Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 291609 times)

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2200 on: February 12, 2020, 07:04:05 PM »
What happened with buttigieg in Iowa?  Was sanders thrown under the dnc bus again?

Nah, keep in mind Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.[1]

Wiki:
"Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. "

Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.
tbh, if Buttigieg actually managed to rig the IA election, he has my vote. Also note that Sanders is not that popular to begin with. He under-performed in NH, and though he leads in national polling, does so with an unusually low level of support.

I also heard that Gabbard is a Russian plant somewhere.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2201 on: February 12, 2020, 07:07:13 PM »
How good of a Mayor was Mr. Bloomberg?

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2202 on: February 12, 2020, 07:18:28 PM »
Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.

In talking to folks who canvased in Iowa, they ran into an awful lot of Buttigieg supporters. On top of that, both Biden and Klobuchar were not viable in an awful lot of precincts (not from Iowa democratic party reports, from people who were not supporters of any of those three candidates who were live tweeting their experience caucusing). In a precinct where both Klobuchar and Biden were not viable but Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg were, which of those three candidates do you suppose all those Klobuchar and Biden supporters realigned to?

And even if none of that were the case, the problem with falsifying caucus results is that people where there, they remember how many people supported their candidate and what the viability threshold was, and they can and do look up the reported numbers for their specific precinct. Heck the Sanders campaign was able to independently gather and record the results from about 40% of precincts the same night as the Iowa caucuses took place, which is a damned sight better than the Iowa democratic party managed.

Love them or hate them (and most people seem to hate them) it's an awful lot easier to catch any attempt to systematically falsify* the results of a public caucus where everyone sees who everyone else in their precinct is voting for than to catch people who are systematically falsifying the results of an election based on secret ballots.

*You can do all sorts of other unethical things to influence the results of a caucus that would be harder in an election based on secret ballots. Breaking the rules or selectively enforcing them. Doing delegate math wrong. Peer pressure to vote a certain way since your neighbors can see and judge you. But if people vote one way and you decide to report something else, you're going to get caught.

Well I shouldn't really speculate on his viability or support as a candidate as I don't really know his platform or the area.  And it's not a very scientific way to identify manipulation anyway.  So I'll take your word for the first paragraph.

As for the rest, was it not the case that the voting was done exclusively through this app that might be questionable?  Was independent verification even possible?


The thing is, you "read somewhere" a whole lot of unsubstantiated but potentially damaging rumours that you "can't really be arsed" to tell us where you read them or do even the minimum of looking into whether they have any basis in fact but can still be bothered to spread around by posting here.  In this age of substantiated foreign interference in US elections and blatantly stated intention to break election law by the current President you, by doing this, are part of the problem.

I think the sources are substantive.  I won't post the links but there are several news outlets, including international ones, that can outline the points I've mentioned.  Not really interested in the lengthy diatribes that tend to appear on these threads, for little to no value.  And I reject your assertion that I am part of the problem; skepticism is necessary in meaningful discourse.  I'm just asking questions here for the most part, not declaring answers.

Did anyone see that sketchy coin-toss?

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4839
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2203 on: February 12, 2020, 07:58:25 PM »
As for the rest, was it not the case that the voting was done exclusively through this app that might be questionable?  Was independent verification even possible?

No, that is not the case.

Caucusing was done in person in public view at 1,600 precincts around Iowa, plus a handful of satellite precincts for Iowans outside the state. In a given precinct there are dozens to hundreds of witnesses to the size of crowds, the total number of people attending is announced, as is the viability threshold (15% of that total). Within each candidate's group of supporters someone counts how many of them there are, and they can see the size of the crowds for other candidates (who are usually gathered under a precinct captain with a big campaign sign).

Usually, the numbers for each candidate after the final count are announced publicly but that's not required. However, at a bare minimum every person who attended the caucus in a given precinct would know the total number of voters who attended their precinct, the viability threshold, the total number of people in their group, which candidates where and were not viable in their precinct and the a rough estimate of the size of the crowds for each other candidate.

And they can and do look up what is reported for those numbers in their precinct online in the official separate results from every single precinct which are summed up to give the total results from the state.

The terrible app was what the Iowa democratic party was trying to use (ineffectively) to gather the reports from their official person recording those same results at each of the 1,600 precinct locations. It was supposed to replace a good old fashioned phone tree where the people in each precinct called in their results to the county democratic party, which in turn called them in to the state democratic party.

And people are catching a lot of mistakes, whether introduced by the app or sloppy math by the democratic party or their people on the ground in each precinct. But as those errors get corrected the relative positions of Buttigieg and Sanders aren't really changing.

Here is the 40% of Iowa precinct results the Sanders campaign released on caucus night from direct observation of the results in real time: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/04/amid-iowa-results-debacle-sanders-campaign-signals-victory-releasing-portion-its

Here's a later release from their campaign that captured 60% of Iowa precinct results. Presumably they held back some precincts so that they'd be able to catch any attempt to alter the results only in the places where people didn't think the campaign had independent knowledge of the outcomes: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/04/not-good-night-democracy-sanders-releases-more-internal-results-hinting-iowa-victory
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 08:04:29 PM by maizeman »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2204 on: February 12, 2020, 08:35:30 PM »
The more moderate approach to health care by the moderate candidates can also be fueling their campaigns.

