Election 2020

[B-Fly]

Yesterday it came out that Sanders claimed he didn't think he would need Bloomberg's money because he's set to raise $1 Bn in small donations. Bernie staffer Jeff Weaver used stronger language in categorically denying they would accept Bloomberg funds. Absolutely the right move.

Of course, the media are upset about Bernie not taking the money, claiming that he should take all the help that he can get, not mentioning that Hillary had a $Bn more than Trump and still lost.

The real question becomes, what happens when Bloomberg has no shot at the nomination, but still dumps half a $Bn into negative Bernie ads... has he really helped the party? He's only around to fund the DNC through crap like $1K-$3K debate tickets.

Do folks think it helps Sanders more to reject the funds or accept them?

Sanders should win the nomination and reject direct contributions from Bloomberg, but he should ultimately welcome Bloomberg funded anti-Trump ads through Election Day.

[Teenwolf]

In the last debate, when Warren went after Bloomberg, specifically on the "kill it" incident, which is totally fair, she did a terrible job in making her case. Before I get into her changing discrimination story, let me say that i found it inconceivable that Warren would bring up "kill it", say that she believes the woman, and her alone... when the story from the Washington Post included an interview with a Bloomberg co-worker who witnessed him say it, and claimed "Bloomberg's behaviour toward the woman was outrageous and he "understood why she took offence"... yet she made the case that it was the woman's word against Bloomberg's. Why? Did she not know about the supporting evidence or did she choose to make it a weaker case because "I believe the woman" makes a better soundbite than "I believe the woman, but also her Male co-worker who witnessed it"? I believe she could not possibly have missed the witness statement, meaning her intentional choice only conveys her weakness, and tendency to twist the narrative to her benefit.

She had previously claimed she left her teaching job because she didn't have the credits to continue and that upon taking the required courses, SHE decided it wouldn't work out for her. Shifting to a claim that she experienced discrimination goes straight to her problem with authenticity. It also mirrors a lot of her recent strategy, the re-animation of the "I'm With Her" campaign, while simultaneously twisting the truth to whichever narrative best aligns with the "I'm With Her" strategy. The "Bernie is a secret sexist" narrative, her recent campaign rally where she blurted out "where I'm from, if you've got a really big mess and you need it cleaned up right away, you call a woman to get it done". It's so cheap and desperate, and ultimately phony.

This is her quote from the debate:

"I got my first job as a special education teacher. I loved that job, and by the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant. The principal wished me luck, and gave my job to someone else. Pregnancy discrimination? You bet. But I was 21 years old, I didn't have a union to protect me, and I didn't have any federal law on my side. So I packed up my stuff and I went home."

I say all of this not as any secondhand analysis, I actually pieced the quote together from a clip celebrating her Bloomberg takedown completely uncritically. I'll post that one below. I don't disagree the attack worked regardless, as Bloomberg rolled his eyes dismissively, but her attack wasn't intended to make the case, it was meant to position her believing women, and I think that's disingenuous.

I can't see how anybody thinks she makes the best "prosecutor of the case" when she can't even bring up a direct witness to an incident that would help her case. If she brought up that the incident is documented in the Washington Post, included a witness, cool! Do that, make your case. Don't use it as a prop to say "I stand with women", that's horseshit.

[Teenwolf]

Warren supporters will like this one. I didn't particularly agree with the overall premise.

[Teenwolf]

Sanders should win the nomination and reject direct contributions from Bloomberg, but he should ultimately welcome Bloomberg funded anti-Trump ads through Election Day.

He won't spend the money on any generic ads. He will put his money into supporting conservative Dems wherever possible as a wedge against Bernie gaining too much power, while also attempting to win positive media through self-promotion within the ads.

So maybe Bloomberg helps elect Democrats that will oppose Sanders. Should that be welcomed? Not by me.

I welcome the possibility and sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[In the Corn]

TW -

Out of all the candidates, anything about Warren is

More than anyone else, she is done.

[B-Fly]

TW -

Out of all the candidates, anything about Warren is

More than anyone else, she is done.

I dunno. She still has the overwhelming lead amongst my Facebook feed. We haven't heard from the over-educated coastal liberal urban/suburban elites, yet.

[DMT]

She's polling 2nd in the last national poll, but she's done? Uh, ok. But Klobuchar is still viable? Sheeeeit.

[In the Corn]

She's polling 2nd in the last national poll, but she's done? Uh, ok. But Klobuchar is still viable? Sheeeeit.

Oh no, Klobuchar is toast, as well.

