Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Trotsky]

Your AV says Sanders is not for sale.

He sold out when he learned that Hillary and the DNC illegally stole the nomination from him.

He sold out when I looked like a beta cuck when two black women stole the mic from his hands and shouted down his supporters.

He used to be against inventory politics and super damaging to America’s social fabric. And now like a groveling little bitch he spouts the same nonsense.

Your av is the bullshits.

If you think that not condemning your country to the almost certain election of Trump - a corrupt and incompetent plutocrat who has since then filled the judiciary with billionaire-cock-sucking hacks, filled government agencies with lobbyists, profiteers, and crooks, and radically redistributed wealth and power upwards - as opposed to staying in for personal glory is "selling out," then you're a moron. Even if it was absolutely clear that Sanders had the primary stolen (it's not; he didn't), him running in the general and sealing an outcome that is infinitely worse for the country than the election of Clinton would have been one of the most despicably selfish things possible.

Also, Sanders has always been socially progressive and averse to pandering to racists and right-wing culture warriors like yourself.

 

[xcvbn]

Your AV says Sanders is not for sale.

He sold out when he learned that Hillary and the DNC illegally stole the nomination from him.

He sold out when I looked like a beta cuck when two black women stole the mic from his hands and shouted down his supporters.

He used to be against inventory politics and super damaging to America’s social fabric. And now like a groveling little bitch he spouts the same nonsense.

Your av is the bullshits.

Lose the battle to win the war.

If Bernie had ran as a third party or refused to endorse Clinton, he permanently loses any potential for support among the millions of sheep who vote solely based on party and name recognition.

As much as I want to say Bernie should have gone the route of Ralph Nader, I think he was correct in believing he would have suffered the same exact fate as Nader(his words to Chris Hedges). It would have killed any chance of becoming a frontrunner in a future election- the exact position he's fortunate to be in now.

 

[Trotsky]

Lose the battle to win the war.

If Bernie had ran as a third party or refused to endorse Clinton, he permanently loses any potential for support among the millions of sheep who vote solely based on party and name recognition.

As much as I want to say Bernie should have gone the route of Ralph Nader, I think he was correct in believing he would have suffered the same exact fate as Nader(his words to Chris Hedges). It would have killed any chance of becoming a frontrunner in a future election- the exact position he's fortunate to be in now.

I don't think this was his calculus whatsoever. And this would reflect kind of a lowly opinion of Sanders as a person and a public servant.

I think his position is exactly what he's continually said: that Trump/the GOP is an existential threat to the country due to his/its indefensible, reckless, and utterly corrupt policies, and that he cared more about his country and the welfare of its people than his personal glory. Running would have all but guaranteed four years of...well, exactly what we're seeing. It's going to take a generation to undo the harm that the Trump presidency has done in terms of institutional competence, trust in government and media, equitable resource distribution, reducing partisanship, and (perhaps mostly) accomplishing meaningful policy without right-wing hack judges hamstringing the country from healing itself and effectuating real democracy. He wasn't going to go with a 99% chance of that happening just for a 1% chance of his becoming president - then or ever.

 

[xcvbn]

I don't think this was his calculus whatsoever. And this would reflect kind of a lowly opinion of Sanders as a person and a public servant.

I think his position is exactly what he's continually said: that Trump/the GOP is an existential threat to the country due to his/its indefensible, reckless, and utterly corrupt policies, and that he cared more about his country and the welfare of its people than his personal glory. Running would have all but guaranteed four years of...well, exactly what we're seeing. It's going to take a generation to undo the harm that the Trump presidency has done in terms of institutional competence, trust in government and media, equitable resource distribution, reducing partisanship, and (perhaps mostly) accomplishing meaningful policy without right-wing hack judges hamstringing the country from healing itself and effectuating real democracy. He wasn't going to go with a 99% chance of that happening just for a 1% chance of his becoming president - then or ever.

You don't understand Bernie Sanders as well as you think you do.

I also don't think you understand the systematic problems our government has as far as stretching beyond Trump goes.

Restoring trust in government and media? Partisanship? Dismantling of liberal institutions? Selling governmental power to the private sector? Are you kidding me? These are issues going back decades. Trump is the symptom, not the cause here.

And I believe Hedges when he says he spoke with Sanders.

 

[Trotsky]

You don't understand Bernie Sanders as well as you think you do.

Would you care to explain how you know more about him - so much so that you can infer things that are contrary to what he's publicly said over and over again? The guy that I know is a leftist social democrat that cares about improving the lives of his fellow citizens, not a power-obsessed Napoleon who just wants the throne and makes all his decisions based on getting it.

