Democrat 2020

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Boomers have done more to enrich themselves at the expense of other generations. That's just a historical fact.

Boomers endorsed LBJ's big projects when they were poor and young. Then they turned around and pushed for tax cuts 20 years later when GenX arrived. They never question the need for SS in their old age, yet ask why young people need universal healthcare.
Boomers artificially limited local zoning laws and capped property taxes through Prop 13 in my state of California, causing the homeless crisis and turning my generation into renting surfs for the properties that Boomers own and they continue to push NIMBY policies in order that their housing prices go up as additional supply continues to get more restricted. All at the expense of Millenials who now can't find a starter home to raise a family.

It used to be in my state that if you were a CA resident, you didn't have to pay for higher education. The youngest three generations were now told they not only had to pay and pay big but they can never get rid of the debt even if they cant pay and go bankrupt.

There is one reason why LA can't build more than 4 stories tall and it has nothing to do with earthquakes. Boomers came in the 1960s and 1970s and decided no one else should come after them.

Boomers rigged the game heavily back when they were the only players at the table. Now Gen X, Y and Z have to find our political feet while suffering worse economic conditions than any generation before us beside the silent generation.

Do you never wonder why Millenials and Zoomers are so big on the socialism now?

Fair bit of truth in that, though my generation (1964 last boomer, first contraction year depending on who you ask) has been amenable to altering the SocSec system.

But you are assuming as yet undemonstrated (mean that literally, not snidely) selflessness among millenials and zoomers if you think current attitudes on socialism etc. are truly more than an attempt to get their own power/piece of the pie.

[Montmorency]

But you are assuming as yet undemonstrated (mean that literally, not snidely) selflessness among millenials and zoomers if you think current attitudes on socialism etc. are truly more than an attempt to get their own power/piece of the pie.

Sir, if the majority of the population could be brought to act purely according to economic self-interest in their political behavior we would still have a dramatic improvement over the status quo.

[Greyblades]

Bernie's heart blockage was confirmed as actually a heart attack.

So it is, age finishing the job hillary started.

[Montmorency]

I can't tell the future, but I'm pretty sure this steady momentum behind Warren is unstoppable by now.

Give it another month and check again, y'all non-Americans may want to start familiarizing yourselves with her candidacy if she's still the frontrunner.

Bernie's heart blockage was confirmed as actually a heart attack.

So it is, age finishing the job hillary started.

The scared bitch injected him on live television with a genetically-modified oleandrin toxin designed to be very, very long-acting. Sweet Bernie has been racing against the clock for the past four years, but he just. can't. make. it. A cowardly witch's brew fells even the heroes among us.

Press F for respect

F
F
F
F
F
F

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a long way to go yet.

Warren may be leaching polling from Sanders and Biden, and she has the advantage of being younger - and not having had a heart attack.

Even so, she seems like the candidate Trump would want to face - because he can attack her on all fronts.

[Montmorency]

There's a long way to go yet.

Warren may be leaching polling from Sanders and Biden, and she has the advantage of being younger - and not having had a heart attack.

Even so, she seems like the candidate Trump would want to face - because he can attack her on all fronts.

I can assure you that any candidate would be attacked from all fronts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty is right on that score. The Dems could run a ticket featuring Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer and Trump would attack and belittle. It is his MO (and possibly MV).

[edyzmedieval]

After the whole Democratic debate, the Democrats apparently have learned nothing - Booker was right, what is this constant attacking and bickering between Democrats. In some ways it descended into a shouting match or a he said, she said shenanigan.

And for some reason they all had this fixation of "I wanna be the guy who defeats" instead of "I wanna be the President who does things" and that will really annoy people.

[CrossLOPER]

After the whole Democratic debate, the Democrats apparently have learned nothing - Booker was right, what is this constant attacking and bickering between Democrats. In some ways it descended into a shouting match or a he said, she said shenanigan.

And for some reason they all had this fixation of "I wanna be the guy who defeats" instead of "I wanna be the President who does things" and that will really annoy people.