A lot of people distrust the medicare 4 all approach.  The following article illustrates how even union members are not necessarily going to back the Sanders health care plan

https://apnews.com/5f24c13759c42e38e539f24729991f4c

Nevada union warns members of Sanders, Warren health plans
By MICHELLE L. PRICE
February 7, 2020

Nevada’s most influential union is sending a subtle message to its members discouraging support for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over their health care stances even though the union has not yet decided if it will endorse a candidate in the Democratic presidential race.

The casino workers’ Culinary Union, a 60,000-member group made up of housekeepers, porters, bartenders and more who work in Las Vegas’ famed casinos, began distributing leaflets in employee dining rooms this week that push back against “Medicare For All,” the plan from Sanders and Warren to move to a government-run health insurance system.

The leaflet said “presidential candidates suggesting forcing millions of hard working people to give up their healthcare creates unnecessary division between workers, and will give us four more years of Trump.”

Health care is one of the biggest issues for the union, whose members have fought and negotiated for robust plans.

With voting in Nevada’s presidential caucuses scheduled to start in just over a week, the union’s message to stand firm against the health care plans could signify that union leaders worry their members are considering voting for those who would unravel the union’s crowning achievement.

The union’s national affiliate, Unite Here, is staying neutral in the contest, but five of Unite Here’s affiliate unions based in California announced Friday they were backing Sanders. Another affiliate, Unite Here Local 11 out of Southern California, announced in January it was backing both Sanders and Warren.

The Culinary Union’s leaflet does not name Warren or Sanders or cite Medicare for All, but it reflects some of the arguments both candidates have made.

The leaflet says some politicians promise “you will get more money for wages from the company if you give up Culinary Health Insurance,” but those politicians “have never sat at our bargaining table or been on a 24/7 6 years, 4 months and 10 days strike line,” a reference to an action taken by Culinary and other unions in 1991 against the Frontier Hotel and Casino that became one of the longest labor strikes in U.S. history.

“We will not hand over our healthcare for promises,” the leaflet said.

A copy of the leaflet, written in English and Spanish, was provided to The Associated Press by the union. The Nevada Independent first reported on the leaflet Friday.

Culinary Union spokeswoman Bethany Khan said the leaflet is not a sign of whether the union will endorse and said the union is not organizing against any candidates. She said the leaflet “just presented members with facts.”



« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 08:37:56 PM by DavidAnnArbor »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2205 on: February 13, 2020, 03:09:51 AM »
Is DNC shenanigans an unlikely explanation?  Who is this Buttigieg guy and why did he suddenly beat Sanders in Iowa?  I read a bit about some donations to the Shadow App company, and the fact that the company didn't exist for very long prior to being used to manage the vote(!).  I read somewhere about a connection to the Clintons who totally didn't conspire to undermine Sanders at any point in recent history...  I can't really be arsed, but I wouldn't use Hanlon's razor in this age of barely veiled political corruption.

In talking to folks who canvased in Iowa, they ran into an awful lot of Buttigieg supporters. On top of that, both Biden and Klobuchar were not viable in an awful lot of precincts (not from Iowa democratic party reports, from people who were not supporters of any of those three candidates who were live tweeting their experience caucusing). In a precinct where both Klobuchar and Biden were not viable but Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg were, which of those three candidates do you suppose all those Klobuchar and Biden supporters realigned to?

And even if none of that were the case, the problem with falsifying caucus results is that people where there, they remember how many people supported their candidate and what the viability threshold was, and they can and do look up the reported numbers for their specific precinct. Heck the Sanders campaign was able to independently gather and record the results from about 40% of precincts the same night as the Iowa caucuses took place, which is a damned sight better than the Iowa democratic party managed.

Love them or hate them (and most people seem to hate them) it's an awful lot easier to catch any attempt to systematically falsify* the results of a public caucus where everyone sees who everyone else in their precinct is voting for than to catch people who are systematically falsifying the results of an election based on secret ballots.

*You can do all sorts of other unethical things to influence the results of a caucus that would be harder in an election based on secret ballots. Breaking the rules or selectively enforcing them. Doing delegate math wrong. Peer pressure to vote a certain way since your neighbors can see and judge you. But if people vote one way and you decide to report something else, you're going to get caught.

Well I shouldn't really speculate on his viability or support as a candidate as I don't really know his platform or the area.  And it's not a very scientific way to identify manipulation anyway.  So I'll take your word for the first paragraph.

As for the rest, was it not the case that the voting was done exclusively through this app that might be questionable?  Was independent verification even possible?


The thing is, you "read somewhere" a whole lot of unsubstantiated but potentially damaging rumours that you "can't really be arsed" to tell us where you read them or do even the minimum of looking into whether they have any basis in fact but can still be bothered to spread around by posting here.  In this age of substantiated foreign interference in US elections and blatantly stated intention to break election law by the current President you, by doing this, are part of the problem.

I think the sources are substantive.  I won't post the links but there are several news outlets, including international ones, that can outline the points I've mentioned.  Not really interested in the lengthy diatribes that tend to appear on these threads, for little to no value.  And I reject your assertion that I am part of the problem; skepticism is necessary in meaningful discourse.  I'm just asking questions here for the most part, not declaring answers.

