Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Okay, Sour, GCStomp, tell me if these issues that I raise are smears pr legitimate concerns. Buttigieg invented black supporters in South Carolina, including 3 big name co-headliners, plus 400 others, which it turns out 62% of the list contacted were white. Many of the people listed were shocked that they were listed as supporters, including one of Bernie Sanders' state co-chairs. Turns out the endorsement email was all in the fine print, including an opt-out to not endorse him. Pretty scandalous, right? This is after his campaign had put out a narrative that black voters didn't support him because they're homophobic. Again, pretty awful stuff, right?

As the mayor of a 38% black district with a 2% black police force, he fired the first black police chief after systemic racism was revealed in recordings. So that's his record. He knows black people hate him so he smears them as homophobic, then invents black support that doesn't exist.

He also went from supporting M4A in February to attacking Warren for it in Oct.

Black voters from his own district hate him because they're buying into the smears, or is their hatred justified? I call him Mayo-Pete because he's only got the whites, and therefore can't win. His small bump has come from spending a ton of cash in the first 2 states plus tons of uncritical glowing media hype. Paper tiger, nothing under the hood.

I ask you, do you honestly think these are simply baseless smears?

Those are different issues. Even if we want to be generous and say he didn't know about the fabrications from his campaign, the error is on him, and how he learns and adapts to that will be telling. So, I agree, that isn't a good thing, just like Warren's past claiming of minority status was not a good thing.

Regarding the firing, that was a no win situation for him, but he could have tried to mitigate the loss better and done a better job of expressing his outrage over the situation and more aggressive in his solutions. Clearly there were larger issues in play than the PC illegally recording people, and those issues needed to be addressed and still need to be addressed better. It is concerning he hasn't handled it better. I think it isn't malicious as much as ignorance and probably an honest belief in following legal procedures, even if his heart may say that racist bastards do not deserve legal protections until the matter has been resolved in the courts. But that is a generous interpretation, I admit.

He really doesn't have a handle on these issues and he needs to seek as much help as possible on them to show voters he cares. All that said, how could he have not fired the head of policing in a community for doing something illegal? His hands were tied on that. To say the illegal recording of his subordinates should be given a pass is saying the ends justify the means. Even when the ends are righteous and the cause is just, what could he have done when the PC violated procedures and engaged in behaviors defined as clearly fireable offenses. Did he even have the authority to override that? Should he have tried?

I'm a right/wrong guy more than a legal/not legal. But as Mayor, did he not have to follow the law? Any lawyers want to chime in? I would love to know what he could have done differently; if he had other options. The racist/white officers were actually enriched by the PC's actions. They were able to sue and win, because the law seemed to be on their side. So how can the Mayor go against that, aside for doing better to express his frustration and sadness at the necessity of his actions?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Only 14 calories per serving !

Does marijuana burn lots of calories?

[The Feral Slasher]

Does marijuana burn lots of calories?

Do most bong lovers appear skinny ?

[The Feral Slasher]

wow, I don't get the appeal

https://www.newsweek.com/buttigieg-now-leads-democratic-field-iowa-new-hampshire-10-points-more-latest-polls-1472827

[Sour Masher]

wow, I don't get the appeal

https://www.newsweek.com/buttigieg-n...-polls-1472827

He seems to be pusbing hard in those states. I suspect because he knows he needs to make a good showing early and he will do poorly in South Carolina and other states with more minorty voters. Still, impressive numbers deslite the caveats.

ETA: a very concerning number is that while he is viewed most favorably in those states, he still comes up verynshort on whether voters think he can beat Trump. So this may be a case voters wanting to date him right now, but I do not see them wanting to marry him as a candidate. When it actually comes time to vote, it won't matter that they like him the best, if only 16% of voters think he is the one to beat Trump, I don't see him doing as well as projected.

[Teenwolf]

Those are different issues. Even if we want to be generous and say he didn't know about the fabrications from his campaign, the error is on him, and how he learns and adapts to that will be telling. So, I agree, that isn't a good thing, just like Warren's past claiming of minority status was not a good thing.

Regarding the firing, that was a no win situation for him, but he could have tried to mitigate the loss better and done a better job of expressing his outrage over the situation and more aggressive in his solutions. Clearly there were larger issues in play than the PC illegally recording people, and those issues needed to be addressed and still need to be addressed better. It is concerning he hasn't handled it better. I think it isn't malicious as much as ignorance and probably an honest belief in following legal procedures, even if his heart may say that racist bastards do not deserve legal protections until the matter has been resolved in the courts. But that is a generous interpretation, I admit.