I also don't think you understand the systematic problems our government has as far as stretching beyond Trump goes.

You're welcome to expound upon that.

Restoring trust in government and media? Partisanship? Dismantling of liberal institutions? Selling governmental power to the private sector? Are you kidding me? These are issues going back decades. Trump is the symptom, not the cause here.

Yes, Trump is the symptom of a right-wing privatist push in US politics and a hyper-partisan environment of obstruction and denial of reality that has been spearheaded by the Republican Party. Yes, the Democrats followed the Republicans right in the 1980s and 1990s in order to regain the government after three (monstrously corrupt and long-term-destructive) Republican presidential terms.

If you don't realize that the current Trump administration and GOP are exacerbating those problems to a degree exponentially beyond what Clinton would have done, then you're crazy. While the GOP sans Trump wouldn't be destroying national discourse and information consumption to the same degree as he has with his fake-news-alternate-reality platform, the GOP would be furthering basically the same policy, particularly in the case of the judiciary, with or without Trump. There was no way that Trump being elected wouldn't result in disaster for the judiciary, as nearly all polls showed the GOP retaining Congress. Meanwhile, Clinton would have appointed competent agency heads, would not filled government with inexperienced crooks hellbent on destroying the public interest, and would have nominated judges that secured a leftward policy movement for the next couple decades.

Also, for whatever privatism the Democrats have come to embrace during the neoliberal era, no, the Democrats are not even remotely comparable to blame for cannibalizing government, stoking partisanship (nothing Democrats have ever done comes even close to Republicans in 1994-2000 and 2008-present in terms of bad faith government, outright lying, and shilling for corruption)

And I believe Hedges when he says he spoke with Sanders.

I don't know what this refers to, but I know Hedges (I have Wages of Rebellion sitting on my bookshelf) and I don't care of his opinion of Sanders at all, at least what i gathered in this article, which is frankly laughable because it presupposes that Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democratic nomination in 2020, and, if he does, it's because he sold out to corporate interests.

 

[AlexDB9]

Whats up with Buttagaihigege (sp?).....he’s taking this gay thing a little serious no? Pence was just dumbfounded by this guys remarks. “His problem is with my maker” .....man o man

Are the dems able to put out a candidate who isn’t a professional victim?

 

[xcvbn]

Would you care to explain how you know more about him - so much so that you can infer things that are contrary to what he's publicly said over and over again? The guy that I know is a leftist social democrat that cares about improving the lives of his fellow citizens, not a power-obsessed Napoleon who just wants the throne and makes all his decisions based on getting it.

You're welcome to expound upon that.

Yes, Trump is the symptom of a right-wing privatist push in US politics and a hyper-partisan environment of obstruction and denial of reality that has been spearheaded by the Republican Party. Yes, the Democrats followed the Republicans right in the 1980s and 1990s in order to regain the government after three (monstrously corrupt and long-term-destructive) Republican presidential terms.

If you don't realize that the current Trump administration and GOP are exacerbating those problems to a degree exponentially beyond what Clinton would have done, then you're crazy. While the GOP sans Trump wouldn't be destroying national discourse and information consumption to the same degree as he has with his fake-news-alternate-reality platform, the GOP would be furthering basically the same policy, particularly in the case of the judiciary, with or without Trump. There was no way that Trump being elected wouldn't result in disaster for the judiciary, as nearly all polls showed the GOP retaining Congress. Meanwhile, Clinton would have appointed competent agency heads, would not filled government with inexperienced crooks hellbent on destroying the public interest, and would have nominated judges that secured a leftward policy movement for the next couple decades.

Also, for whatever privatism the Democrats have come to embrace during the neoliberal era, no, the Democrats are not even remotely comparable to blame for cannibalizing government, stoking partisanship (nothing Democrats have ever done comes even close to Republicans in 1994-2000 and 2008-present in terms of bad faith government, outright lying, and shilling for corruption)

I don't know what this refers to, but I know Hedges (I have Wages of Rebellion sitting on my bookshelf) and I don't care of his opinion of Sanders at all, at least what i gathered in this article, which is frankly laughable because it presupposes that Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democratic nomination in 2020, and, if he does, it's because he sold out to corporate interests.

Really just as simple as what I already stated- Bernie says he doesn't wanna go the way of Nader. Of course this is in addition to the points you made, but it's an important distinction that he's concerned about his national movement failing upon running third party, as he has always done in Congress.