Did anyone see that sketchy coin-toss?
I don't find "I won't post the links but there are several news outlets, including international ones, that can outline the points I've mentioned" at all reassuring.  You post unverified conspiracy theories and then say you are not interested in "lengthy diatribes": the problem with that is that contesting conspiracy theories inevitably takes the sort of detailed exposition of the facts that you say you are not interested in.  And "I'm only asking questions" is a well known excuse for making statements which distract from the conversation into corners that are unproductive, unpalatable and unverifiable.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2206 on: February 13, 2020, 05:22:35 AM »
I welcome Bloomberg's money into the race, to the extent it will weaken Trump. But I don't welcome him as a candidate.

And does anyone seriously think the Dems are going to nominate an almost 78-year-old billionaire who supported "Dubya" for re-election, only re-registered as a Democrat in 2018, and has made comments just 5 years ago about throwing young black men against the wall? And if they did, how would "Soda Regulation" go over in most states?

He's polling well because he is spending insane $ on ads. No one has hit him yet.


partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2207 on: February 13, 2020, 08:47:58 AM »
Made a donation to Klobuchar's campaign. I'm glad she's gaining some traction. I think she has the ability to heal/unify the country.

OTOH I will vote for any living breathing person other than 45, if it came down to it.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2208 on: February 13, 2020, 09:39:57 AM »
With Yang out now, I don't really have another candidate to actively get excited about.  I'll probably just sit the rest of the primary mess out (better for my sanity) and vote blue in November regardless of where the dust settles.  Unfortunately, I still think Trump has a very high chance of re-election regardless.

/shrug

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2209 on: February 13, 2020, 09:54:40 AM »
This is probably my favorite article ever written about Trump: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-162952/

Quite frankly, the same exact logic holds for the 2020 Democratic primary.  Too many Dems are in the primary, which is allowing an outlier with a cult-like following to take the lead.  These Dems aren't going to drop out in time because they are getting just enough fundraising/votes to justify staying in, and the presidential run is great for publicity and name recognition.

Absent this being a three-horse race by Super Tuesday, Sanders is going to walk away with it, just like Trump did in 2016.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2210 on: February 13, 2020, 11:22:20 AM »
Made a donation to Klobuchar's campaign. I'm glad she's gaining some traction. I think she has the ability to heal/unify the country.

OTOH I will vote for any living breathing person other than 45, if it came down to it.

Well, she certainly didn't "heal" her staff she abused.  Why would she be able to heal the country lol

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2211 on: February 13, 2020, 11:29:05 AM »
This is probably my favorite article ever written about Trump: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-162952/

Quite frankly, the same exact logic holds for the 2020 Democratic primary.  Too many Dems are in the primary, which is allowing an outlier with a cult-like following to take the lead.  These Dems aren't going to drop out in time because they are getting just enough fundraising/votes to justify staying in, and the presidential run is great for publicity and name recognition.

Absent this being a three-horse race by Super Tuesday, Sanders is going to walk away with it, just like Trump did in 2016.

Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) whose occupants largely pull support from the same pool of voters then the longer it takes the moderate lane to coalesce around a single candidate the more Bernie (presumably...why choose Bernie light when you have the real thing?) can run up the delegate and vote counts. 

Take the results from New Hampshire (the top 5 at least, those over 4%):

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.



ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2212 on: February 13, 2020, 11:49:29 AM »
This is probably my favorite article ever written about Trump: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-162952/

Quite frankly, the same exact logic holds for the 2020 Democratic primary.  Too many Dems are in the primary, which is allowing an outlier with a cult-like following to take the lead.  These Dems aren't going to drop out in time because they are getting just enough fundraising/votes to justify staying in, and the presidential run is great for publicity and name recognition.

Absent this being a three-horse race by Super Tuesday, Sanders is going to walk away with it, just like Trump did in 2016.

Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) whose occupants largely pull support from the same pool of voters then the longer it takes the moderate lane to coalesce around a single candidate the more Bernie (presumably...why choose Bernie light when you have the real thing?) can run up the delegate and vote counts. 

Take the results from New Hampshire (the top 5 at least, those over 4%):

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.

Right, and we watched this exact thing happen in 2016.  Trump had a ceiling, but because Rubio, Cruz, Bush, etc. all stayed in the race way too long, their plurality was not going to exceed Trump's cult.

Sanders is going to do the same.  I'd be gobsmacked if he does not win the nomination.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2213 on: February 13, 2020, 12:01:55 PM »
You know that voters don't always vote in ideological lanes, right?  In certain states, the #2 pick of Biden voters is Bernie.

So you can't really say, "Oh, look, X candidates who I view as moderate make up Y% which is a majority.  They should consolidate."  Warren dropped, but more of her voters ended up going to Pete and Klobuchar, not Bernie.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2214 on: February 13, 2020, 12:21:24 PM »
You know that voters don't always vote in ideological lanes, right?  In certain states, the #2 pick of Biden voters is Bernie.

So you can't really say, "Oh, look, X candidates who I view as moderate make up Y% which is a majority.  They should consolidate."  Warren dropped, but more of her voters ended up going to Pete and Klobuchar, not Bernie.

Of course it's not nearly that neat, the individuals matter quite a bit and voters can be unpredictable. But I think the broad trend tend to hold true.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2215 on: February 13, 2020, 12:34:59 PM »
Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) ...

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.

You know that voters don't always vote in ideological lanes, right?  In certain states, the #2 pick of Biden voters is Bernie.

