Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BassNBrew

***2020 Democrat Primary/Caucus Thread*** Biden Is Your Demoractic Nominee

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

The McCarthyite redbaiting stuff hasn't gotten stale yet, good material.  

McCarthyism wasn’t about teasing politicians for their odd political views; it was about persecuting and blacklisting innocent NON-politicians for their friendships and connections. It’s amazing how people misuse this term these days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Tulsi calling on the DNC Chair to step down

 

LINK

 

“Under the leadership of Tom Perez, the DNC has kowtowed to billionaires, caused a debacle in Iowa, and undermined the voter’s trust in our elections,” she added

“Done” but not going away. 

Edited by Mr. Pickles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mr. Pickles said:

“Done” but not going away. 

Who, Tulsi? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Pickles said:

“Done” but not going away. 

Perhaps.  She is right though.  Perez is terrible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooting big time for Amy tonight. 

Amy or Bloomberg I’m thinking, for the win. Biden just doesn’t have it I’m afraid. Still love Pete but I can’t see him getting it done. 

Warren in 5th now? Catastrophic for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you can blame Perez for Iowa if you take an absolutist “the buck stops here” attitude, though in reality he had nothing to do with the specific issues involved. But beyond that I don’t see what’s wrong with him at all. Bernie and Tulsi people don’t like him because he’s a Democrat, a long time member of the Party, and they’re pretty much interlopers. So what? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Rooting big time for Amy tonight. 

Amy or Bloomberg I’m thinking, for the win. Biden just doesn’t have it I’m afraid. Still love Pete but I can’t see him getting it done. 

Warren in 5th now? Catastrophic for her. 

Bloomberg?  Buying the candidacy?  He's a non-starter for me for that reason.  if he showed up to debates, did normal campaigning, I'd consider him, but no.

And Amy...I like her, and would vote for her if she won, but I don't see a ton there that makes her stand out above Pete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

McCarthyism wasn’t about teasing politicians for their odd political views; it was about persecuting and blacklisting innocent NON-politicians for their friendships and connections. It’s amazing how people misuse this term these days. 

Particularly after they have been corrected multiple times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

Bloomberg?  Buying the candidacy?  He's a non-starter for me for that reason.  if he showed up to debates, did normal campaigning, I'd consider him, but no.

And Amy...I like her, and would vote for her if she won, but I don't see a ton there that makes her stand out above Pete.

Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump? 

For instance you know why I like Bloomberg? Because he drives Trump crazy!! That’s a good thing. That makes up for any faults he has. And you know what makes Amy stand out above Pete? Because she will do better in the swing states. She’s got a better shot in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Eyes on the Prize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, adonis said:

if he showed up to debates

Since he is self financing AFAIK he doesn't qualify for the debates (there is a minimum amount of donors to appear). I'm sure he'd love to get free airtime

Edited by msommer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump? 

For instance you know why I like Bloomberg? Because he drives Trump crazy!! That’s a good thing. That makes up for any faults he has. And you know what makes Amy stand out above Pete? Because she will do better in the swing states. She’s got a better shot in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Eyes on the Prize. 

Trump barely won in 2016.  He's not some juggernaut.  We need a competent candidate who the party can get behind, who not only can beat Trump, but who can govern effectively during his/her term.

Bloomberg is a political opportunistic former Republican running as a democrat because that's his only path to winning.  In an age marked by income inequality, a financial system that screws over the working class, we're going to have one billionaire running against another...each of whom switched their political party recently.  Both of whom are out of touch with the common person.

Bloomberg would be better than Trump, but several other options would be better than Bloomberg, and I think once the dust settles from the primary, the party will coalesce around the candidate and at that point, it'll be about getting out the vote.  I don't think Trump's in a better position in 2020 than he was in 2016, so he's definitely beatable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, msommer said:

Since he is self financin he doesn't qualify for the debates (there is a minimum amount of donors to appear). I'm sure he'd love to get free airtime

It's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him.  Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have.  It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this.  If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adonis said:

It's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him.  Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have.  It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this.  If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.

All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Rooting big time for Amy tonight. 

Amy or Bloomberg I’m thinking, for the win. Biden just doesn’t have it I’m afraid. Still love Pete but I can’t see him getting it done. 

Warren in 5th now? Catastrophic for her. 

:lol:  

After all this time telling us all that Biden was our only hope when most of us could see he’s out of it. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, msommer said:

All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debate

Yeah, and you're right.  Just looking to chat about it, not necessarily disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickies said:

:lol:  

After all this time telling us all that Biden was our only hope when most of us could see he’s out of it. 

