Stop saying Biden is the 'most electable'. Trump will run rings round him

[Valcazar]

Is Trump stupid, erratic in the seat? Yes.

But Biden hadn't been much better. You just don't want to see it.

You seem to be under the delusion that I support Biden. He is low on my list of preferred candidates. I'm just countering your inane notion that he is basically the same as Trump.

Just like you don't want to see how the DNC manipulated the primaries.

Please. Give examples. This should be fun.

Do you really think Clinton paid off the the Debt, put the DNC on an allowance, took over messaging in 2015 so it would be a fair fight?

And what, exactly, did they do that was so unfair? Please. Give examples.

Why do you think Biden, Warren and anyone else didn't run? They were TOLD NOT TO. That they would lose. That she had already purchased the Superdelegates.

That's not how things work. Besides, the only person who told the superdelegates to ignore the votes of the people and overturn the election was Sanders.
Do you honestly think people were so afraid of the DNC that they were told not to run and didn't? They were told they would lose because every analysis showed they would lose. She was a dominant front runner. She had 55% support going into the primary. Amazingly, she finished with 55% of the votes. MATH IS A CONSPIRACY! People looked at her support and their own and decided they couldn't win. Occam's Razor. If you are going to propose another explanation than the obvious one that fits the facts, you need to do a bit more work.

Why to you think that is how the Press measured the Primary standings last time?

I probably shouldn't ask. What are you talking about? Are you objecting that the Press reported Clinton ahead when she was ahead? Or that they reported Sanders had no viable path to victory after Super Tuesday? Because reporting facts you disagree with isn't a conspiracy, no matter how much you and Trump might think so.

I don't think you are naive, so don't try to snow the board.

I'm not the one bringing up conspiracy theories, dude.

Sure, Biden would be my fourth choice but even his more right wing policies would still make him way better than the corrupt, warmongering, rapey, racist, lying, orange guy you've been defending here for years.
If Biden beats Trump, bring him on.

At this point anyone is better than Trump.

Absolutely. That seems to be the view of lots of Democrats. Which is a problem. Putting Biden up is giving up a chance to make real progress forward. Biden is not that guy. He isn't going to push hard for structural change and he isn't going to push hard to acknowledge the GOP is a party of radicals largely opposed to representative government. But lots of people just want the Trump damage to end and on one level that's a sensible choice. I'd vote for Marianne Williamson over Trump (thank god I won't have to).

And we disagree. I think a Biden nomination kills the progressive movement for years.

Why? Is the progressive movement that weak? You might think so, but I don't.
Biden not pushing for progressive things is a lost opportunity, but Trump actively undoing progressive things is worse.
No progressive would vote for Trump over Biden.

Again, what is he offering policy wise to improve the nation? His record says cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

But he doesn't get to do those things. Congress does. Do you think the current Democratic party would push for those?
Do you think those are safer under Trump?

Cowtowing to the Donor class. More wars. And enacting a GOP agenda.

You keep saying this. What part of the agenda that Biden will enact is a GOP agenda? OR do you think if Biden wins the GOP takes back Congress? IF so, why would you think that?
If a democratic president is trapped with a GOP congress then none of the President's agenda gets enacted, no matter how progressive.

Most importantly though is this. Biden will suppress the vote. The progressive vote will stay home or vote third party. If Sanders is the Nominee he gets the progressives, the anti Trump and yes the third party vote.

And your reasoning for this is what? A magical pony told you? Why on earth would you separate the Progressive vote from the Anti-Trump vote? You think Progressives aren't anti-Trump?
Why would you think Libertarians - by far the largest Third Party vote in the US, would vote for Sanders?

Jill Stein will endorse him, not run and order the party to campaign for him.

LOL!! Why the fuck would she do that? I admit I don't follow her closely, but I think her promising to do that would be big news I would have noticed.
Is this some new thing you just made up in your head because you think it sounds good?

I see at least 10 million more votes for Sanders than Clinton got. And that will not only win the WH but numerous down ballot seats as well.

With Biden they could actually lose the house again.

Ahh, you *do* think Biden would be worse down ballot and so have to enact a GOP agenda because he would have a GOP congress.

Other than pulling this out of your ass, do you have an argument to back up your 10 million more votes number?

I'm not saying it is unreasonable. Experts are predicting ~17 million more voters in 2020 than 2016. So if you think he is getting 10 million more than Clinton, then you are saying you expect Sanders to get about 48.6% of the vote - roughly 0.4% more than Clinton. That doesn't seem a crazy number to pick. Hell, if he just got the half the Jill Stein voting percentage from last time, that would cover it.