So you can't really say, "Oh, look, X candidates who I view as moderate make up Y% which is a majority.  They should consolidate."  Warren dropped, but more of her voters ended up going to Pete and Klobuchar, not Bernie.

Of course it's not nearly that neat, the individuals matter quite a bit and voters can be unpredictable. But I think the broad trend tend to hold true.

I think the data we have shows that you're wrong. It's hard to say for sure of course because it depends on *which* candidate drops out and what has happened in the mean time. But for example here is a poll (admittedly from a year ago) that says a full 42% of Biden supporters would support Warren or Sanders as a second choice, and that was from way back when there were like 30 people to chose from.

The "progressive" and "moderate" "lane" theory is just a theory, and I see no reason to believe that it's holding up particularly well this primary.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5664
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2216 on: February 13, 2020, 12:48:57 PM »
Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) ...

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.

You know that voters don't always vote in ideological lanes, right?  In certain states, the #2 pick of Biden voters is Bernie.

So you can't really say, "Oh, look, X candidates who I view as moderate make up Y% which is a majority.  They should consolidate."  Warren dropped, but more of her voters ended up going to Pete and Klobuchar, not Bernie.

Of course it's not nearly that neat, the individuals matter quite a bit and voters can be unpredictable. But I think the broad trend tend to hold true.

I think the data we have shows that you're wrong. It's hard to say for sure of course because it depends on *which* candidate drops out and what has happened in the mean time. But for example here is a poll (admittedly from a year ago) that says a full 42% of Biden supporters would support Warren or Sanders as a second choice, and that was from way back when there were like 30 people to chose from.

The "progressive" and "moderate" "lane" theory is just a theory, and I see no reason to believe that it's holding up particularly well this primary.

I'm not sure it's progressive vs. moderate. But yeah, it definitely seems to depend on the candidate. The recent Emerson College poll showed that only 53% of Bernie supporters said they'd support the Democratic nominee if it wasn't him. And only 50% of Yang's supporters.


maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4839
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2217 on: February 13, 2020, 01:25:12 PM »
This is probably my favorite article ever written about Trump: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-162952/

Quite frankly, the same exact logic holds for the 2020 Democratic primary.  Too many Dems are in the primary, which is allowing an outlier with a cult-like following to take the lead.  These Dems aren't going to drop out in time because they are getting just enough fundraising/votes to justify staying in, and the presidential run is great for publicity and name recognition.

Absent this being a three-horse race by Super Tuesday, Sanders is going to walk away with it, just like Trump did in 2016.

Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) whose occupants largely pull support from the same pool of voters then the longer it takes the moderate lane to coalesce around a single candidate the more Bernie (presumably...why choose Bernie light when you have the real thing?) can run up the delegate and vote counts. 

Take the results from New Hampshire (the top 5 at least, those over 4%):

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.

Right, and we watched this exact thing happen in 2016.  Trump had a ceiling, but because Rubio, Cruz, Bush, etc. all stayed in the race way too long, their plurality was not going to exceed Trump's cult.

Sanders is going to do the same.  I'd be gobsmacked if he does not win the nomination.

On an emotional level there are lots of parallels but once you look at the logistics the parallels with Trump really break down because the rules of the democratic and republican primaries are fundamentally different.

The big difference between the republicans in 2016 and the democrats in 2020 is that Trump benefitted from winner take all primaries on the republican side, while all the states on the democratic side award their delegates proportionally once you hit a 15% threshold.

So if no one drops out or (further) collapses and this whole nominating contest stays Sanders 30, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 20, Warren 10, Biden 10, everyone else 5%, Sanders would likely have been the nominee under republican rules, but in the democratic primary we'll end up with a brokered convention where the delegates supporting moderate democrats will somewhat outnumber the delegates supporting progressive democrats and end up with an entirely new and different kind of mess in 2020 on the democratic side as what we say on the republican side in 2016.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2218 on: February 13, 2020, 01:35:01 PM »
On an emotional level there are lots of parallels but once you look at the logistics the parallels with Trump really break down because the rules of the democratic and republican primaries are fundamentally different.

The big difference between the republicans in 2016 and the democrats in 2020 is that Trump benefitted from winner take all primaries on the republican side, while all the states on the democratic side award their delegates proportionally once you hit a 15% threshold.

So if no one drops out or (further) collapses and this whole nominating contest stays Sanders 30, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 20, Warren 10, Biden 10, everyone else 5%, Sanders would likely have been the nominee under republican rules, but in the democratic primary we'll end up with a brokered convention where the delegates supporting moderate democrats will somewhat outnumber the delegates supporting progressive democrats and end up with an entirely new and different kind of mess in 2020 on the democratic side as what we say on the republican side in 2016.

That's extremely interesting.  A brokered Democratic Convention is probably the worst case scenario for Dems.  I have to imagine everyone would have to (politically) release their votes to the delegate leader, right? 

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4839
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2219 on: February 13, 2020, 01:55:07 PM »
On an emotional level there are lots of parallels but once you look at the logistics the parallels with Trump really break down because the rules of the democratic and republican primaries are fundamentally different.

The big difference between the republicans in 2016 and the democrats in 2020 is that Trump benefitted from winner take all primaries on the republican side, while all the states on the democratic side award their delegates proportionally once you hit a 15% threshold.