I don't think anyone remembers how to be a real adult.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They are still in circular firing squad mode to be sure. But remember how early in the process we are...3 months BEFORE Iowa. It is not surprising that they are still at loggerheads with one another and there is a substantial amount of time to determine a nominee and shift to positive message mode.

[Greyblades]

Warren talks over everyone at will but gabbard gets interrupted by a convenient ad break 5 seconds into a questio just as she starts mentioning warren.

What could they mean by this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Warren talks over everyone at will but gabbard gets interrupted by a convenient ad break 5 seconds into a questio just as she starts mentioning warren.

What could they mean by this?

Officially it will be said that the producers needed to go to a break to fulfill their ad contracts.

Unofficially?

She's polling at 11th. So, effectively, she doesn't matter and the producers needed to break for an ad somewhere around that time anyway. Implicitly, they are also saying she should end her quest for the nomination. Media loves a good horse-race to cover, but they really don't like to have too many racers -- simple is easier to cover and focus on the conflict.

[Greyblades]

Heh, funny that even such blatant cynicism sounds too charitable for the current state of CNN.

Would be bad for them to risk having the only frontrunner not succumbing to age be given the verbal beatdown kamala harris suffered.

[Montmorency]

Tulsi Gabbard is literally a more conservative candidate than Biden at this point.

I hope she loses her primary.

[Greyblades]

Alternative: Even Biden is literally a more progressive cadidate than Gabbard at this point.

I hope she wins, for she is the democrats best chance to return from the depths of self destructive insanity.

[Montmorency]

Of course one couldn't stand to name a single substantive thing one likes about Tulsi "Rounding Error" Gabbard. I checked out the part of the debate where Gabbard is interrupted by commercial break, and it's as I suspected: she constantly pulls this bullshit, over and over. Most people can thankfully see it for what it is.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

BURNETT: Thank you, Senator Warren.

Congresswoman Gabbard, you're 38 years old, and you would be the youngest president if elected. Should age matter when choosing a president?

GABBARD: I'm glad you asked, because I was going to say it's not fair to ask these three about their health and their fitness to serve as president but not every other one of us. I am grateful to have been trained very well by the Army and do my best to stay in shape.

But here's the real question I believe you should be asking is: Who is fit to serve as our commander-in-chief? This is the most important responsibility that the president has. What Donald Trump has been doing in Syria and what we have just seen with him, inviting Turkey to come in and slaughter the Kurds, show what an unfit president looks like. It highlights how critical it is that we have a president and commander-in-chief who is ready on day one, bringing experience and understanding in foreign policy and national security.

Bringing the experience that I have, both serving in Congress now for nearly seven years, serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, serving on the Armed Services Committee, subcommittees related to terrorism and upcoming threats, serving on the Homeland Security Committee, the experience that I have as a soldier, serving for over 16 years in the Army National Guard, deploying twice to the Middle East, being able to serve in different capacities, joint training exercises, training the Kuwait National Guard.

I understand the importance of our national security. I am prepared to do this job, to fulfill this responsibility as commander-in-chief on day one.

BURNETT: Thank you, Congresswoman.

GABBARD: I'd like to ask our other candidates this question. I'd like to start with Senator Warren...

BURNETT: Sorry, Congressman, I'm sorry.

GABBARD: ... what her experience and background is to serve as commander-in-chief.

BURNETT: I'm sorry, thank you. We're going to take another break now. The CNN-New York Times debate live from Otterbein University here in Ohio will be back in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Candidates, especially the very lowest polling candidates, are not entitled to take unlimited time over their limit - nor are they entitled to ask any question they want of any other candidate. Why should CNN kowtow to her whims? I doubt anyone could even "fall" for this type of stunt; it's a deliberate disinformation narrative.

She'll probably be angling for the Greens' or Libertarians' nomination by the time the Dem primaries roll around.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course one couldn't stand to name a single substantive thing one likes about Tulsi "Rounding Error" Gabbard. I checked out the part of the debate where Gabbard is interrupted by commercial break, and it's as I suspected: she constantly pulls this bullshit, over and over. Most people can thankfully see it for what it is.