Sanders recieved the Sunrise Movement's endorsement yesterday.

318 chapters, 10,000 members. All politically active young people.

Another Shit ton of volunteers for the campaign along with more social media presence.

Meanwhile Bloomberg had to pay $5,000,000 to Stacy Abrams for a photo op.

Good for Sanders! (Seriously, that's an important endorsement.)
And they are real progressives, focused on what's important.

“But if Senator Sanders does not win the nomination, the stakes of the climate crisis also demand that we can’t sit this election out. No matter what, we will be steadfast in advocating for the defeat of President Trump and his fossil fuel cronies at the ballot box on November 3rd, 2020.”

They won't sit it out even if he doesn't get the nomination.

(As for Bloomberg - he isn't getting the nomination. But even he is smart enough to be spending his money on party building with Abrams and lending staff to the eventual nominee.)

 

[Butler1000]

Ok V.

In Iowa she somehow won every coin toss(8 I think) to decide tied caucuses. It's my belief there was cheating. After he trounces her in NH the shenanigans in Nevada occur. To the point they almost rioted. There were also reported issues in other states.

If there was no rigging explan why Wasserman-Shultz had to resign over the email leak.

The press was using the Superdelegates count from the beginning. Well before the first vote in Iowa. Cripes Superdelegates arent very Democratic either are they. In the lawsuit brought by Sanders supporters over donation to the party they admitted as much. They actually stated in court they were not a democracy but a private entity who can choose their candidate "in a smoke filled back room" if they want to.

It it was fine then why change the rules? The answer is they would have lost the progressive wing permanently if they didn't.

Also feel free tomorrow look up the rule changes they enacted to prevent incumbents against primary challengers.

As to voter suppression an example is Michigan. Michael Moore(who knows the state) reported that 87000 Democrats didn't vote for either candidate but did vote down ballot. That's the margin Trump won by. Add in those who just plain stayed home.......

And I very much doubt it was restricted to one state.

Biden will lose.

Anyway debate is next week. And they vote after Superbowl. I will actually be in Vegas for both. I going to talk to people at the tables and see what the mood is.

 

[Valcazar]

Ok V.

I had forgotten I had asked this.
Fun!

In Iowa she somehow won every coin toss(8 I think) to decide tied caucuses. It's my belief there was cheating.

The number that got reported early and became legend was 6. But no one really knows how many coin tosses there were. Probably a lot more. Some reporting Sanders won most of them, some that Clinton did. No one really knows.

Of course, it didn't affect the final result in any meaningful way, but it works as an urban legend about how evil and powerful Clinton and the DNC are.
This requires not knowing how things work of course. (Although the DNC would have more power to rig Caucuses than Primaries, so at least this fits the narrative a bit better.)

Anyway, besides the fact that 1 in 64 isn't really that outrageous of a fluke, the fact remains that changing 6 of 11,000+ precinct delegates isn't going to affect the final 44 national delegates. There is literally no way to reassign those 6 to Sanders and affect the outcome. So as an example of her cheating it is pretty weak.

After he trounces her in NH the shenanigans in Nevada occur. To the point they almost rioted.

OK.. so... after Sanders wins in NH in February, the Clinton responds by "shenanigans" in NV in May - 3 months later. (The whole "the Sanders delegates almost rioted and thew chairs and issued death threats" is bs, btw. You want an example of anti-Sanders bias in the press, pointing out that the presented NH as Sanders people almost rioting is one.)

There were also reported issues in other states.

Ahh. "issues."

If there was no rigging explan why Wasserman-Shultz had to resign over the email leak.

Because people hated her and it was a political gesture to try and get people to calm down. Clinton had been trying to get her fired for months, but Obama wouldn't because DWS basically said she would throw a giant shit fit and they didn't want it in the middle of the primary. The email leaks gave political cover.

The press was using the Superdelegates count from the beginning. Well before the first vote in Iowa.

Not rigging. And yes, the ones who didn't point out those were soft were being lazy. (lots reported them separately).
We may not like super delegates, but they did have a vote and having to overcome them was part of Sanders's challenge.

Cripes Superdelegates arent very Democratic either are they.

Nope. Which is why people were so unimpressed when the Sanders campaign tried to convince them to overturn the popular vote and appoint him the winner anyway.

In the lawsuit brought by Sanders supporters over donation to the party they admitted as much. They actually stated in court they were not a democracy but a private entity who can choose their candidate "in a smoke filled back room" if they want to.