So if no one drops out or (further) collapses and this whole nominating contest stays Sanders 30, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 20, Warren 10, Biden 10, everyone else 5%, Sanders would likely have been the nominee under republican rules, but in the democratic primary we'll end up with a brokered convention where the delegates supporting moderate democrats will somewhat outnumber the delegates supporting progressive democrats and end up with an entirely new and different kind of mess in 2020 on the democratic side as what we say on the republican side in 2016.

That's extremely interesting.  A brokered Democratic Convention is probably the worst case scenario for Dems.  I have to imagine everyone would have to (politically) release their votes to the delegate leader, right?

I agree it's probably the worst case scenario. Nominating an unelectable candidate (whoever a given person thinks is unelectable and opinions will differ), will only lose the democratic party the 2020 election.

A brokered convention basically guarantees grudges and bad feeling that could harm the democratic party's ability to win elections up and down the ballot for several cycles to come.

However, I disagree that candidates would feel politically compelled to release their votes to the delegate leader unless that leader was awfully close to 50% already.

In a world where Sanders ended up with 38% of the delegates, Buttigieg 34% and Klobuchar 28%, my guess is that either Klobuchar or Buttigieg would would out a deal where one would be the presidential nominee and the other the vice president, or if they couldn't make a deal, and they really don't seem to like each other, after the first ballot when everyone's pledged delegates are released anyway + the super delegates get to vote, we'd end up with some "compromise" candidate who hadn't even run in the primary.

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4839
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2220 on: February 13, 2020, 01:55:41 PM »
With Yang out now, I don't really have another candidate to actively get excited about.  I'll probably just sit the rest of the primary mess out (better for my sanity) and vote blue in November regardless of where the dust settles.  Unfortunately, I still think Trump has a very high chance of re-election regardless.

/shrug

Glad it's not just me who feels this way. Thanks, @ketchup.

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2221 on: February 13, 2020, 02:03:50 PM »
Yeah, I fear this scenario too. If we assume there are two main "lanes" (progressive [Bernie/Warren] and moderate [Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden]) ...

Sanders/Warren: 34.9% (25.7+9.2), 103,711 votes
Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden: 52.6% (24.9+19.8+8.4), 156,174 votes

The state wants a moderate but Bernie emerges as the winner with the media attention and momentum.

You know that voters don't always vote in ideological lanes, right?  In certain states, the #2 pick of Biden voters is Bernie.

So you can't really say, "Oh, look, X candidates who I view as moderate make up Y% which is a majority.  They should consolidate."  Warren dropped, but more of her voters ended up going to Pete and Klobuchar, not Bernie.

Of course it's not nearly that neat, the individuals matter quite a bit and voters can be unpredictable. But I think the broad trend tend to hold true.

I think the data we have shows that you're wrong. It's hard to say for sure of course because it depends on *which* candidate drops out and what has happened in the mean time. But for example here is a poll (admittedly from a year ago) that says a full 42% of Biden supporters would support Warren or Sanders as a second choice, and that was from way back when there were like 30 people to chose from.

The "progressive" and "moderate" "lane" theory is just a theory, and I see no reason to believe that it's holding up particularly well this primary.

Sure, there are also electability and experience sorting (among others) happening in addition to the ideological. Never meant to imply a perfect correlation, but I would expect to see at least a modest ideological correlation in where support flows between the candidates. It probably also matters if supporters are abandoning a current candidate vs. if they're having to choose who to support when their #1 drops out. Guess we'll find out...


The big difference between the republicans in 2016 and the democrats in 2020 is that Trump benefitted from winner take all primaries on the republican side, while all the states on the democratic side award their delegates proportionally once you hit a 15% threshold.

So if no one drops out or (further) collapses and this whole nominating contest stays Sanders 30, Buttigieg 25, Klobuchar 20, Warren 10, Biden 10, everyone else 5%, Sanders would likely have been the nominee under republican rules, but in the democratic primary we'll end up with a brokered convention where the delegates supporting moderate democrats will somewhat outnumber the delegates supporting progressive democrats and end up with an entirely new and different kind of mess in 2020 on the democratic side as what we say on the republican side in 2016.

That is an excellent point. I'd somehow forgotten the disparity in winner take all contests.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2222 on: February 13, 2020, 02:15:08 PM »
Does anyone know the history of past brokered conventions (truly asking, I don't know), and whether there was any correlation with outcome? I could see a brokered convention being good for the party, hell it's a little ridiculous to ask the electorate at large to choose who the parties nominate in my opinion (I live in TX which has open primaries, maybe I'd see it differently in a different state). But either way, don't we all want all of the parties to put up their best and brightest potential executives as their nominees for P/VPOTUS? It's hard to horse trade in a 50-state multi-month/year primary system. Maybe a system where the eventual nominee has to reach out more explicitly to different candidates and factions to form a coalition to get the nomination would give everyone involved a greater stake in supporting that nominee in the general?

rob in cal

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2223 on: February 13, 2020, 03:13:01 PM »
  With Yang out there goes my hope to hit FIRE immediately once the UBI proposal of his would have been enacted.  I told my wife once I heard that he was out of the race to cancel retirement planning for this November.  He had some interesting ideas and seems to be focused on the future of the country in terms of automation, big tech etc, also explicitly said that there are problems in the white working class communities that need to be addressed, thus showing a desire to win back those Big 10 states.  Seems like someone who had he been elected might really have shaken things up, and also perhaps (dont' know how realistic I'm being with this one) been able to break from the interventionist US foreign policy mindset.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2224 on: February 13, 2020, 03:23:03 PM »
Yang wanted to enact a "social currency."  Look up how well that's going in China.  Joke candidate.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2225 on: February 13, 2020, 03:45:14 PM »
Does anyone know the history of past brokered conventions (truly asking, I don't know), and whether there was any correlation with outcome?