Candidates, especially the very lowest polling candidates, are not entitled to take unlimited time over their limit - nor are they entitled to ask any question they want of any other candidate. Why should CNN kowtow to her whims? I doubt anyone could even "fall" for this type of stunt; it's a deliberate disinformation narrative.

She'll probably be angling for the Greens' or Libertarians' nomination by the time the Dem primaries roll around.

LOL...good job with the partial transcript. She'd given her answer.

[Greyblades]

Ah, I misremembered part of it, I evidently have to ammend my statement, but not my point. They saw her go for warren and cut her off; the point of contention for this statement is not what they did but the why.

Now, you claim the motivation is an unwillingness to indulge the also-rans, I think that is an excuse and it just so happens that testimony indicating the bias of CNN for warren and against gabbard has recently been released. Bias so blatant Warren was allowed to talk over everyone, even biden to the point where she ended up with 6 more minutes to talk than him.

[Montmorency]

They cut her off because she exceeded her time. Even if one were so biased as to believe that they would want to cut her off for the reason of shielding Warren, the fact that they had already signaled the end of Gabbard's response before she named Warren should logically preclude that possibility.

James O'Keefe has not offered evidence of CNN bias, and he's not even making an effort anymore if all the content he could dig up has been publicly volunteered by representatives of CNN a long time ago. When one consistently relies on organizations like Project Veritas who are long established as dedicated liars and propagandists, one shouldn't expect normal people to be taken in. It's insulting really.

[Montmorency]

TV ad spending by 2020 Democrats, through 12/17:

Bloomberg - $84.7 million [Bloomberg filed to run November 24]
Steyer - $79.5 million
Sanders - $8.4 million
Buttigieg - $7.1 million
Yang - $4.2 million
Biden - $2.1 million
Warren - $1.9 million
Klobuchar - $1.8 million
Bennet - $1.1 million
Gabbard - $1 million
Delaney - $662k
Castro - $49k
Williamson - $972
Booker - $0
Patrick - $0

Put another way -- Bloomberg & Steyer account for over 85% of all TV ad spending by active 2020 Democratic candidates (through week of Dec. 17).

[Greyblades]

I pity buttigeig, bloomberg's ego trip is really screwing his chances of absorbing biden's voters.

[edyzmedieval]

I don't understand why Bloomberg is running - he knows very well he's not going to win it, what for then?

I heavily use his business platform (www.bloomberg.com) daily for business, but that doesn't translate to political support.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't understand why Bloomberg is running - he knows very well he's not going to win it, what for then?

I heavily use his business platform (www.bloomberg.com) daily for business, but that doesn't translate to political support.

He's taking his shot because he sees a window of opportunity in Biden's failure to improve his support numbers. Bloomberg hopes that he can push Biden out and take over that cadre of Dem voters with a campaign that can build support from that base rather than retain and maintain without advancing as has Biden. We shall see. Bloomberg certainly does not have to wait for funding to roll in.

[edyzmedieval]

Some issues are too complicated to just throw money at it and hope you get the attention - as I said, I'm a supporter of Bloomberg's business platform which is a fabulous piece of work, but his desire to be the nominee is not something I understand.

[Montmorency]

He's taking his shot because he sees a window of opportunity in Biden's failure to improve his support numbers. Bloomberg hopes that he can push Biden out and take over that cadre of Dem voters with a campaign that can build support from that base rather than retain and maintain without advancing as has Biden. We shall see. Bloomberg certainly does not have to wait for funding to roll in.

If true, that would be quite stupid.

These days it gets even stupider.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...primary-states

He became a Democrat only last year.

Bloomberg plans to bypass the first four states on the primary calendar — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — and focus instead on the crush of states that vote on Super Tuesday and beyond.

So goes one of the least popular Democrats in the country (including among Democrats). As amusing, in a particular sense, as it would be to me as a New Yorker, for this country's future to be a matter of games between decrepit old New York billionaires, I'm not a sadist to wish for it.