Which is 100% true. But they instead chose to use a different system, which involved assigning most delegates by primaries and caucuses. That there are any binding votes at all is due to the 1968 riots.
A process they followed.

It it was fine then why change the rules? The answer is they would have lost the progressive wing permanently if they didn't.

Yes. People in the party vote on the rules and decide what they think is good. Superdelgates had been declining in popularity for a while, and so moving them to second ballot tiebreaker was agreed to.
This was all public.
They argue about the rules for distributing bonus delegates and how to encourage states to stop fighting to be first in order as well. Are these all secret anti-Bernie conspiracies too?

Also feel free tomorrow look up the rule changes they enacted to prevent incumbents against primary challengers.

The DNC has no such rules. You're thinking of the DCCC, which does. It protects incumbents to protect seats, regardless of ideology. I think that's dumb and short sighted.

As to voter suppression an example is Michigan. Michael Moore(who knows the state) reported that 87000 Democrats didn't vote for either candidate but did vote down ballot. That's the margin Trump won by. Add in those who just plain stayed home.......

And I very much doubt it was restricted to one state.

Yes, there are lots of people who think this is an example of Republican voter suppression. Sadly, because of the complicated rules about recounts, we never really got an answer. I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion unless you think that these are people who deliberately came to the polls and didn't vote for Hilary Clinton?

Why would you think that?

Biden will lose.

Latest polling I can find ( a mix of a few) has Sanders beating Trump by 3-6 percent and Biden by 4-5 percent. So basically they are tied in ability to win if we use anything other than "gut feeling".

Anyway debate is next week. And they vote after Superbowl. I will actually be in Vegas for both. I going to talk to people at the tables and see what the mood is.

I will be curious what you find in Vegas.

 

[Butler1000]

I had forgotten I had asked this.
Fun!



The number that got reported early and became legend was 6. But no one really knows how many coin tosses there were. Probably a lot more. Some reporting Sanders won most of them, some that Clinton did. No one really knows.

Of course, it didn't affect the final result in any meaningful way, but it works as an urban legend about how evil and powerful Clinton and the DNC are.
This requires not knowing how things work of course. (Although the DNC would have more power to rig Caucuses than Primaries, so at least this fits the narrative a bit better.)

Anyway, besides the fact that 1 in 64 isn't really that outrageous of a fluke, the fact remains that changing 6 of 11,000+ precinct delegates isn't going to affect the final 44 national delegates. There is literally no way to reassign those 6 to Sanders and affect the outcome. So as an example of her cheating it is pretty weak.



OK.. so... after Sanders wins in NH in February, the Clinton responds by "shenanigans" in NV in May - 3 months later. (The whole "the Sanders delegates almost rioted and thew chairs and issued death threats" is bs, btw. You want an example of anti-Sanders bias in the press, pointing out that the presented NH as Sanders people almost rioting is one.)



Ahh. "issues."



Because people hated her and it was a political gesture to try and get people to calm down. Clinton had been trying to get her fired for months, but Obama wouldn't because DWS basically said she would throw a giant shit fit and they didn't want it in the middle of the primary. The email leaks gave political cover.



Not rigging. And yes, the ones who didn't point out those were soft were being lazy. (lots reported them separately).
We may not like super delegates, but they did have a vote and having to overcome them was part of Sanders's challenge.



Nope. Which is why people were so unimpressed when the Sanders campaign tried to convince them to overturn the popular vote and appoint him the winner anyway.



Which is 100% true. But they instead chose to use a different system, which involved assigning most delegates by primaries and caucuses. That there are any binding votes at all is due to the 1968 riots.
A process they followed.



Yes. People in the party vote on the rules and decide what they think is good. Superdelgates had been declining in popularity for a while, and so moving them to second ballot tiebreaker was agreed to.
This was all public.
They argue about the rules for distributing bonus delegates and how to encourage states to stop fighting to be first in order as well. Are these all secret anti-Bernie conspiracies too?



The DNC has no such rules. You're thinking of the DCCC, which does. It protects incumbents to protect seats, regardless of ideology. I think that's dumb and short sighted.



Yes, there are lots of people who think this is an example of Republican voter suppression. Sadly, because of the complicated rules about recounts, we never really got an answer. I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion unless you think that these are people who deliberately came to the polls and didn't vote for Hilary Clinton?

Why would you think that?



Latest polling I can find ( a mix of a few) has Sanders beating Trump by 3-6 percent and Biden by 4-5 percent. So basically they are tied in ability to win if we use anything other than "gut feeling".