CNN says there were were brokered conventions in 1984 and 1952. Overall, it seems that if a candidate isn't able to rally the majority of their party in the primaries then their hopes of winning in the general election aren't too good.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/democrats-2020-brokered-convention/index.html

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Age: 29
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2226 on: February 13, 2020, 04:00:58 PM »
Yang wanted to enact a "social currency."  Look up how well that's going in China.  Joke candidate.
You realize that his "social credit system" was absolutely nothing at all like China's "social credit score" system, right? It was just glorified time-banking, not "credit score" related at all.  Just a poor naming choice.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2227 on: February 13, 2020, 05:09:23 PM »
Yeh - If Bernie got the majority of the Delegates but not enough to please the powers at be who run the Democratic party AND they got together and then picked one of "their" favorites (definitely not Bernie), THEN I'll betcha the Donald would win for sure.

A further effect of this may be to either strengthen one of the small political parties trying to gain traction in the USA OR to stimulate the creation of a new party.

I could certainly support a new party that wanted to support health care for all, a living minimum wage, the end to endless war, willing to pay for the education of it's populace and some of the other popular policies.  To grow as a party they'd have to show the voters that they were serious about fighting for these things or they would wither and die.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3188
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2228 on: February 13, 2020, 05:41:22 PM »
How was Biden ever considered the "electable" candidate lmfao

I'm under the impression that's what the polls say.

Maybe he is. Just not in Iowa or New Hampshire.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2650
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2229 on: February 13, 2020, 05:59:31 PM »
  With Yang out there goes my hope to hit FIRE immediately once the UBI proposal of his would have been enacted. I told my wife once I heard that he was out of the race to cancel retirement planning for this November.  He had some interesting ideas and seems to be focused on the future of the country in terms of automation, big tech etc, also explicitly said that there are problems in the white working class communities that need to be addressed, thus showing a desire to win back those Big 10 states.  Seems like someone who had he been elected might really have shaken things up, and also perhaps (dont' know how realistic I'm being with this one) been able to break from the interventionist US foreign policy mindset.

I assume this is sarcasm.

But I am still amazed at how many of my liberal friends still believe there was a tinker's chance in hell such a proposal would ever have been enacted in a Yang presidency. Just like Medicare for all won't be enacted even if Sanders/Warren wins.  Nor will free college.  Nor [insert any random farther left policy being floated].  Liberal policies in general are highly unlikely to ever pass into law, b/c even with a Dem president, the left rarely controls the Senate. And even when it does, there aren't enough far left Senators even among the Dems to pass any of these policies.  That's why the grand liberal healthcare reform enacted when the Dems controlled the presidency and both houses was a CONSERVATIVE health care plan developed by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.  They couldn't pass anything more liberal than that.

It would take a HUGE sweep of Congress in a year when the GOP was particularly vulnerable in the Senate, and a bunch of new more left leaning Senators taking over existing Dem Senate seats as well as GOP seats, before anyone need get their hopes up for any truly liberal legislation passing. 

Which also makes the panty-wetting fear of 'EVUL SOSHULISM!' taking over the country pretty hilarious.


Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2230 on: February 13, 2020, 06:03:36 PM »
I have been reading some pretty compelling arguments that it might actually end up being Bloomberg vs Trump

I don't quite see it yet but I thought Trump running was a joke early on as well.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2231 on: February 13, 2020, 06:58:50 PM »
I have been reading some pretty compelling arguments that it might actually end up being Bloomberg vs Trump

I don't quite see it yet but I thought Trump running was a joke early on as well.

Bloomberg vs Trump would be saying out loud that we actually live in a plutocracy and that it's time to move on. I'm usually not one to admit wanting to move to another country, but it'd be tempting.

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2232 on: February 13, 2020, 07:02:28 PM »
As for the rest, was it not the case that the voting was done exclusively through this app that might be questionable?  Was independent verification even possible?

No, that is not the case.

Caucusing was done in person in public view at 1,600 precincts around Iowa, plus a handful of satellite precincts for Iowans outside the state. In a given precinct there are dozens to hundreds of witnesses to the size of crowds, the total number of people attending is announced, as is the viability threshold (15% of that total). Within each candidate's group of supporters someone counts how many of them there are, and they can see the size of the crowds for other candidates (who are usually gathered under a precinct captain with a big campaign sign).

Usually, the numbers for each candidate after the final count are announced publicly but that's not required. However, at a bare minimum every person who attended the caucus in a given precinct would know the total number of voters who attended their precinct, the viability threshold, the total number of people in their group, which candidates where and were not viable in their precinct and the a rough estimate of the size of the crowds for each other candidate.

And they can and do look up what is reported for those numbers in their precinct online in the official separate results from every single precinct which are summed up to give the total results from the state.

The terrible app was what the Iowa democratic party was trying to use (ineffectively) to gather the reports from their official person recording those same results at each of the 1,600 precinct locations. It was supposed to replace a good old fashioned phone tree where the people in each precinct called in their results to the county democratic party, which in turn called them in to the state democratic party.