He really doesn't have a handle on these issues and he needs to seek as much help as possible on them to show voters he cares. All that said, how could he have not fired the head of policing in a community for doing something illegal? His hands were tied on that. To say the illegal recording of his subordinates should be given a pass is saying the ends justify the means. Even when the ends are righteous and the cause is just, what could he have done when the PC violated procedures and engaged in behaviors defined as clearly fireable offenses. Did he even have the authority to override that? Should he have tried?

I'm a right/wrong guy more than a legal/not legal. But as Mayor, did he not have to follow the law? Any lawyers want to chime in? I would love to know what he could have done differently; if he had other options. The racist/white officers were actually enriched by the PC's actions. They were able to sue and win, because the law seemed to be on their side. So how can the Mayor go against that, aside for doing better to express his frustration and sadness at the necessity of his actions?

You've only addressed 1 of the issues, the original clusterfuck where he supported the racists. You seriously downplay how fucked up his actions are. I'll include a video from TYT, since they broke the story. Watch this, it involves crooked and racist cops talking about manipulating Buttigieg's "money people", and proclaim "it's going to be a good time when all of the white people are in charge." He took bribes ($10K cash plus a rented office at $1850/mth) from the "money people" influenced by the racists. Facts dont lie. 29 black officers on staff when Buttigieg was hired. After the racism scandal, 15 black officers.

His military role was pursuing economic development in war zones. Yet we hear nothing about his background.

Please address the other points. Inventing black supporters in South Carolina, including Sanders' state co-chair, and doing a poll where people said that they weren't sure if Americans were ready for a gay President and Buttigieg put it out as a press release blaming Black's homophobia.

These 2 recent events show what a scumbag he is on a personal level.

Flip-flopping on healthcare and praising the Tea Party just show him to be a political windsock, blowing whichever way his donors are pushing him at the time. He stands for nothing. I hope his recent surge is a flash in the pan.

[gcstomp]

to address mayor pete issues is already missing point of what i posted, but i will engage for a moment.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pete...s-plan-2019-11 this article points out the mayor pete issues with falsely attributing support for him, or his douglass plan. i do not think it addresses my point of post, and i was not saying candidates are without issues. though i am saying by actively, daily, disparaging d candidates you are strengthening trump.

the link does show the bernie supporter, a co chair in the state for bernie campaign was sought out for a quote by mayor pete folks. the quote was then used as an endorsement, wrongly, of douglass plan. you need to hear everyone say that is not good look, that it was wrong, i dont disagree.

mayor pete posted a defense, i could post it from article but basically he wasnt representing that the 400 people were endorsing him but were open to his plan. and the co chair that was quoted said about mayor pete "Now I like Pete, please don't get me wrong. I'll help him in any way I can. I think he's an honest man, I think he's a decent man, I think he has integrity. I'd like to see him keep running. But you don't do that. Those days are over and done with. We're tired of people telling us what we need. You wanna find out what we need? Come and ask us." to show he was annoyed that his name was used as a supporter of plan but that he likes mayor pete.

but point is you could spend every day going over misrepresented issues with biden, pete, warren, etc. yes you could certainly point out something in an unflattering light, that you still are trying to paint joe biden, who will not end up as a top 3 candidates imo, as criminal means i could spend every moment battling inches with you. that would be crazy. you are taking pains to represent the worst portrayal of d candidates. entire point of my post was you could do that, as they are not without issues, and you could amplify fox style to try to make it look worse that reality, or you could spend same time pointing out positives of your guy, as trump and allies, including non stop fox, plus foreign actors are pushing same direction as your push to paint d candidates in negative light.

number of times i hear, "and that is why trump won" with any argument, sigh. i can list reason after reason that the unlikely happened, it was something like 80% chance for HRC to win which is like drawing an inside straight on river card, hard but it would happen 1 out of 5 times. russia needed trump to win, and we can talk about how tools he used and still uses are effective. fbi announcement days before re: HRC produced a demonstratable 2% to 3% drop in her support at a critical time in conjunction with that russian, as posted by 538. HRC did not visit 3 critical states leading up to election. the "lock her up" chants from the fascist rallies were effective, i can list more reasons, and it was all needed to make the unlikely happen.

every candidate running for d has better chance at trump than last cycle when it wasnt known to what extent trump was a criminal who would use office to degrade every international relationship and diminish u.s. people thought he was just the "other" box to HRC who they could never vote for, decades of negative FOX coverage makes even uttering her name something to explode about. trump will be 1st candidate ever running for president who was impeached running for highest office, who will need to address why he has fought release of his taxes/financial ties all the way to supreme court.

trump has to defend his actions on stage in debates now in different circumstances, it was auumed he would either rise up to meet office, or simply not cause too much hard and spend a ton of time golfing, and/or in his robe watching FOX and eating McDs in residence. we now know what damage a nutjob with evil intentions can do, rather than just suspecting it wont be so bad. but just imo. who do i like for d? every one is better than trump as i said, point out positives or continue to push same direction as trump, and russians btw, and to what is fun, easy, and tear down everyone who isnt your guy.