Some issues are too complicated to just throw money at it and hope you get the attention - as I said, I'm a supporter of Bloomberg's business platform which is a fabulous piece of work, but his desire to be the nominee is not something I understand.

How do you feel about this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...60d_story.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...wners-2020-bid

The announcement that Bloomberg News would refrain from investigating any of the 2020 Democrats after Michael Bloomberg announced his presidential bid was not well received.

Bloomberg, 77, has not shied away from admitting that he doesn’t want negative reporting about him in the newsroom he owns. Last year, he said, “I don’t want the reporters I’m paying to write a bad story about me. I don’t want them to be independent.”

And Biden and Sanders may be too old to run, but as the statistics show billionaires live much longer and healthier lives than the rest of us.

[edyzmedieval]

Montmorency, I'm not surprised at all by Bloomberg's stance on this. In fact, I quite expected it - after all, he's the one owning it and I really did not doubt that they would refrain from criticising him.

I'm using it as a business platform and whenever I read on politics (very very frequently), I always look at multiple sources.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Opting out of the first 4 is probably good tactics given the late start. He cannot be actively painted as a loser in those contests if he is not in them. On the other hand, if he plays up the first mega-Tuesday event and flubs it, then the media will have a feeding frenzy at his expense.

And yes, he is "my" kind of democrat -- which is to say not much of one and barely anything like one outside of social issues agenda stuff.

Lol on the cartoon.

[Montmorency]

Montmorency, I'm not surprised at all by Bloomberg's stance on this. In fact, I quite expected it - after all, he's the one owning it and I really did not doubt that they would refrain from criticising him.

I'm using it as a business platform and whenever I read on politics (very very frequently), I always look at multiple sources.

Yeah, it's probably to be expected just from what we know of Bloomberg and his editorial control going years back - but we can at least gesture in Jeff Bezos' favor when we compare to the Washington Post and the absence of overt editorial control (I don't think it's possible to avoid all influence in this type of ownership structure).

On the general concept of billionaire vanity campaigns, on one hand almost any case of putting money to use is more economically beneficial than saving it, but what a profoundly superior use of these hundreds of millions it would be to register and activate voters, or to counter right-wing media dominance. Billionaires remain purely self-interested people and cannot be relied on in any conception of the public good.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...7ontBc3RpjyrJ/
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...st/4412776002/

Opting out of the first 4 is probably good tactics given the late start. He cannot be actively painted as a loser in those contests if he is not in them. On the other hand, if he plays up the first mega-Tuesday event and flubs it, then the media will have a feeding frenzy at his expense.

And yes, he is "my" kind of democrat -- which is to say not much of one and barely anything like one outside of social issues agenda stuff.

Lol on the cartoon.

For him to make traction on Super Tuesday he would have to believe that:

1. Either Biden or everyone other than Biden would drop out by then.
2. All those orphaned voters would consolidate to him rather than to Biden or to whoever else has the momentum.

Now Bloomberg is more of a businessman than the contemporary venture capital and private equity vultures or the con artists who make a living off them, but essentially Bloomberg is making the same bet as many of those - that parachuting in with a flashy business proposition (lots of advertisements) but no deliverables (ground operation, campaign events, contests won) will dazzle the customers and investors (electorate) into giving him their confidence long enough to extract their value (votes). That's a sucker's bet, so he's DOA.

[edyzmedieval]

5:38's polling primaries.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ry-d/national/

[Montmorency]

Bloomberg says he will support whoever the Democratic nominee is, maybe up to $1 billion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ot-the-nominee

* He would not commit to serving only one term. He would be 82 when it ended. Like Sanders, 78, and Biden, 77, Bloomberg, who is also 77, said pledging to serve only one term before an election is foolish. “You’re giving the Republicans the ultimate gift,” he said. “You’re a lame duck from the day you get elected. Why on earth would you want to do that?”

Heh. Last stand of the war kids. Well, Biden infamously semi-committed to a single term.

* Running for president isn’t much different than running for mayor, except there’s more flying than driving.

Not even Buttigieg is that arrogant.