And people are catching a lot of mistakes, whether introduced by the app or sloppy math by the democratic party or their people on the ground in each precinct. But as those errors get corrected the relative positions of Buttigieg and Sanders aren't really changing.

Here is the 40% of Iowa precinct results the Sanders campaign released on caucus night from direct observation of the results in real time: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/04/amid-iowa-results-debacle-sanders-campaign-signals-victory-releasing-portion-its

Here's a later release from their campaign that captured 60% of Iowa precinct results. Presumably they held back some precincts so that they'd be able to catch any attempt to alter the results only in the places where people didn't think the campaign had independent knowledge of the outcomes: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/04/not-good-night-democracy-sanders-releases-more-internal-results-hinting-iowa-victory

Good to know, thanks for this.  I find the American political system to be labyrinthine.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2233 on: February 14, 2020, 06:56:16 AM »
  With Yang out there goes my hope to hit FIRE immediately once the UBI proposal of his would have been enacted. I told my wife once I heard that he was out of the race to cancel retirement planning for this November.  He had some interesting ideas and seems to be focused on the future of the country in terms of automation, big tech etc, also explicitly said that there are problems in the white working class communities that need to be addressed, thus showing a desire to win back those Big 10 states.  Seems like someone who had he been elected might really have shaken things up, and also perhaps (dont' know how realistic I'm being with this one) been able to break from the interventionist US foreign policy mindset.

I assume this is sarcasm.

But I am still amazed at how many of my liberal friends still believe there was a tinker's chance in hell such a proposal would ever have been enacted in a Yang presidency. Just like Medicare for all won't be enacted even if Sanders/Warren wins.  Nor will free college.  Nor [insert any random farther left policy being floated].  Liberal policies in general are highly unlikely to ever pass into law, b/c even with a Dem president, the left rarely controls the Senate. And even when it does, there aren't enough far left Senators even among the Dems to pass any of these policies.  That's why the grand liberal healthcare reform enacted when the Dems controlled the presidency and both houses was a CONSERVATIVE health care plan developed by the Heritage Foundation in the 90s.  They couldn't pass anything more liberal than that.

It would take a HUGE sweep of Congress in a year when the GOP was particularly vulnerable in the Senate, and a bunch of new more left leaning Senators taking over existing Dem Senate seats as well as GOP seats, before anyone need get their hopes up for any truly liberal legislation passing. 

Which also makes the panty-wetting fear of 'EVUL SOSHULISM!' taking over the country pretty hilarious.

Great post. The biggest failure of the Dem debates has been the failure to ask these types of questions.

How are you going to pass anything you’re proposing?

How will you convince a likely Republican controlled Senate to pass this type of legislation?

How will you govern with a likely Democratic House and Republican Senate?

How will you convince the moderates in the party (or, vice versa, the progressives) to buy into your platform so that, if you do get control of both houses of Congress, you can pass this legislation you’re proposing?

Without answering these questions, everything said at all of these incessant Dem debates has largely been pointless.

YttriumNitrate

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2234 on: February 14, 2020, 08:14:13 AM »
I have been reading some pretty compelling arguments that it might actually end up being Bloomberg vs Trump
I don't quite see it yet but I thought Trump running was a joke early on as well.

Goodness, I hope the Democrats aren't silly enough to nominate Bloomberg. Sure he'll spend a ton of his own money, but Trump will bludgeon Bloomberg for his love of soda taxes and bans. Of course there are many more important issues, but Bloomberg's soda bans impact people in continuous way, hit on something many people are passionate about, are vastly unpopular, and can easily be explained in a 30-second ad.

Just image how it will go over in Atlanta when Trump holds up a 16.9-ounce Coke and tells people that his opponent made them illegal to sell.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2235 on: February 14, 2020, 10:12:17 AM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2236 on: February 14, 2020, 03:45:22 PM »
I have been reading some pretty compelling arguments that it might actually end up being Bloomberg vs Trump

I don't quite see it yet but I thought Trump running was a joke early on as well.

Bloomberg vs Trump would be saying out loud that we actually live in a plutocracy and that it's time to move on. I'm usually not one to admit wanting to move to another country, but it'd be tempting.

I read a post on Twitter today from a rich hedge fund super-investor type guy and he was all for Bloomberg, so you might be spot-on.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2237 on: February 14, 2020, 05:00:31 PM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.
Of course, the soy-boy coastal folk will take it but that stuff will not fly in the Midwest.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5664
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2238 on: February 14, 2020, 05:15:51 PM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.
Of course, the soy-boy coastal folk will take it but that stuff will not fly in the Midwest.

Eyeroll @ “soy-boy”

It’s crazy, the unexpected places homophobia and toxic masculinity will show up.

Viz, men not recycling because apparently that’s gay?

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/j5ye73/men-dont-recycle-because-dont-want-people-thinking-theyre-feminine-gay-study

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2239 on: February 14, 2020, 05:20:01 PM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.
Of course, the soy-boy coastal folk will take it but that stuff will not fly in the Midwest.

Eyeroll @ “soy-boy”

It’s crazy, the unexpected places homophobia and toxic masculinity will show up.

Viz, men not recycling because apparently that’s gay?

