11th February 2020, 9:34 PM
I wasn't taking Bloomberg seriously, but with the way the Democratic Party is failing to actually pick a leader, he might have a real shot... though the disaster option of a contested convention is maybe even more likely, due to the Democrats' choice to distribute delegates to the top several finishers in each state and that so far nobody has won any kind of victory -- it's looking like in New Hampshire Bernie will win a very narrow popular-vote victory that will translate to the same number of delegates as Buttigieg. Winning NH by under 2% is pretty uninspiriting for the guy who got over 50% of the vote there in '16, but there are many more options beyond just Bernie (and Hillary) this time so that makes sense. Last time Bernie was the default "not Hillary" option, but he's far from the only "not Biden" option this time. His devoted core base votes for Bernie and Bernie only of course, but he's not making inroads beyond that.
So with Iowa and New Hampshire failing to to do much more beyond boost Klobuchar (20% in NH is impressive!) and Buttigiet and damage Warren and Biden, the threat of a contested convention is definitely rising. And again, party rules are part of why -- as I just said, where Trump won in '16 in part because of the Republicans' "the leader gets all the delegates" rules, the Dems' "top 3+ get delegates" rules make it hard for someone to win in a race like this, you need to really pile up the delegates to get over half for the first ballot at the convention. It could happen that someone breaks out at some point in the next month and starts getting those kinds of victories, and at this point I don't know if I can speculate on who that'd be -- maybe Sanders though I doubt it, maybe Buttigieg but his numbers with minorities are terrible, maybe Klobuchar despite her reputation for being abusive to her staff, maybe Bloomberg... and on that note, and liberal celebrating Biden's collapse shouldn't if the end result ins a Bloomberg candidacy, because where Biden is a moderate to liberal Democrat Bloomberg is well to his right! Because of his money Bloomberg might be able to win, but ugh, I'd much rather have a better candidate than that on the issues...
But anyway, if that first ballot doesn't have one person with a majority then we have that contested convention, and that will beat BAD mess -- look up '68 if you don't know about it, for example. The damaging '80 primary fight between Teddy Kennedy and Pres. Carter is also instructive. It'd lead to hard feelings and whichever side loses having a hard time turning right around to win in November behind a candidate they've been fighting against, and if Bernie, for example, has the most delegates but doesn't get picked as nominee because nobody who isn't a Bernie diehard wants to support him (as is often true) Bernie's cult-like following would be SO mad... that would go terribly. But what would be the alternative, running a candidate who'd probably lose in a blowout, and anyway picking Bernie there would lead to lots of hard feelings on the more centrist side. There is no real winner for a contested convention besides Donald Trump, but with us having no leader it could well happen.
And yes, I do think Bernie would lose badly. Yes, right now he polls decently against Trump, but a lot of that is because the Republicans have spent four years now 1) saying nothing negative about Bernie and 2) bashing any other leading Democrat. There's a reason for their behavior, they want to face Bernie because they know that as soon as he becomes the nominee they can open the floodgates on him and destroy him with a massive negative ad campaign hitting him for his socialism, etc, etc. Messing with the other party's primaries in order to try to get a preferred candidate is a common political practice both sides have dabbled in here and there, and that is absolutely what the Republicans are doing with Bernie once again, just like they and the Russians both did in '16. Sure, you could say that Bernie would win anyway, but seriously, socialism still polls pretty badly in this country. I am highly skeptical. Look up, for example, how in '12 Claire McCaskill ran ads saying how Todd Akin was "too conservative for Missouri", hoping that the Republicans would pick him. They did, then he said that "legitimate rape" line, and presto, she managed to extend her political career for six years longer than it otherwise would have gone.
Heh,.. I tried to make a new thread at some point but got pushback against it. I'd be happy to have a new thread though...