"He didn't have it 12 years ago, what has changed that makes him have it now other than being picked by Obama to shore up votes for Obama's campaign?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find a bit of irony in Democrats, the progressive, inclusive, forward thinking party morally situated, so they believe, to lecture others on diversity, inclusion, and equal rights, shying away from a gay candidate as unelectable, or less electable.   Principles are one thing we are being told, but electability and power another.  once power is obtained, we are told, then, then we can enact our principles.

 

Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace.  Stand for something.  If Pete is the best, put him forward. 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dickies said:

:lol:  

After all this time telling us all that Biden was our only hope when most of us could see he’s out of it. 

I did go back and reread the beginning of the Biden thread where I had a discussion with Tim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Your points would be valid except for this election. Just keep repeating this question. Who beats Trump? 

For instance you know why I like Bloomberg? Because he drives Trump crazy!! That’s a good thing. That makes up for any faults he has.  

This is just horrible. You'd seriously advocate for a candidate simply because he annoys the sitting President?

That makes up for ANY faults he has?

How about supporting a candidate because like their policies and believe in their vision for America?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace.  Stand for something.  If Pete is the best, put him forward. 

I'm not talking about Pete here, but if there was a normal Republican running I know I would agree and I might be willing to support a "riskier" candidate. But I don't see this election as electing a Democrat as much as it is removing the national emergency currently occupying the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

All I was saying is that he didn't make the rules that don't allow him to debate

He could very easily have done the Tom Steyer move of asking people to donate $1 to his campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I find a bit of irony in Democrats, the progressive, inclusive, forward thinking party morally situated, so they believe, to lecture others on diversity, inclusion, and equal rights, shying away from a gay candidate as unelectable, or less electable.   Principles are one thing we are being told, but electability and power another.  once power is obtained, we are told, then, then we can enact our principles.

 

Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace.  Stand for something.  If Pete is the best, put him forward. 

Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable. That term is used, almost exclusively, on Bernie and Warren. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable. That term is used, almost exclusively, on Bernie and Warren. 
 

 

I respectfully disagree.  We have seen that very argument made in this thread many times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Nobody is shying away from Pete as being unelectable.

I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.

Trump has sexually assaulted dozens of women, stole from a charity, created a fraudulent university, and used campaign money to pay hush money to a porn star that he was banging while his wife was pregnant, but I have a moral standard to uphold so he gets my vote because the other guy is gay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I find a bit of irony in Democrats, the progressive, inclusive, forward thinking party morally situated, so they believe, to lecture others on diversity, inclusion, and equal rights, shying away from a gay candidate as unelectable, or less electable.   Principles are one thing we are being told, but electability and power another.  once power is obtained, we are told, then, then we can enact our principles.

 

Me, I say if they are not worth adhering to during hard times they are not principles. I say if they are for sale that makes those selling whores, no better than what the say they will replace.  Stand for something.  If Pete is the best, put him forward. 

Honestly outside of this forum and a couple references to his being gay hurting him with southern black voters (which I don't fully agree with), I haven't ever really seen his sexuality be an issue. The left hates him because they think he's a neolib owned by the oligarchy (which I think is def exaggerated).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.

Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.  
 

 

No, the media has, to my observations, which are sporadic, not done this at all.  They have mentioned that he has not connected with back voters, yet, but have not pursued why that might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

Honestly outside of this forum and a couple references to his being gay hurting him with southern black voters (which I don't fully agree with), I haven't ever really seen his sexuality be an issue. The left hates him because they think he's a neolib owned by the oligarchy (which I think is def exaggerated).

There was that Iowa caucuser who wanted her vote back after she found out he was gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've seen a number of people on this board saying he can't win in the south because he's gay.

I want to clarify my thoughts on this because it's important (to me):

The southern states primaries are largely dominated by blacks (because whites in those states largely abandoned the Democratic party following the Civil Rights movement). These blacks, the ones that vote, tend to be older, religious, and morally conservative. That's part of the reason Buttigieg has ZERO black support in the south. BUT- that is against other Democrats. If Buttigieg were to somehow win the nomination anyhow, the vast majority of blacks around the country would vote for him. They will NOT sit home over this issue IMO. So this is only an issue in the nomination process, not in the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

No, the media has, to my observations, which are sporadic, not done this at all.  They have mentioned that he has not connected with back voters, yet, but have not pursued why that might be.

Jim Clyburn came out and said it. He regards homosexuality as immoral. Clyburn is arguably the most influential player in politics, has been for years. His endorsement of Obama over Hillary won South Carolina for Obama. His endorsement of Hillary over Bernie won South Carolina for Hillary. Etc.

It's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adonis said:

Yeah, and you're right.  Just looking to chat about it, not necessarily disagree with you.

Clearly he also chose not to follow them. Not sure I've heard an argumentation asto why.
Is he implicitly suggesting that the other politicians that are not self financing are (or might be) selling influence?
Is it a critique of Citizen United?
Does he simply lack other things to do with his money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

There was that Iowa caucuser who wanted her vote back after she found out he was gay.

