shit in grade school", cool

who are you backing?

I assume we’ve covered this piece but since the penny is finally dropping for a lot of people this morning, it’s a good link to send to nervous people/concern trolls https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/7/21002895/bernie-sanders-2020-electability

all of the dems are actually ‘pretty against global warming’ one of them isn’t more legit because he says ‘green new deal’.

does "pretty against global warming" include the preservation of fracking as a "transitional energy?"

Because 2/3 of the remaining candidates believe that.

Something I don't understand. It's Sunday, about half the results for Nevada are in, and the slowness is not a story. Was the furor over Iowa really because it was so close then? Nevada doesn't seem any faster.

The idea that Sanders will change anything is definitely delusional

Fred, do you wanna amend this so as not to sound like a complete fucking idiot?

Also, what about the current president? Has he changed anything?

― Suggest Banshee (Hadrian VIII), 23. februar 2020 16:25 (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Hi Hadrian. I already answered the second of your question in the very post you posted half of, then said it made me seem like an idiot. So no, I honestly don't particularly want to 'amend' half of a post I already, like, wrote once before.

It’s just stupid xp

It's going much faster than in Iowa. Iowa had zero percent reported for a couple of days, iirc

Something I don't understand. It's Sunday, about half the results for Nevada are in, and the slowness is not a story. Was the furor over Iowa really because it was so close then? Nevada doesn't seem any faster.

Lost in Nevada coverage because of size of Sanders win: as of 10:00 a.m. Eastern on Sunday, just 50-60 percent of precinct results have been reported. Had this been close like Iowa, we’d have no idea. Again. pic.twitter.com/pY1M8j9rrC

— Charles Franklin (@PollsAndVotes) February 23, 2020

It's going much faster than in Iowa. Iowa had zero percent reported for a couple of days, iirc

IIRC, the first results from Iowa brought us to 63% counted about 21 hours after the caucus began. IDK if Nevada is going to beat that by muchhttps://t.co/tmxQQ7fBlj

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 23, 2020

Wrong yet again. Please stop posting.

new board descrip plz

xxxxpost yeah Warren was my first choice too

Fair enough, for 21 hours then it was at 0%, there was at least something after Nevada. I'm still more right on this than you caek.

caek asked you nicely to stop posting

Why would I care?

Hope springs eternal

Iowa panic was because a) it was first, so there was a lot of pent-up anxiety about finally seeing some actual results after months of campaigning, and b) system failures (both the technological failure of the app and the state party's mishandling of the response) contributed to a sense of disaster.

Nevada benefits from the landslide for Sanders but also lower expectations post-Iowa.

Nevada also did some kind of double ledger thing that should mean we do eventually find out broadly correct results. The Iowa results are still full of mistakes and will probably never be known.

maybe it’s less about the process and more about reporters needing a clear winner in order to have an easily reported angle!

NYT does have a token “why are so few results in?” article for Nevada, though. they get the need for continuity in reportage

I was going to vote Bernie but the slowness of the caucus results means the Democrats are in disarray, so voting Gary Johnson

Caucuses are an awful mess in general, no doubt about that. But Iowa was a systemic breakdown on every level. Nevada is just awful as usual.

also the 'we need to elect sanders because, global warming' argument doesn't add up because sanders has clearly expressed his policy preferences and a global warming is not going to be where he spends his political capital. he didn't tie 80% of debate questions he was asked to global warming, he tied them to health care. the 'fighting global warming is all that matters, really nothing else matters' candidate would be bloomberg, who does have a very strong revealed preference here.

part of the deep frustration I have w/ sanders is that he's basically spent the whole campaign promising to start his presidency by punching himself in the face. 'let's completely overhaul american health care' is not a novel idea, it's not something that is just too radical for idk say, hillary clinton. we have multiple historical reference points here. there is no deep mystery about what happens when you start this process.

xps

like the saving grace on this might be the fact that it's extremely unlikely that we'll even have 50 votes regardless, so there's basically no runway for that face punching

like the saving grace on this might be the fact that it's extremely unlikely that we'll even have 50 votes regardless

That would be a relief alright!

another thing about iowa was that the released results were just straight up wrong in many cases - too many delegates awarded from some caucuses, not enough in others, "repeat" caucuses with the same recorded vote tallies in two different caucuses, etc

xp

Here's the thing about 'electability' for those still hung up on 'electability': how goddamn 'electable' was Trump before he was ultimately elected?

iirc Nevada only has two city demographic regions that house the overwhelming majority of residents and no outlying cities with a population over 50k

so seeing how Las Vegas and Reno, including their suburbs, vote is pretty much the only game there

yes not retaking the senate sure would show us

Warren was my OG first choice too. I was hoping she’d make a run from way back when she was a thorn in Obama’s ass.

But I guess I’m not going to root against the most popular politician in America with whom I agree on virtually every policy and who currently outperforms every other primary candidate (yeah yeah lol polls amirite) against one of the most despicable humans to ever draw breath.

In fact, I’d go as far as to say this is a gift; we could be stuck w a Kerry or a HRC or a Mondale.

Expart of Languidge (Old Lunch) at 10:17 23 Feb 20

Here's the thing about 'electability' for those still hung up on 'electability': how goddamn 'electable' was Trump before he was ultimately elected?

yeah this drives me nuts, all bets are off!

Right, and then what happened pic.twitter.com/esmnEt5IPu

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) February 21, 2020

Bernie Sanders has a vision that leaves out me, a person who doesn't share that vision and will actively obstruct it. Why is Bernie so divisive, unlike me, who will continue to oppose him at every turn. Why won't Bernie expand the tent to include voters who hate his goals?

— Sigh Hersh, Persuasive Authority (@Ugarles) February 23, 2020

Who is Chris Mathews actually

I regret and apologize for ever defending this guy: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/politics/pete-buttigieg-nevada/index.html

(whose views are summarized in the tweet Morbs just linked plus some stuff about downticket races, which obv Buttigieg and not Sanders has been campaigning and raising funds for over the past four years)

I can't even read that CNN piece because I can't stop laughing at one of the writers' names being Dan 'Merica and the other one being named Donald Judd, which just makes me think of stuffing Pete Buttigeig into a gleaming metal box and leaving him in the desert.

stop polluting our deserts

Pete is the most cynical and calculating candidate I've seen in decades. By several miles.