Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[sdk]

Have you read some of the press coverage he got?

Johnson? Yes, but I'm far away from the UK so I don't suppose I saw an entirely representative sample.

What I saw was more in the way of laughing off Johnson's antics rather than elevating him as a very stable genius.

 

[Ruairi77]

Johnson? Yes, but I'm far away from the UK so I don't suppose I saw an entirely representative sample.

What I saw was more in the way of laughing off Johnson's antics rather than elevating him as a very stable genius.

There's no comparison between Trump fanaticism and Johnson's support.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm not criticizing them for not voting for Clinton. I'm criticizing them for voting for Trump.
It all feeds back to my point that he's an Independent and his supporters don't have a strong allegiance to the democratic party.

That isn't really based on a lot of evidence, though. You are taking things that would ordinarily be a positive (attracting support from outside the base) and then saying that because of that / because he isn't one of the Party leadership all his supporters don't have a strong allegiance to the party.

If that was the case, he wouldn't be where he is (which is actually one of the more telling parallels with Trump winning the GOP nomination in 2016 - he was only able to do that because a big chunk of the existing GOP base preferred him to the establishment candidates).

 

[tsubaki]

Johnson? Yes, but I'm far away from the UK so I don't suppose I saw an entirely representative sample.

What I saw was more in the way of laughing off Johnson's antics rather than elevating him as a very stable genius.

In that case I advise you to take a look at what the Telegraph got up to, especially Allison Pearson.

 

[sdk]

In that case I advise you to take a look at what the Telegraph got up to, especially Allison Pearson.

I'll look for it but alas, the Telegraph site itself erects a paywall to prevent penniless Johnny Foreigners such as myself from keeping an eye on their Tory news.

 

[abelard]

alternate realty: time travel to February, 2016 - comments thread, American Spectator
"It's much more the case that people who never dreamed of voting Republican before, or even voting full stop, are now drawn to the party - but only because of Trump.

In any sane world, the candidate who can manage this would be seen as an asset, but to the RNC, it is much more of a threat, to be destroyed if necessary."

Well, I see that one went completely over their heads.

From the NYT
Looks like we haven't learned a thing.
"Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump."

Earlier we were discussing Manchin and Bloomberg, and the consensus was that although they are corrupt reactionary oligarchs (and racist sex-pests in the case of the latter) we need to endure them because they will keep swing voters, who might otherwise vote Republican, loyal to the Democratic Party.

Do we blame them, because if they weren't the Democratic nominee, the Party would lose? Do we denounce Bloomberg because he is a Republican until basically last year who more than anyone else funded the Kavanagh appointment?

No, we do not.

Do we attack Bloomberg because some of his potential 2020 voters perhaps "gave us Trump the first time"?

No, we do not.

The consensus when considering right wing Democrats who might attract rich Republicans is that we have to prioritise their alleged 'electibility', and grin and bear their shameful and corrupt behaviour. Their ability to bring Republican voters to the Party is the entire point.

Agreed?

Then, not 30 minutes later, the topic turns to Sanders, who, despite being on the left rather than right of the Party, also persuades voters who would otherwise vote for Donald Trump to vote for the Democrats instead, as the article @ruari quoted notes.

Do we treat Sanders, who will attract Republican voters, the same way we treat Bloomberg, who, remember, we are choosing solely based on the premise that he will attract Republican voters?

No.

This time, Sanders' ability to attract Republican voters is not only not 'electible', but it is instead a damning flaw, and somehow the entire reason that the Party lost in 2016 - as though the ability to take away voters from the other Party and deliver them to your Party is a liability and not an asset.

So instead, we throw temper tantrums and hissy-fits about Sanders, and literally try to blame him for his ability to draw voters from Donald Trump to the Republican Party (even as we simultaneously insist that the Party can't choose him because he will alienate the very swing voters we are blaming him for having won over!).

Honestly, are you boys still struggling to see your contradiction here? It's really not that hard.

Now, I have a good understanding why bringing poor Republicans rather than rich Republicans into the fold poses problems for the DNC and, more importantly, the money, but those who you who actually like the Democratic Party and want it to win should ask yourselves why the contradiction in your response here has never occured to you before, and then probably all think a bit more critically about the talking points that you absorb from your media though.

And if that sounds condescending, well, sorry, but you've earned it.

 

[tsubaki]

I'll look for it but alas, the Telegraph site itself erects a paywall to prevent penniless Johnny Foreigners such as myself from keeping an eye on their Tory news.

the opening paragraph (which you should be able to see) of the article the day after the election gives a taste:

God, I love this country. There we were on Thursday afternoon with a sick dread roiling around our stomachs. The worst butterflies since exam results. Clutching at straws – or straw polls anyway. Unable to sleep peacefully until all was well on Friday morning (it’s going to be alright, isn’t it?) Pictures on the news of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband made you nostalgic for a time when a Labour victory might mean you’d be a bit sad not downright terrified.