Hah yeah, that's true. Forgot about that brilliant mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

He could very easily have done the Tom Steyer move of asking people to donate $1 to his campaign.  

I agree (see my post above this one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Fair enough. I’ve stayed mostly out of Oete threads. I certainly haven’t heard close to that narrative in the media.  
 

 

I don't think it means he can't win, but I have no doubt that Trump will absolutely make it an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Jim Clyburn came out and said it. He regards homosexuality as immoral. Clyburn is arguably the most influential player in politics, has been for years. 

FWIW, he qualified it was older voters (who I do realize are more likely to vote). His grandson is a paid staffer for Buttigieg.

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

I don't think it means he can't win, but I have no doubt that Trump will absolutely make it an issue.

Oh, I’m sure Trump will make limp-wrist gestures and start lisping, but he’ll do something like that for anyone. If Bernie’s the nominee he’ll probably wear a Shylock wig. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, adonis said:

It's his choice to self finance and bypass the debates rather than building up a base of supporters who believe in/support him and shows they have americans behind him.  Apparently all he needs is insane amounts of cash to equate to the millions of supporters the other candidates have.  It's undemocratic to me to buy in like this.  If he wanted to be a viable standard candidate, announce like the rest of them, and garner support in order to justify that folks want him as president.

Not for nothing, but the primary system isn't exactly a constitutional mandate.  It's political parties using taxpayer money/time/airwaves etc. to help fund their own decision making process in an effort to make it look like they don't "smoke cigars in the back room and play with people's lives."  It's show.  It's always been show.  

Bloomberg is the opposite end of the system that designed Iowa and New Hampshire to be the initial arbiters of who is the front runner to be President of the United States.  The whole thing is silly in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

This is just horrible. You'd seriously advocate for a candidate simply because he annoys the sitting President?

That makes up for ANY faults he has?

How about supporting a candidate because like their policies and believe in their vision for America?

And besides, anybody who gets the nomination is going to annoy the sitting president.  Those radiation poisoning victims in Chernobyl had thicker skin than Trump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think it would be entertaining for the Democratic race to ultimately come down to Bloomberg versus Sanders -- two non-Democrats.

It would be entertaining but I think that particular pairing would really expose the divisions in the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Not for nothing, but the primary system isn't exactly a constitutional mandate.  It's political parties using taxpayer money/time/airwaves etc. to help fund their own decision making process in an effort to make it look like they don't "smoke cigars in the back room and play with people's lives."  It's show.  It's always been show.  

Bloomberg is the opposite end of the system that designed Iowa and New Hampshire to be the initial arbiters of who is the front runner to be President of the United States.  The whole thing is silly in that way.

I agree.  I don't know what an optimal primary season option would look like, but I'm fairly sure it wouldn't resemble the insanely wealthy buying into campaigns like Bloomberg is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

If the New Hampshire turnout is as bad as the Iowa turnout....

the suspense is killing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

If the New Hampshire turnout is as bad as the Iowa turnout....

I was reading something about bad turnout, and apparently part of it was "I am voting for whoever wins, I don't really care who", so they did not bother to waste time caucusing for hours. I cannot find where I read that at the moment, so no idea if it is true or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, huthut said:

I was reading something about bad turnout, and apparently part of it was "I am voting for whoever wins, I don't really care who", so they did not bother to waste time caucusing for hours. I cannot find where I read that at the moment, so no idea if it is true or not. 

Conventional political theory has always been more people show up to vote for something than show up to vote against something.  I guess come November we will find out if that's accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think it would be entertaining for the Democratic race to ultimately come down to Bloomberg versus Sanders -- two non-Democrats.

With the special accommodations the DNC is giving Bloomberg, the DNC is continuing to lose cred.   But I agree with you it will be entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Conventional political theory has always been more people show up to vote for something than show up to vote against something.  I guess come November we will find out if that's accurate

Might be different if it is a caucus where you know it will take 4 hours, vs mail in ballots or some other lower effort method of voting, but I have no idea if my initial premise is correct, so not going to think to hard about it. I probably could not find time to vote in a caucus, even if I would want to. Luckily I have like 3 weeks to vote by mail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data for Progress released their NH poll:

Sanders 28%
Buttigieg 26%
Warren 14%
Klobuchar 13%
Biden 9%

They were one of the more accurate pollsters in Iowa this year, so we’ll see how this one holds up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

Conventional political theory has always been more people show up to vote for something than show up to vote against something.  I guess come November we will find out if that's accurate

No we won’t. 

Because it is accurate and will continue to be accurate as a conventional rule- but Donald Trump defies convention. This time, and this time only, more people will show up to vote against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.