You say:

Running would have all but guaranteed four years of...well, exactly what we're seeing. It's going to take a generation to undo the harm that the Trump presidency has done in terms of institutional competence, trust in government and media, equitable resource distribution, reducing partisanship, and (perhaps mostly) accomplishing meaningful policy without right-wing hack judges hamstringing the country from healing itself and effectuating real democracy.

as if Trump has a monopoly on all of those points when clearly it's been an ongoing destructive trend for decades, with varying degrees depending on which party owned the most power at the time.

If you don't realize that the current Trump administration and GOP are exacerbating those problems to a degree exponentially beyond what Clinton would have done, then you're crazy.

I agree

While the GOP sans Trump wouldn't be destroying national discourse and information consumption to the same degree as he has with his fake-news-alternate-reality platform, the GOP would be furthering basically the same policy, particularly in the case of the judiciary, with or without Trump.

Disagree with the first point. Agree with the second.

There was no way that Trump being elected wouldn't result in disaster for the judiciary, as nearly all polls showed the GOP retaining Congress.

Agreed

Meanwhile, Clinton would have also appointed corrupt* agency heads, would not filled government with inexperienced crooks hellbent on destroying the public interest, and would have nominated judges that secured a leftward policy movement for the next couple decades.

Ftfy, not at all to the extent of Trump, LMAO yeah if by "leftward" you mean "straight down the fucking center that's already got a right-leaning bias"

Also, for whatever privatism the Democrats have come to embrace during the neoliberal era, no, the Democrats are not even remotely comparable to blame for cannibalizing government, stoking partisanship (nothing Democrats have ever done comes even close to Republicans in 1994-2000 and 2008-present in terms of bad faith government, outright lying, and shilling for corruption)

Agreed

For sure Hedges is salty that Sanders won't leave the Democratic party high and dry. I see the arguments on either side but I do believe Bernie made the right decision to play the long game.

 

[waiguoren]

Whats up with Buttagaihigege (sp?).....he’s taking this gay thing a little serious no? Pence was just dumbfounded by this guys remarks. “His problem is with my maker” .....man o man

Are the dems able to put out a candidate who isn’t a professional victim?

My instinct is that this hurts Buttigieg somewhat. There was no good reason to pick that fight, and now as you noted he looks like yet another person struck with the victimhood complex. I think his main selling point vis a vis the competition is his ability to seem like an abnormally reasonable person, but this unnecessary call out should put a significant dent in that advantage. However, just because it should doesn't mean it will.

As for your question, I don't think Sanders has played the victim card much at all---certainly less than Trump has.

 

[waiguoren]

Donald Trump on Pete Buttigieg: ‘I’d Like Running Against Him’

President Donald Trump predicted that he would likely be running against Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, but he left open the possibility that he could face Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“It may be Bernie has the most spirit over there right now,” Trump said. “Could be the mayor from Indiana. I think I’d like running against him, too. But it’ll be interesting to see it unfold. There’ll be very interested — a lot of times you can’t tell.”

Trump commented on the 2020 Democratic primary in an interview with Sirius/XM host David Webb on Wednesday.

Buttigieg’s support has jumped in the early primary polls thanks to several successful interviews in the national media.


Trump said that Biden was “sleepy” and suggested that he would have a hard time staying in the race.


“I think Sleepy Joe’s going to have a hard time. He’s, you know, one percent Joe,” he said. “I don’t think he’s going to make it.”

Trump warned against Americans choosing a socialist for president, noting that the current economic boom was fragile.

“Our country is doing so well and if we ever went socialistic, if we have become a socialist country, you could write off this country. This country would go down so fast,” he said.

But Trump said he also relished a debate with Sanders.

“I hear what Bernie says, and I hope I get an opportunity to run against him because it’ll be so easy to show, whether it’s his healthcare — that’s a disaster, it’s a disaster,” he said.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-pete-buttigieg-id-like-running-against-him/https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-pete-buttigieg-id-like-running-against-him/

Sleepy Joe? I like it. Trump is such a strange candidate. He is elite in some ways (like naming his opponents) and horrible in other ways (putting his foot in his mouth).

 

[Sketch]

Donald Trump on Pete Buttigieg: ‘I’d Like Running Against Him’

President Donald Trump predicted that he would likely be running against Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, but he left open the possibility that he could face Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“It may be Bernie has the most spirit over there right now,” Trump said. “Could be the mayor from Indiana. I think I’d like running against him, too. But it’ll be interesting to see it unfold. There’ll be very interested — a lot of times you can’t tell.”

Trump commented on the 2020 Democratic primary in an interview with Sirius/XM host David Webb on Wednesday.

Buttigieg’s support has jumped in the early primary polls thanks to several successful interviews in the national media.