IMO, it's down to three people, Sanders, Biden and Mayor Pete. With Bloomberg still somewhat in the mix for those who only vote via political ads they've seen.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I dunno. She still has the overwhelming lead amongst my Facebook feed. We haven't heard from the over-educated coastal liberal urban/suburban elites, yet.

I'm voting Sanders......

[B-Fly]

I'm voting Sanders......

So I've surmised.

[GwynnInTheHall]

So I've surmised.

That's cuz you're an over-educated coastal elite as well...……..

[B-Fly]

Some more great polls for Biden today, surging to a 20 point lead in the latest South Carolina poll and seizing back a 9 point lead over Bloomberg in Florida. I think the second place finish in Nevada, the Clyburn nomination in South Carolina, and the Bloomberg faceplant in the Nevada debate, have all set up a Biden resurgence. If he crushes South Carolina, that will likely spark the donations he needs to really get back in the picture. It could also lead to a slew of establishment endorsements and pressure on Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steyer and perhaps even Warren and Bloomberg to get out of the way and let the voters choose between Biden and Sanders.

[nullnor]

it's occurred to me maybe one of two scenarios are happening right now with the democratic party.

1) they kind of have sold us out to big money. like how the richest 1 percent of Americans own 56 percent of all shares of stock and the richest 10 percent own 90 percent of all shares of stock; and the bottom half of America owns less than 1 percent. i used to think it was people own fault for not investing. but the tax law kind of changes things. like inadvertent reverse robin hood. amazon has like over 50% of ecommerce market share. a monopoly. clinton lowered capital gains taxes and made the internet tax free. actually it would've been a good time maybe to raise capital gains taxes now with the internet booming. i am just saying we didn't get here alone. the so-called oligarchs had help from both parties.

2) the democrats are playing a game to go along to get along so they can make small incremental changes. but they have to back stab us now (and the last 30 years) in order to back stab the so-called oligarchs sometime in the distant future.

this is kind of a watershed moment for me, and i haven't even been paying attention the politics the last few election. i feel like the GOP fucked up. but i am realizing the democrat party did too. i think i'd rather have someone like Sanders that will go all in and 2 billionaires on a debate stage for the first time for any party trying to buy their election.

[Sour Masher]

He won't spend the money on any generic ads. He will put his money into supporting conservative Dems wherever possible as a wedge against Bernie gaining too much power, while also attempting to win positive media through self-promotion within the ads.

So maybe Bloomberg helps elect Democrats that will oppose Sanders. Should that be welcomed? Not by me.

I welcome the possibility and sincerely hope I'm wrong.

i have dismissed the possibility that Bloomberg would run ads against Sanders in the past when you've said that, but now I see I may have misunderstood you. I do not think he would directly attack Sanders to hurt him and help Trump win. I do think he will run Trump attack ads and welcome that. But you are right, I would not be at all surprised if he also ran ads in favor of moderate dems against those who would be more likely to support Sanders. I think you are right about that being a real possibility.

[Teenwolf]

Some more great polls for Biden today, surging to a 20 point lead in the latest South Carolina poll and seizing back a 9 point lead over Bloomberg in Florida. I think the second place finish in Nevada, the Clyburn nomination in South Carolina, and the Bloomberg faceplant in the Nevada debate, have all set up a Biden resurgence. If he crushes South Carolina, that will likely spark the donations he needs to really get back in the picture. It could also lead to a slew of establishment endorsements and pressure on Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steyer and perhaps even Warren and Bloomberg to get out of the way and let the voters choose between Biden and Sanders.

I agree, the panic from moderates is leading to some coalescing around Biden.

If Biden has enough of a resurgence to stop Bernie hitting 50%, and the Dems steal it from Bernie (as they admitted they're going to attempt to do if it goes to a 2nd vote at the convention), they will not only lose to Trump in a landslide, they will be buried as a party. Rightfully so.

It should terrify you that every Democrat running, as well as many of the Dem power brokers, are running this exact play to screw Bernie publicly.

I was confident after Nevada that Sanders could lose SC by less than 5 pts, or possibly win SC outright, but I'm thinking it could be more like 10-12 pt Biden win now, which would be perfect for the media to push him to big gains on super Tuesday. Biden got a sizable boost in Nevada from the Harry Reid machine, and I suspect in a non-caucus state, that establishment support gives an even bigger boost.

I could be wrong, I'm getting mixed messages on SC. It's a good thing the early momentum for Sanders pushed him to a huge early vote lead in California (presumably, based on polls), and possibly slightly ahead in Texas. He'll need the buffer after SC tightens things up, and of course the media want it to tighten for ratings, so the Biden comeback narrative is ready to print.

Bernie overtook Biden in black voting nationally recently, but not in SC for some reason.