We believed in Boris, never doubted he was the one leader who could get us through this.

Now imagine that every day since the Tory leadership campaign. Then imagine much the same thing in the rest of the non-Mirror tabloids, all over Facebook and Twitter, and on the national broadcasters.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I’m mildly hopeful this is going to backfire on Bloomberg.

Debates, whatever you think of them, can be pretty hard work and you generally get better at them the more you do them but it it hard to maintain that aptitude.

Obama was pretty good in 2008 in his debates both for primary and general but for 2012 his lack of recent experience was a bit obvious in his first presidential debate with Romney. Bloomberg obviously is not a novice politician but it has been a while since he had to debate, certainly compared to the other candidates.

 

[Fedlingen]

Buttigieg and Biden scare me, because that opens the way for Hillary Clinton as VP, and that'll lose to Trump.

 

[sdk]

the opening paragraph (which you should be able to see) of the article the day after the election gives a taste:



Now imagine that every day since the Tory leadership campaign. Then imagine much the same thing in the rest of the non-Mirror tabloids, all over Facebook and Twitter, and on the national broadcasters.

Well then, onwards to authoritarianism.

I do recall seeing polling a while back in which conservatives were offered a variety of contingencies and asked whether they'd accept [some contingency like widespread job losses, a major financial crisis, etc.] in order to secure Brexit, and the only contingency that was too much even for the sake of sunlit uplands was a Corbyn victory. That was sobering.

 

[sdk]

Buttigieg and Biden scare me, because that opens the way for Hillary Clinton as VP, and that'll lose to Trump.

The Clinton vp story was a rightwing trolling effort, not an actual prospect. Clinton's already disavowed the claim.

 

[Ruairi77]

Well, I see that one went completely over their heads.



Earlier we were discussing Manchin and Bloomberg, and the consensus was that although they are corrupt reactionary oligarchs (and racist sex-pests in the case of the latter) we need to endure them because they will keep swing voters, who might otherwise vote Republican, loyal to the Democratic Party.

Do we blame them, because if they weren't the Democratic nominee, the Party would lose? Do we denounce Bloomberg because he is a Republican until basically last year who more than anyone else funded the Kavanagh appointment?

No, we do not.

Do we attack Bloomberg because some of his potential 2020 voters perhaps "gave us Trump the first time"?

No, we do not.

The consensus when considering right wing Democrats who might attract rich Republicans is that we have to prioritise their alleged 'electibility', and grin and bear their shameful and corrupt behaviour. Their ability to bring Republican voters to the Party is the entire point.

Agreed?

Then, not 30 minutes later, the topic turns to Sanders, who, despite being on the left rather than right of the Party, also persuades voters who would otherwise vote for Donald Trump to vote for the Democrats instead, as the article @ruari quoted notes.

Do we treat Sanders, who will attract Republican voters, the same way we treat Bloomberg, who, remember, we are choosing solely based on the premise that he will attract Republican voters?

No.

This time, Sanders' ability to attract Republican voters is not only not 'electible', but it is instead a damning flaw, and somehow the entire reason that the Party lost in 2016 - as though the ability to take away voters from the other Party and deliver them to your Party is a liability and not an asset.

So instead, we throw temper tantrums and hissy-fits about Sanders, and literally try to blame him for his ability to draw voters from Donald Trump to the Republican Party (even as we simultaneously insist that the Party can't choose him because he will alienate the very swing voters we are blaming him for having won over!).

Honestly, are you boys still struggling to see your contradiction here? It's really not that hard.

Now, I have a good understanding why bringing poor Republicans rather than rich Republicans into the fold poses problems for the DNC and, more importantly, the money, but those who you who actually like the Democratic Party and want it to win should ask yourselves why the contradiction in your response here has never occured to you before, and then probably all think a bit more critically about the talking points that you absorb from your media though.

And if that sounds condescending, well, sorry, but you've earned it.

sorry Abe but this is way out of context.
Sanders is the front runner.
I'm concerned about his electability.
I'm concerned about how his supporters have treated other candidates.
I'm concerned about his independent nature and how it may play out whether he wins or loses the nomination.
If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

I also have a list of grievances about Bloomberg but he hasn't contested any primaries/caucuses.
if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.

The same for pete, Amy, and, yes, Warren too.