I will be curious what you find in Vegas.

Why would I think that?

Because 87,000 people came to the polls. The machines give the choice to hit one button and vote rithar all Democrat or all Republican. Or they can individually vote for some and not all.

And 87,000 people didn't vote for either presidential candidate but voted down ballot all Democrat.

That's your proof Hillary Clinton's candidacy caused people not to vote for President.

It's not suppression to stop voting, but to allow the GOP to garner a better percentage.

Obama drew new Voters, young voters, "the Obama Coalition"

Hillary couldn't. And neither will Biden.

 

[Butler1000]

So am I about Vegas. Blackjack tables are an interesting mix across the nation. I also want to talk to the dealers and see what their coworkers are saying. The caucases happen right in the casinos so I may get a sense of how the State will go.

I went in Sept 2016, and that's when I realized Trump might have it. That and my Truck driving buddy who was all over the USA.

 

[Valcazar]

Why would I think that?

Because 87,000 people came to the polls. The machines give the choice to hit one button and vote rithar all Democrat or all Republican. Or they can individually vote for some and not all.

And 87,000 people didn't vote for either presidential candidate but voted down ballot all Democrat.

That's your proof Hillary Clinton's candidacy caused people not to vote for President.

You don't know what "proof" means, do you?

We don't know what happened with those missing votes. The recount was stopped and they were never checked. Your belief that this was some kind of anti-Clinton protest vote is just you projecting.

Obama drew new Voters, young voters, "the Obama Coalition"

Hillary couldn't. And neither will Biden.

This is a legitimate concern.
Youth vote (18-29)in 2008: 51.1% (second highest ever)
Youth vote (18-29)in 2012: 45.0%
Youth vote (18-29)in 2016: 46.1%

But, like all groups in 2016, more voted third party than in any election since Perot ran in 1996.

Do I think Sanders is better for the youth vote turnout than Biden?
Absolutely.
At a level that is enough to be a major difference? Hard to say.

 

[Butler1000]

You don't know what "proof" means, do you?

We don't know what happened with those missing votes. The recount was stopped and they were never checked. Your belief that this was some kind of anti-Clinton protest vote is just you projecting.




This is a legitimate concern.
Youth vote (18-29)in 2008: 51.1% (second highest ever)
Youth vote (18-29)in 2012: 45.0%
Youth vote (18-29)in 2016: 46.1%

But, like all groups in 2016, more voted third party than in any election since Perot ran in 1996.

Do I think Sanders is better for the youth vote turnout than Biden?
Absolutely.
At a level that is enough to be a major difference? Hard to say.

I think my theory fits best.

And yes it is an opinion. But one with a good basis.

The Dems need to stop chasing Republican votes and get back to getting votes on the left. Policy and demographics will give them power.


As to youth votes. This Election Millenials will outnumber Boomers for the first time. The difference will be quite pronounced. With the right candidate.

Cripes Sanders promise to legalize Marijuana and expunge records will kill with that group.

 

[jcpro]

I think my theory fits best.

And yes it is an opinion. But one with a good basis.

The Dems need to stop chasing Republican votes and get back to getting votes on the left. Policy and demographics will give them power.


As to youth votes. This Election Millenials will outnumber Boomers for the first time. The difference will be quite pronounced. With the right candidate.

Cripes Sanders promise to legalize Marijuana and expunge records will kill with that group.

Hmm. Latest Trump's rally in the swing state of Wisconsin-57.8% of the crowd were the Independents and Democrats.

 

[Butler1000]

Hmm. Latest Trump's rally in the swing state of Wisconsin-57.8% of the crowd were the Independents and Democrats.

Last poll I saw had Sanders up over Trump in that state.

As to the rallies they are an combination of wrestling show, medicine Show and Execution watch BBQ in who they draw.

I'm sure they are happy to troll the posters outside by claiming to be Democrats.

Although I'm sure a fair number of independents do go.

 

[bver_hunter]

Last poll I saw had Sanders up over Trump in that state.

As to the rallies they are an combination of wrestling show, medicine Show and Execution watch BBQ in who they draw.

I'm sure they are happy to troll the posters outside by claiming to be Democrats.

Although I'm sure a fair number of independents do go.

Latest Iowa Poll now shows Biden pulling well ahead at 24%. Sanders has dropped to 10 points behind him to just 14%. Warren is second at 16% while Buttigieg is now down to just 16%. Klobuchar is trailing at 11%. The margin of error is around +/- 4.4%:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/joe-biden-iowa-poll-101192