Trump said that Biden was “sleepy” and suggested that he would have a hard time staying in the race.


“I think Sleepy Joe’s going to have a hard time. He’s, you know, one percent Joe,” he said. “I don’t think he’s going to make it.”

Trump warned against Americans choosing a socialist for president, noting that the current economic boom was fragile.

“Our country is doing so well and if we ever went socialistic, if we have become a socialist country, you could write off this country. This country would go down so fast,” he said.

But Trump said he also relished a debate with Sanders.

“I hear what Bernie says, and I hope I get an opportunity to run against him because it’ll be so easy to show, whether it’s his healthcare — that’s a disaster, it’s a disaster,” he said.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-pete-buttigieg-id-like-running-against-him/

Sleepy Joe? I like it. Trump is such a strange candidate. He is elite in some ways (like naming his opponents) and horrible in other ways (putting his foot in his mouth).

I was hoping for 'Creepy Joe' but Sleepy joe is just as good. Hahaha

 

[GSP_37]

Eric Swalwell needs to win so we don't have a corrupt dumbshit as pres.

 

[waiguoren]

I was hoping for 'Creepy Joe' but Sleepy joe is just as good. Hahaha

But "Creepy Joe" invites sexual assault comparisons. With that in mind, "Sleepy Joe" is much smarter.

Eric Swalwell needs to win so we don't have a corrupt dumbshit as pres.

Probability: 0

 

[Trotsky]

Donald Trump on Pete Buttigieg: ‘I’d Like Running Against Him’

President Donald Trump predicted that he would likely be running against Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, but he left open the possibility that he could face Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“It may be Bernie has the most spirit over there right now,” Trump said. “Could be the mayor from Indiana. I think I’d like running against him, too. But it’ll be interesting to see it unfold. There’ll be very interested — a lot of times you can’t tell.”

Trump commented on the 2020 Democratic primary in an interview with Sirius/XM host David Webb on Wednesday.

Buttigieg’s support has jumped in the early primary polls thanks to several successful interviews in the national media.


Trump said that Biden was “sleepy” and suggested that he would have a hard time staying in the race.


“I think Sleepy Joe’s going to have a hard time. He’s, you know, one percent Joe,” he said. “I don’t think he’s going to make it.”

Trump warned against Americans choosing a socialist for president, noting that the current economic boom was fragile.

“Our country is doing so well and if we ever went socialistic, if we have become a socialist country, you could write off this country. This country would go down so fast,” he said.

But Trump said he also relished a debate with Sanders.

“I hear what Bernie says, and I hope I get an opportunity to run against him because it’ll be so easy to show, whether it’s his healthcare — that’s a disaster, it’s a disaster,” he said.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-pete-buttigieg-id-like-running-against-him/

Sleepy Joe? I like it. Trump is such a strange candidate. He is elite in some ways (like naming his opponents) and horrible in other ways (putting his foot in his mouth).

It blows my mind that people think "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary," and "Sleepy Joe" are elite-level insults or nicknames. Dude has the wit and creativity of bully in a special education class.

 

[Fawlty]

It blows my mind that people think "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary," and "Sleepy Joe" are elite-level insults or nicknames. Dude has the wit and creativity of bully in a special education class.

He knows his audience.

 

[waiguoren]

It blows my mind that people think "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary," and "Sleepy Joe" are elite-level insults or nicknames. Dude has the wit and creativity of bully in a special education class.

It's not that the names are elite. It's the technique that is elite. Scott Adams explained it pretty well. The key is to create a short, easy-to-remember name that meshes with the image of the person or the news coverage of that person. He A/B tests the names at his rallies, discarding those that get a tepid response. It's possible "Sleepy Joe" won't stick, and basically that would be because Biden isn't sleepy-looking enough. The others that you listed are quite "good" in the sense that they lodge in people's minds and remind of them of what they don't like about the target.

 

[Phisher]

LOL

 

[PEB]

 

[Trotsky]

LOL

Good grief

 

[Sketch]

It's not that the names are elite. It's the technique that is elite. Scott Adams explained it pretty well. The key is to create a short, easy-to-remember name that meshes with the image of the person or the news coverage of that person. He A/B tests the names at his rallies, discarding those that get a tepid response. It's possible "Sleepy Joe" won't stick, and basically that would be because Biden isn't sleepy-looking enough. The others that you listed are quite "good" in the sense that they lodge in people's minds and remind of them of what they don't like about the target.

Don't bother. He is just mad that his 'understanding' of politics means next to nothing in this day and age. The memes are among us now.

 

[killakoy]

Wow, those are horrible odds for the house. Who the hell made that line?