So with Iowa and New Hampshire failing to to do much more beyond boost Klobuchar (20% in NH is impressive!) and Buttigiet and damage Warren and Biden, the threat of a contested convention is definitely rising. And again, party rules are part of why -- as I just said, where Trump won in '16 in part because of the Republicans' "the leader gets all the delegates" rules, the Dems' "top 3+ get delegates" rules make it hard for someone to win in a race like this, you need to really pile up the delegates to get over half for the first ballot at the convention. It could happen that someone breaks out at some point in the next month and starts getting those kinds of victories, and at this point I don't know if I can speculate on who that'd be -- maybe Sanders though I doubt it, maybe Buttigieg but his numbers with minorities are terrible, maybe Klobuchar despite her reputation for being abusive to her staff, maybe Bloomberg... and on that note, and liberal celebrating Biden's collapse shouldn't if the end result ins a Bloomberg candidacy, because where Biden is a moderate to liberal Democrat Bloomberg is well to his right! Because of his money Bloomberg might be able to win, but ugh, I'd much rather have a better candidate than that on the issues...
But anyway, if that first ballot doesn't have one person with a majority then we have that contested convention, and that will beat BAD mess -- look up '68 if you don't know about it, for example. The damaging '80 primary fight between Teddy Kennedy and Pres. Carter is also instructive. It'd lead to hard feelings and whichever side loses having a hard time turning right around to win in November behind a candidate they've been fighting against, and if Bernie, for example, has the most delegates but doesn't get picked as nominee because nobody who isn't a Bernie diehard wants to support him (as is often true) Bernie's cult-like following would be SO mad... that would go terribly. But what would be the alternative, running a candidate who'd probably lose in a blowout, and anyway picking Bernie there would lead to lots of hard feelings on the more centrist side. There is no real winner for a contested convention besides Donald Trump, but with us having no leader it could well happen.
And yes, I do think Bernie would lose badly. Yes, right now he polls decently against Trump, but a lot of that is because the Republicans have spent four years now 1) saying nothing negative about Bernie and 2) bashing any other leading Democrat. There's a reason for their behavior, they want to face Bernie because they know that as soon as he becomes the nominee they can open the floodgates on him and destroy him with a massive negative ad campaign hitting him for his socialism, etc, etc. Messing with the other party's primaries in order to try to get a preferred candidate is a common political practice both sides have dabbled in here and there, and that is absolutely what the Republicans are doing with Bernie once again, just like they and the Russians both did in '16. Sure, you could say that Bernie would win anyway, but seriously, socialism still polls pretty badly in this country. I am highly skeptical. Look up, for example, how in '12 Claire McCaskill ran ads saying how Todd Akin was "too conservative for Missouri", hoping that the Republicans would pick him. They did, then he said that "legitimate rape" line, and presto, she managed to extend her political career for six years longer than it otherwise would have gone.
(5th February 2020, 6:01 PM)Weltall Wrote: Nancy Pelosi ripping up the speech just looked to me like a neoliberal fossil's impotent frustration as her efforts result in Donald Trump riding high and triumphant, as everyone outside of the bubble knew he would from the moment this all started. It was just a YASS QUEEN gesture which might make some good memes but nothing else.No, it was a power move showing that she knows how to use the media to her advantage, like how Trump does but for our side. It was a great move. She is very good at getting under Trump's skin and that's awesome.
Quote:My biggest issue with the Democratic establishment is not on ideology or policy, it's that they are terrible at politics and never achieve meaningful or lasting victories. It's a culture of defeat and surrender and nothing will get better while these people are still in charge.Heh... well, you know the old joke, right? One person says to another, 'what political party do you belong to?' And the other one says 'I don't belong to a party, I'm a Democrat.' Or something like that. Republicans are much better at falling in line than Democrats, that has always been true. The idea that Democrats never make major lasting victories is not in any way true however, don't exaggerate to that extent! From the New Deal to the ACA (Obamacare) Dems do succeed sometimes.
(11th February 2020, 9:23 AM)etoven Wrote: At anyrate. If any more shit, hits any more fans this threads going to need it's own harddrive to store the SQL database on.
Heh,.. I tried to make a new thread at some point but got pushback against it. I'd be happy to have a new thread though...