[revo]

More Mayor Pete news: he's surged to take command in NH -- Bernie & Warren's backyard! Granted, the last four NH polls were all over the place, with 4 different leaders, but dayum:

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary	St. Anselm	Warren 15, Biden 15, Buttigieg 25, Sanders 9, Klobuchar 6, Steyer 5, Gabbard 3, Yang 2, Booker 3, Harris 1, Bennet, Castro, Sestak	[COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Buttigieg +10[/B][/COLOR]

Harris has shrunk to just 1% -- she's gotta drop out soon. No mention here of Patrick, also a regional neighbor.


In Dumpy vs. the Dem contenders in NH, Warren is the weakest at +1. Biden +8, Mayor Pete +7, Bernie +3.

[Teenwolf]

If HRC had an 80% chance of winning, and it was dumb luck that she lost, and combined with your statement "every candidate running for d has better chance at trump than last cycle"... why are you so concerned about Dem candidates being properly vetted before they face Trump? It's the type of bullshit that Clinton supporters blame Sanders for the loss, claiming he was too hard on her in the primaries. The reality is, Sanders claimed he was "sick and tired of hearing about the damn emails", and barely laid a glove on her throughout the primary.

Sanders is actually doing exactly what you ask, presenting a vision for the country without leaning into attacking his opponents. It's his supporters who are obsessed with correcting the record on others because media control the narratives against progressives constantly, and his supporters are sick of it.

But for voters who are ill-informed, I think it's extremely valuable to hold candidates to higher standards of scrutiny. It's not a beauty pageant or a reality show. Buttigieg has spoken out against offering real solutions, saying we should focus more on character than content. The entire mainstream media buys into this, and focuses on identity politics as a distraction from substance. People need a dose of reality, and mainstream news is a propaganda machine. Just look at MSNBC's coverage of Sanders, widespread negative and dismissive. That's why his supporters are so loud and pissed off.

[gcstomp]

geez i laid out the specific confluence of events that it required to get trump even the chance for election, and you read it as me saying it was dumb luck. i lay out reasons, and point out as narrow as that path to victory was, this cycle is even more so. your 2nd point, that you are vetting candidates? you are taking pot shots, some even with kernels of truth but highlighted in dramatically negative light. like the mayor pete link, shows it wasnt great, but wasnt quite as you point out.

debates will go a long way. we can take the fun path of tearing down the other in dem party, ie rowing same direction as trump, and russia, or point out why your guy is positive, or trump is negative. daily there will be kernels do go either direction as we have active networks within country, and bad actors outside producing content with varying degrees of accuracy.

this south korea news, that trumps absurd demand for u.s. force to be a profit center to maintain footing, of course south korea will break away and seek deal with china. this is yet another deal of trump destroying a long term alliance and of a primary adversary strengthened from it. you dont think this erodes at part of base that elected trump who thought he wont be so bad and at least he isnt HRC? if you want to call seeking out ways to diminish dem candidates that arent your own as "vetting" then that is one way to see it but again, disagree. i expect to see a few more "and that is why trump won" as that almost seems like obligatory phrase like "amen" "excuse me" and for FOX viewers, "lock her up", like cows chewing cud in the field moving lips.

[B-Fly]

More Mayor Pete news: he's surged to take command in NH -- Bernie & Warren's backyard! Granted, the last four NH polls were all over the place, with 4 different leaders, but dayum:

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary	St. Anselm	Warren 15, Biden 15, Buttigieg 25, Sanders 9, Klobuchar 6, Steyer 5, Gabbard 3, Yang 2, Booker 3, Harris 1, Bennet, Castro, Sestak	[COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Buttigieg +10[/B][/COLOR]

Harris has shrunk to just 1% -- she's gotta drop out soon. No mention here of Patrick, also a regional neighbor.


In Dumpy vs. the Dem contenders in NH, Warren is the weakest at +1. Biden +8, Mayor Pete +7, Bernie +3.

