Uncle Milty wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You were posting about not voting for Bloomberg, no?

Not specifically anyone here but among many of those with a strong preference doesn't #BlueNoMatterWho really mean "my candidate's gonna win so I expect you to get over it and vote for him/her" without consideration whether they'll do so themselves?

no, i think it's sorta opposite of that myself

da_bad_ass wrote:i will vote for the democratic party nominee even if its michael bloomberg. but its time to unify around the frontrunner, bernie sanders. its too late to be divisive and this circular firing squad on bernie is getting ridiculous.

It is way too early to unify, wait until after Super Tuesday

instead of the democrats giving the american population someone with a pulse so the average voter can vote "not trump", a sanders nomination makes it a referendum.

socialism vs. capitalism

all the childish, illegal, decisive, egotistical shit trump has done, won't mean a thing anymore. it went from people wanting to vote "not trump" to a choice between capitalism and socialism.

unfortunately sanders wears the "S" like a badge of honor. it won't play out in the general election and it will make anyone else running as a democrat, to make that same choice. here in az the senate race will be the same thing. mark kelly is a centrist democrat but he will be pushed into the corner when his support of sanders becomes the number one issue. he will lose too unless he throws sanders under the bus.

i was mocked here by saying that the trump victory was one step backward but would ultimately be two steps forward for the democrats and it has been. now instead of the democrats just taking a knee for the win and going on to the next playoff game. a sanders nomination is like some trick play to try to score an unnecessary touchdown that will get intercepted and ran back for a pick six and a loss and their season will be over.

personally i'm going to vote sanders over trump if that's the choice. i don't think he's the boogey man and i agree with i believe pac who labeled him more of a European social democrat and left of center. unfortunately that's not the way it will be played out on the center stage.

i don't even know if a near total collapse of the stock market and the economy would give sanders a victory.

warren isn't that far from sanders and trump would try to brand her as a socialist too, but she proudly wears the D. she would win, as well as my cat if i can get her on the ballot.

i was being cheeky anyway. in sincerity, super tuesday is close and i believe bernie leads in the polls in every super tuesday state but amy klob's home state of minnesota?? time and money is running out for every candidate but bloomberg. bernie has the highest favorability ratings in the democratic party of anyone running for president. these are all signs of a strong front runner. he's answering questions whether he can garner minority support, with even the talking heads on cable news saying he has opened up the hispanic vote for democrats in ways no one has been able to. the only serious pushback left is either by people who really don't like him as a person or think he can't win against trump

one thing is for sure, bernie is very stupid politically for calling himself a socialist when he isn't one but has been making himself and his policies known to the american people at large for 5 years. its why hes doing better among different demographics. if bernie does become president it will be an obama level victory for the house and senate. i say this as a dumbass.

A trump presidency has not been one step backwards and two steps forward. It has been terrible.

Markets getting spooked. Trump will be tweeting reassurances today. Probably make mention of some phone call with Chinese authorities that never happened.

azrider wrote:instead of the democrats giving the american population someone with a pulse so the average voter can vote "not trump", a sanders nomination makes it a referendum.

socialism vs. capitalism

all the childish, illegal, decisive, egotistical #$!&@ trump has done, won't mean a thing anymore. it went from people wanting to vote "not trump" to a choice between capitalism and socialism.

This is exactly what is going to happen.

The Savior wrote:Markets getting spooked. Trump will be tweeting reassurances today. Probably make mention of some phone call with Chinese authorities that never happened.

Coronavirus fear getting real. Marketwise should be some money making opportunities.

In Nevada Bernie finally had a clear victory in a place he was supposed to win. Even with the benefit of early turnout he broke even in vote percentage from 2016. Finally meeting the bar isn't a resounding victory to me.

I don't understand the media (esp. network TV) narrative right now. Is it just the news environment today or does an agenda exist? Agenda or not how significantly is it affecting future primaries? If an agenda exists is it to help or hurt Bernie?

In the field as it stands it's fair to call Bernie the front-runner. With less than 4% of the total delegates pledged and every candidate polling under 30% I think the talk of momentum and running away with the nomination is unrealistic and over the top.

If the economy sucked, the "Not Trump" thing would work.

The economy does not suck, at least not in top-line indicators. People's retirement investments are doing great.

And Trump, unlike last time, is the president. This settles all character questions. He is president, and therefore necessarily has the character to be president. All those ads asking about pussy grabbing and comments about women and disabled reporters and minorities and immigrants that failed to prevent his election last time are totally irrelevant now. Such attacks did not work well enough to beat him when he wasn't president, and whether or not he was of a character to be president was an open question. Why on Earth would they work now? Especially now that the impeachment was an unqualified bust, pursued for essentially three years.

In this environment, anyone but Trump would be rolling to a Reagan 84 victory right now. Sure as shit, no milquetoast nondescript "I'm a better manager" or "I am young and pleasant looking" or "I have midwestern charm" and not a single idea for anything different in terms of substantive policy in my head candidate is going to move the needle now.

