Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

First poll, post 2nd debate shows relatively little movement:

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination	Politico/Morning Consult	Biden 32, Sanders 18, Warren 15, Harris 10, Buttigieg 6, O'Rourke 3, Booker 3, Yang 2, Gabbard 1, Castro 1, Delaney 1, Steyer 1, Ryan 1	[B]Biden +14[/B]

The Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Bennet, Hickenlooper, Inslee, de Blasio, Bullock & Williamson campaigns are all DOA, and at this point they should step aside. All are polling <1%, which is kind of embarrassing. Time for consolidation of the ranks.

Agree. I thought that I heard it announced today that Amy Klobuchar had become the 8th candidate to clinch the 3rd debate stage and I was amazed by that. Would that be the big 5 plus Yang, Beto, and I guess Klobuchar? I guess Booker also makes it, and I would think Tulsi, but I'm not sure she'll get the polling using such BS polls... she's been brilliant though, defending Biden and declining to hit Biden and instead attacking Harris... just brilliant. If she had attacked both, she would have looked like a loony lefty. Going for Harris again and again was savage. I hope she gets enough of a boost to qualify for the 3rd debates. If Klobuchar is there, Tulsi should be.

I dunno about Marianne Williamson... I think she inspires a lot of people and has some brilliant insights, but she wasn't ready on health care. There's an interesting clip of her surrounded by like 50-100 supporters, and they talk about how she failed her base on the question of health care, and she makes a commitment to support the most aggressive vision of Medicare for All.

I fucking hate Yang, and hope that someone calls out his statements on the Dave Rubin show about using UBI to eliminate social program spending. His progressive voters need to realize its a scam and shift to Warren or Sanders.

[Teenwolf]

Also, I don't know how you forgot to mention Tim Ryan or John Delaney. Such memorable punching bags.

[Teenwolf]

Mike Gravel ends his "campaign" today, the 2nd to officially drop out.

I was pissed off that he didn't make the 2nd debate, after progressives rallied for him to break 130K donor threshold. But his campaign sort of allowed his delegitimization to happen because they admitted that he wasn't running to win, but just as a message candidate.

[Teenwolf]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amy-klobuchar-says-she-qualified-for-the-third-democratic-presidential-debate-2019-08-02

So I was off, Booker is confirmed, Yang not yet confirmed.

This was interesting:

If 10 or fewer Democrats currently in the primary qualify, the debate will be limited to one night.

So if you have 8, add Yang and Tulsi... is that the 10?

Oh, and I figured out why Klobuchar qualified. She averaged 1.7 on RCP, meaning she just needs 2% in 4 different polls, not a 2% average.

[revo]

Also, I don't know how you forgot to mention Tim Ryan or John Delaney. Such memorable punching bags.

They're so inconsequential that it's a foregone conclusion. Actually mustering 1%, which is 1% more than powerhouse Senators Gillibrand & Klobuchar, is an accomplishment in itself.

I think they're waiting around to receive their "I Ran for President and All I Got was this Lousy T-Shirt" t-shirt.

[Teenwolf]

[revo]

LOL

[Teenwolf]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html

New York Times show Bernie's fundraising dominance across the country. So much so, they need to include a 2nd map of what the donors would look like without Sanders.

[Teenwolf]

LOL

Which part is funny? The headline 'Bernie wins debate"? I get that a non-supporter might see it as goofy, but it's true. Strategically, he's trying to project a bit of swagger. Its consistent with his recent attitude in interviews, not taking any shit, etc.

[TS Garp]

Which part is funny? The headline 'Bernie wins debate"? I get that a non-supporter might see it as goofy, but it's true. Strategically, he's trying to project a bit of swagger. Its consistent with his recent attitude in interviews, not taking any shit, etc.

I think he simply means that Bernie's response to the Cheney tweet is funny. But Bernie declaring himself the winner of the debate is very Trump-esque.

[Sour Masher]

I think he simply means that Bernie's response to the Cheney tweet is funny. But Bernie declaring himself the winner of the debate is very Trump-esque.

Yes, I think it was that Bernie got a good jab at Liz Cheney trying to attack Warren. The two progressives seem to be playing nice so far, which I think they can afford to do at this point, especially since there isn't as much overlap among their bases as one would think. Will be interesting to see if it lasts.

[Teenwolf]

Disregard, I wasnt initially seeing the tweet revo posted, only the LOL.

[Sour Masher]

Good read on Gabbard. Much of it has been covered before, but does a good job recapping what an unusual candidate she it, how she doesn't fit neatly into one ideological box, and what an unusual coalition of supporters she has, including libertarians and alt-righters. When you have support in the progressive wing, and also glowing praise not only Ron Paul, but from Ann Coulter and David Duke, you are certainly an interesting candidate. I guess that mostly speaks to the odd coalitions, for very different reasons, between many different people regarding the MIC and America's various global military endeavors.

She was always a long shot for her to be a real contender, but it might be interesting if she were able to hold on a little longer: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/u...gtype=Homepage

[GwynnInTheHall]

Good read on Gabbard. She was always a long shot for her to be a real contender, but it might be interesting if she were able to hold on a little longer: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/u...gtype=Homepage

Any combination of Bernie, Warren, Tulsi or Pete would be just fine by me.

[Teenwolf]

I want to live in a country that would choose Elizabeth Warren for President, but have serious doubts that I presently live in such a country. Ultimately she strikes me as clearly the most intelligent, hard working, prepared and principled. Other candidates check off some of those boxes, too, but she checks all of them off best.

Please explain something to me.

Bernie Sanders voted against the raise to a $738 Bn military budget.

Elizabeth Warren voted FOR the raise to a $738 Bn military budget.

Many of you seem to believe that Warren's "plans" are more pragmatic, more doable, more realistic than those of Sanders, yet aside from their itty-bitty difference in foreign policy, the question remains...

Where is Elizabeth Warren going to get the money for all of her plans if she refuses to kneecap the military industrial complex? Seems like Bernie has a lot more leeway in spending when his plan includes limiting the budget for the Pentagon and diverting that funding elsewhere.