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/j5ye73/men-dont-recycle-because-dont-want-people-thinking-theyre-feminine-gay-study
Sorry if my ironic use is not apparent, but I am reporting a real difference in how such policies would be perceived in some parts of the country without an ocean view.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5664
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2240 on: February 14, 2020, 05:25:30 PM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.
Of course, the soy-boy coastal folk will take it but that stuff will not fly in the Midwest.

Eyeroll @ “soy-boy”

It’s crazy, the unexpected places homophobia and toxic masculinity will show up.

Viz, men not recycling because apparently that’s gay?

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/j5ye73/men-dont-recycle-because-dont-want-people-thinking-theyre-feminine-gay-study
Sorry if my ironic use is not apparent, but I am reporting a real difference in how such policies would be perceived in some parts of the country without an ocean view.

Could not tell.

Yeah, policies like this... well, policies... will be viewed as TEH SOSHULIST DEVIL by lots of people.

It seems like we struggle a lot against our lowest common denominator.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2241 on: February 14, 2020, 05:38:54 PM »
Eh, they tax soda in Seattle, ban straws, plastic bags.  It has not changed the voting here.
Of course, the soy-boy coastal folk will take it but that stuff will not fly in the Midwest.

Eyeroll @ “soy-boy”

It’s crazy, the unexpected places homophobia and toxic masculinity will show up.

Viz, men not recycling because apparently that’s gay?

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/j5ye73/men-dont-recycle-because-dont-want-people-thinking-theyre-feminine-gay-study
Sorry if my ironic use is not apparent, but I am reporting a real difference in how such policies would be perceived in some parts of the country without an ocean view.

Could not tell.

Yeah, policies like this... well, policies... will be viewed as TEH SOSHULIST DEVIL by lots of people.

It seems like we struggle a lot against our lowest common denominator.
Totally understandable and I realize I often run the risk of being misunderstood for the sake of brevity of stylistic flair. Having lived in +50%-margin red states for 13 years, I can somewhat competently model the reactions of the local hoi polloi to various policy contrivances. Stuff like soda tax and plastic bag bans, in the grand scheme of things, are not the sort of things that keep me up at night--but considering that politics isn't really about policy, such policies do materially matter to those who use political/ideological alignment and as a means by which to achieve a desired level of virtue-signalling and mood-affiliation.

I hardly ever make pronouncements on policy (which is difficult because policies and their implications are too complicated for me to think I know enough to add signal vs. more noise); rather, I get my jollies writing meta-commentary. I would summarize your "lowest common denominator" as the central problem faced in making better policy in democratic governments. In terms of soda taxes themselves, I have not been at risk of taking hard-line libertarian philosophical views seriously since reading Derek Parfit.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2242 on: February 15, 2020, 08:14:39 AM »
On the soda tax it is more hypocrisy than anything else because they specifically exempted other high sugar drinks like lattes from the tax.

They protect the poor here in Washington state, oh yes.   We will not run them out of their tents (which are sometimes in the most dangerous of areas) but we will turn 40% of the traffic lanes on the highways into pay lanes, charging big bucks to use them.  The google, amazon, microsoft millionaires can pay this with ease while they sip their non taxed vanilla latte but the poor retail worker is stuck in the remaining coach lanes.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2243 on: February 15, 2020, 11:36:33 AM »
I have been reading some pretty compelling arguments that it might actually end up being Bloomberg vs Trump

I don't quite see it yet but I thought Trump running was a joke early on as well.

Bloomberg vs Trump would be saying out loud that we actually live in a plutocracy and that it's time to move on. I'm usually not one to admit wanting to move to another country, but it'd be tempting.

Let's remember what you've written.  If it occurs that Bloomberg is the one against Trump, will any of the national media make the statement you just made about living in a plutocracy despite the evidence in front of their eyes?  The plutocracy owns the major media.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2244 on: February 16, 2020, 05:36:49 AM »
What is this about Bloomberg considering Clinton as VP? 

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4445
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2245 on: February 16, 2020, 07:05:41 AM »
What is this about Bloomberg considering Clinton as VP?

I'll give Bloomberg this- he seems to have figured out how to play the media game.

Which is to say- my money is on an intentional leak for attention/soundbites, get him on all the talk shows, but no way he actually picks her.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2246 on: February 16, 2020, 07:07:26 AM »
That sounds about right.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2247 on: February 16, 2020, 09:46:54 AM »
What is this about Bloomberg considering Clinton as VP?

I'll give Bloomberg this- he seems to have figured out how to play the media game.

Which is to say- my money is on an intentional leak for attention/soundbites, get him on all the talk shows, but no way he actually picks her.

The rumor might not have even originated inside the Bloomberg campaign.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1691
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2248 on: February 16, 2020, 05:05:47 PM »
What is this about Bloomberg considering Clinton as VP?

I'll give Bloomberg this- he seems to have figured out how to play the media game.

Which is to say- my money is on an intentional leak for attention/soundbites, get him on all the talk shows, but no way he actually picks her.

The rumor might not have even originated inside the Bloomberg campaign.

When there is not enough real news,...…...they make it up.

vern

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2249 on: February 17, 2020, 11:00:58 AM »
What is this about Bloomberg considering Clinton as VP?

I'll give Bloomberg this- he seems to have figured out how to play the media game.

Which is to say- my money is on an intentional leak for attention/soundbites, get him on all the talk shows, but no way he actually picks her.

The rumor might not have even originated inside the Bloomberg campaign.

When there is not enough real news,...…...they make it up.

We can dream can't we?