Mayor Pete is definitely surging in IA and NH, and if he could manage to win both of those states, it would draw a lot of investment into and energy for his campaign beyond those first two states. That said, Teenwolf is absolutely correct to note his problem with Black voters. IA and NH are super problematic in terms of their placement in and influence on the Democratic Party's nominating process because they carry few electoral votes and they are not remotely representative demographically of the broader Democratic Party pool of likely voters, registered voters, register-able voters. And the Democratic nominee cannot defeat Trump in PA, MI, FL, OH, WI, GA, NC without robust and enthusiastic support and turnout from Black voters.

[Teenwolf]

More Mayor Pete news: he's surged to take command in NH -- Bernie & Warren's backyard! Granted, the last four NH polls were all over the place, with 4 different leaders, but dayum:

New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary	St. Anselm	Warren 15, Biden 15, Buttigieg 25, Sanders 9, Klobuchar 6, Steyer 5, Gabbard 3, Yang 2, Booker 3, Harris 1, Bennet, Castro, Sestak	[COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Buttigieg +10[/B][/COLOR]

Harris has shrunk to just 1% -- she's gotta drop out soon. No mention here of Patrick, also a regional neighbor.


In Dumpy vs. the Dem contenders in NH, Warren is the weakest at +1. Biden +8, Mayor Pete +7, Bernie +3.

This poll was worrisome until you look closer. +/- 6%, only 300 people polled.

I've been following Morning Consult for the last month, since they have the highest number polled (~5000) with the smallest margin of error (~1%), and I like that they poll every Monday for a more consistent long term view. Biden's lead looks huge in both RCP and Morning Consult right now, 12 pt lead on each.

[Teenwolf]

Thoughts on the debate?

Biden looked horrible, but will it matter? All of his voters were asleep by the time the debate started.

Warren was introduced by the moderators, yet again, as "you support Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal" without mentioning that she backed away from supporting it in the last week! Gee, I wonder if they're purposely trying to split the progressive vote? They refused to ask Buttigieg about his controversy in South Carolina, instead vaguely referencing Kamala Harris' previous statements about Buttigieg's invented black supporters, but she had it on a tee and walked away. Klobuchar won't stop talking, and nobody is demanding more from Klobuchar. Her jokes, like the one about not having free diplomas under everyone's seat, aren't inspiring anybody. Her uncontrollable shaking doesn't inspire confidence. Booker is so lame. The line about pot was good "when I heard those comments I thought you might have been high", but I'm glad we're likely done seeing him. Tulsi took a couple of big shots, including Mayor Pete's assertion he would support US military engagement in Mexico, but she was lukewarm overall. Kamala Harris looked more serious and prosecutorial than her recent debates where she looked unserious and aloof. But I doubt it does much for her polling. Maybe she takes some of Biden's black support if they leave him at all, but like I say, they won't be affected, they don't pay attention.

My main takeaway is that we need to see the top 4 on the stage, the rest are just playing out the string and distracting from substantive issues.

[DMT]

Thoughts on the debate?

Biden looked horrible, but will it matter? All of his voters were asleep by the time the debate started.

Warren was introduced by the moderators, yet again, as "you support Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal" without mentioning that she backed away from supporting it in the last week! Gee, I wonder if they're purposely trying to split the progressive vote? They refused to ask Buttigieg about his controversy in South Carolina, instead vaguely referencing Kamala Harris' previous statements about Buttigieg's invented black supporters, but she had it on a tee and walked away. Klobuchar won't stop talking, and nobody is demanding more from Klobuchar. Her jokes, like the one about not having free diplomas under everyone's seat, aren't inspiring anybody. Her uncontrollable shaking doesn't inspire confidence. Booker is so lame. The line about pot was good "when I heard those comments I thought you might have been high", but I'm glad we're likely done seeing him. Tulsi took a couple of big shots, including Mayor Pete's assertion he would support US military engagement in Mexico, but she was lukewarm overall. Kamala Harris looked more serious and prosecutorial than her recent debates where she looked unserious and aloof. But I doubt it does much for her polling. Maybe she takes some of Biden's black support if they leave him at all, but like I say, they won't be affected, they don't pay attention.

My main takeaway is that we need to see the top 4 on the stage, the rest are just playing out the string and distracting from substantive issues.

So, everyone sucked but Bernie. Shocking take!

[Teenwolf]

So, everyone sucked but Bernie. Shocking take!

You offer nothing, surprising nobody.