"Not-Trump" is not a winning message when Trump with all of his warts presides over a continuing economic expansion. Need someone who can credibly advance not just a "Trump stinks" message, but a laundry list of what they will do different and better.

The only two plausible candidates for this are Warren and Sanders.

Look at it this way, moderates: Trump is probably unassailable at this point, regardless. If Sanders wins and goes down by 100+ EVs without picking up any of WI, PA, or MI, or god forbid losing VA or some other state Clinton won, you won't have to hear it from progressives for another 36 years.

I agree with the assertion that it's not just a referendum on Trump, because the economy is good. But I think the reason that you're saying Sanders and Warren are the only 2 possibilities are because the alternatives have underwhelmed. The idea of Klobuchar or Biden should be winning, but they're not.

Trump has a nearly double digit negative net approval rating:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/

He isn't unassailable. To the contrary, he is quite vulnerable. I think that Coronavirus will lead to a global recession by November. If this happens, Trump is toast.

Let's talk about what will matter in fall - electoral votes.

According to 270toWin's consensus map there's only 5.2 tossups available. What's your level of confidence in this consensus? Where is it wrong?

If Bernie wins the nomination I think it comes down to PA or AZ and 1 NE elector. Don't think he has a chance in FL or NC but wins in WI. Can Bernie win PA?

Interesting interview by Phila Magazine with Ed Rendell - https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/02/ ... =instagram

I ask Ed Rendell how Bill Clinton is doing.

“He’s not a happy guy. He really wanted Hillary to win. He wanted Hillary to win more than she wanted to win, I think. Bill doesn’t feel relevant.”

Ed would, in fact, become a master of hardball politics as mayor, wheeling and dealing with John Street and Vince Fumo and John Dougherty, just the sort of old-school players the progressive wing of his party now wants dead and buried.

I challenge Ed on how he justified working with Dougherty back in the ’90s. “Nobody is all good or all bad,” he says. “John and the [electricians] union were very helpful in getting things Philly needed. Now, it might have been in their self-interest, but it gave us political clout in Harrisburg we wouldn’t have had on our own. That’s why a lot of well-intentioned progressives don’t get stuff done. You take your allies where you find them.”

Okay, so why Biden?

“Because I believe the best mayors, governors, presidents are good people. And Joe Biden is a 100 percent solid gold good person. He’s smart — maybe not Bill Clinton-smart, but sure smart enough to be president and to attract tremendous people around him. I think he’d be a fine president.”

Frankly, that sounds like average Joe. What of the criticism that we need a much more transformative president?

Ed, struggling to sit up a little higher at his desk to find relief for his back, thinks for a moment. “The same thing might have been said about the governor of New York in 1932. ‘Oh my, why elect him, he’s not progressive at all, he’s not going to make the seismic changes we need.’ Who made the seismic changes? FDR.”

Werthless wrote:I agree with the assertion that it's not just a referendum on Trump, because the economy is good. But I think the reason that you're saying Sanders and Warren are the only 2 possibilities are because the alternatives have underwhelmed. The idea of Klobuchar or Biden should be winning, but they're not.

Notice I left Biden out of my sarcastic revue of candidates. Because of his time as Vice President and his extensive foreign policy experience, he has the tools to present a credible counter narrative. And were he four years younger, I would expect him to be in good position to do just that.

But in politics as in life, alas, timing is everything.

Klobuchar is Klobuchawful.

Uncle Milty wrote:Let's talk about what will matter in fall - electoral votes.

According to 270toWin's consensus map there's only 5.2 tossups available. What's your level of confidence in this consensus? Where is it wrong?

If Bernie wins the nomination I think it comes down to PA or AZ and 1 NE elector. Don't think he has a chance in FL or NC but wins in WI. Can Bernie win PA?

An old Jew with no chance in Florida?

Now who’s being unrealistic? Del Boca Vista will deliver!

I am in the car and can not provide a full answer so I will just say:

Carter/Mondale 2020!

Uncle Milty wrote:Let's talk about what will matter in fall - electoral votes.

According to 270toWin's consensus map there's only 5.2 tossups available. What's your level of confidence in this consensus? Where is it wrong?

If Bernie wins the nomination I think it comes down to PA or AZ and 1 NE elector. Don't think he has a chance in FL or NC but wins in WI. Can Bernie win PA?

Praising Castro's literacy programs on 60 Minutes last night probably doesn't help him in Florida.

Wolfgang622 wrote:If the economy sucked, the "Not Trump" thing would work.

The economy does not suck, at least not in top-line indicators. People's retirement investments are doing great.

Wasn't that also the case in 2016, when tens of millions of people voted for radical change? Have they gotten it?

I do think there were some Never Trumpers worried about his effect on the economy who will be comfortable voting for him this time. But there are still a fuck ton of people with far greater concerns than their Vanguard statements (if they even have those).