 

[Fedlingen]

The Clinton vp story was a rightwing trolling effort, not an actual prospect. Clinton's already disavowed the claim.

She's also been holding political fundraisers around the US again. She won't say anything before it's necessary.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

A lot wrong with this. For a start, why is it that ""the bots" are tearing Sanders opponents apart" as an especially bad thing when all the candidates are buying ads attacking each other (and Sanders in particular), when centrists on Twitter and everyones surrogates in the media are doing the same thing?

Secondly the whole cult argument is pretty absurd, as we saw over here where long standing Labour members (and people who returned to the party) were described as such because they happened to support Corbyn.

For a start it is a bit mad that people who adopt the same language (calling other people cultists), make the same criticisms (that their opponents don't have an interest in the party as a whole), who stereotype to a level that is way beyond acceptable and profess beliefs that are if not manifestly false then extremely questionable (that a centrist candidate exists that will beat Trump and that the Dem establishment will pick that candidate) get to go around calling other people cultists.

Nope. Sanders has been "attacked" less than any (or certainly MOST) of those who have had a "surge" in this primary. Buttigieg has been absolutely eviscerated on numerous occasions, both in ads and on the debate stage. The theory of whether a

I'm not sure why that supposition is either manifestly false or extremely questionable (except to the extent that it's extremely questionable whether Trump will lose at all, such is the advantage of incumbency) when the person with the biggest advantage vs Trump in EVERY battleground state poll is a moderate. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant moderate, rather than centrist - there are no centrists (by US standards) running for the Dem nomination)

Well, I see that one went completely over their heads.



Earlier we were discussing Manchin and Bloomberg, and the consensus was that although they are corrupt reactionary oligarchs (and racist sex-pests in the case of the latter) we need to endure them because they will keep swing voters, who might otherwise vote Republican, loyal to the Democratic Party.

Do we blame them, because if they weren't the Democratic nominee, the Party would lose? Do we denounce Bloomberg because he is a Republican until basically last year who more than anyone else funded the Kavanagh appointment?

No, we do not.

Do we attack Bloomberg because some of his potential 2020 voters perhaps "gave us Trump the first time"?

No, we do not.

The consensus when considering right wing Democrats who might attract rich Republicans is that we have to prioritise their alleged 'electibility', and grin and bear their shameful and corrupt behaviour. Their ability to bring Republican voters to the Party is the entire point.

Agreed?

Then, not 30 minutes later, the topic turns to Sanders, who, despite being on the left rather than right of the Party, also persuades voters who would otherwise vote for Donald Trump to vote for the Democrats instead, as the article @ruari quoted notes.

Do we treat Sanders, who will attract Republican voters, the same way we treat Bloomberg, who, remember, we are choosing solely based on the premise that he will attract Republican voters?

No.

This time, Sanders' ability to attract Republican voters is not only not 'electible', but it is instead a damning flaw, and somehow the entire reason that the Party lost in 2016 - as though the ability to take away voters from the other Party and deliver them to your Party is a liability and not an asset.

So instead, we throw temper tantrums and hissy-fits about Sanders, and literally try to blame him for his ability to draw voters from Donald Trump to the Republican Party (even as we simultaneously insist that the Party can't choose him because he will alienate the very swing voters we are blaming him for having won over!).

Honestly, are you boys still struggling to see your contradiction here? It's really not that hard.

Now, I have a good understanding why bringing poor Republicans rather than rich Republicans into the fold poses problems for the DNC and, more importantly, the money, but those who you who actually like the Democratic Party and want it to win should ask yourselves why the contradiction in your response here has never occured to you before, and then probably all think a bit more critically about the talking points that you absorb from your media though.

And if that sounds condescending, well, sorry, but you've earned it.

Out of interest, do you talk to people in this way who even slightly disagree with you in real life? I shudder to think how much time you must spend in A&E.

For the 97th time (MORE OR LESS) NO ONE HERE HAS A PROBLEM WITH SANDERS. You go on and on about how the meanies in this thread "attack" him... but forgive me - more or less no one has done that - not to NEARLY the extent you have attacked his current competitors. Some people question whether he can win nationally (a worry backed up by the non national-vote polls i.e the ones that actually might mean something). Some people have a problem with elements of his support - and in you're words "well, sorry, but you've earned it".

And finally (and probably for only the 52nd time) nobody WANTS Bloomberg. Nobody particularly WANTS Manchin. When (or rather IF) the alternative is Trump and another Republican Senate seat, then it's a very easy decision.

 

[Ruairi77]

She's also been holding political fundraisers around the US again. She won't say anything before it's necessary.

there's no way a moderate will pick Clinton.

and there's no way a progressive will pick Clinton.