No one is being "cheated" out of anything here, but perception is going to be reality. If Bernie walks into that convention with a plurality and Biden walks out the nominee, you better hope and pray you get every damn swing vote there is in the states that are up for grabs, because 25-30% of them are going to walk away from the Democratic Party and never look back if it happens. All these young voters are seeing is a bunch of establishment politicians rallying together to stop the guy who is fighting to actually make their lives better. Argue about the merits all you want, I'm not here to do that. I'm telling you what will happen. Democrats will be throwing away an entire portion of a generation of voters because they are piss their pants scared of advocating for universal healthcare. Trump isn't on Twitter talking about Bernie getting robbed because he is so eager to face him. He is doing it because he knows Sanders being denied the nomination by an alliance of centrist Democrats will almost guarantee him re-election.
Biden is running on literally nothing but "bringing decency and civility back to the White House". I mean........good luck with that. If that actually meant anything Trump would be at 30% approval, not 43%. The people who are convinced Biden is a shoe-in are honestly totally perplexing to me. I get that alot of Sanders supporters are assholes online. But everyone rallying around this guy whose cognitive function on the trail is, lacking to say the least, and it's doing nothing but re-enforcing the belief that the Democratic Party isn't interested in anything but milquetoast moves on the edges that DO help people, but not at the expense of the people who fund their campaigns. And it's getting hard to disagree with those sentiments.
And you can laugh at this all you want, but the narrative among Bernie supporters is this: Buttigieg, Kloubachar, and Beto are all running to Biden's side to shore up all centrist support, and Elizabeth Warren is staying in until told to siphon off votes from Bernie. They BELIEVE this is completely coordinated, and that it is basically now 5 on 1. And frankly, where the hell are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard?? They CLEARLY have nothing in common with the above list, so why aren't they rushing to Bernie's side with endorsements?? He is, as of tonight, one man against everyone. And his supporters believe that the core reason is because of money in politics. Again, at this point, it's hard not to concede they're correct. I did not expect anyone significant to drop out before Tuesday, simply because it was a mere 3 days away and why not see what happens. Something shifted. The one thing I do appreciate is that Obama has, and will continue to say, nothing.
No one is being "cheated" out of anything here, but perception is going to be reality. If Bernie walks into that convention with a plurality and Biden walks out the nominee, you better hope and pray you get every damn swing vote there is in the states that are up for grabs, because 25-30% of them are going to walk away from the Democratic Party and never look back if it happens. All these young voters are seeing is a bunch of establishment politicians rallying together to stop the guy who is fighting to actually make their lives better. Argue about the merits all you want, I'm not here to do that. I'm telling you what will happen. Democrats will be throwing away an entire portion of a generation of voters because they are piss their pants scared of advocating for universal healthcare. Trump isn't on Twitter talking about Bernie getting robbed because he is so eager to face him. He is doing it because he knows Sanders being denied the nomination by an alliance of centrist Democrats will almost guarantee him re-election.
Biden is running on literally nothing but "bringing decency and civility back to the White House". I mean........good luck with that. If that actually meant anything Trump would be at 30% approval, not 43%. The people who are convinced Biden is a shoe-in are honestly totally perplexing to me. I get that alot of Sanders supporters are assholes online. But everyone rallying around this guy whose cognitive function on the trail is, lacking to say the least, and it's doing nothing but re-enforcing the belief that the Democratic Party isn't interested in anything but milquetoast moves on the edges that DO help people, but not at the expense of the people who fund their campaigns. And it's getting hard to disagree with those sentiments.
I dont think Biden is as bad off as you think. I do think there is a case for Biden to win if he's the nominee. That said, I completely agree that whomever has the most delegates at the convention should be the nominee, unless something(very, very) weird happens. If Bernie comes in close to the threshold, and also has a plurality, he absolutely needs to be the nominee.
Yeah she's done. It's not so clear cut. He needs her? Not really. She doesn't really offer anything at this point. She screwed up. She attacked him over something that was pretty much nothing (as I explain above).
We'll see. Yes he needs delegates. It seems that the whole world is against him so he'll probably be screwed out of the nomination regardless and Warren seems to be fine with that. She made her play against him already.
You did not point out that if she quit, endorsed Sanders and campaigned for him, he'd likely win almost all delegates in California, and would run up really big numbers in the NE. He's going to win those states, but he needs to be counting on every possible delegate.
She's taking votes and delegates. Now - convention rules are such that if she drops out before the convention, I think she can offer her delegates to him on the first ballot (the one we all know he needs to win on, because if it's close... Biden's probably going to win).
Lost in all of this is: She's no friend of Biden's. Not at all, it's understood that they rather dislike each other. So I doubt she's his pawn, as you suggested above.
Sanders does need all the delegates he can get, he doesn't need HER. She brings baggage, drama, taint. She needs to come back and apologize really to him for reasons I explained on the previous page (it was a cheap stunt). But you say she doesn't like Biden but it seems like she's only staying in to hurt Bernie as she tried to hurt him before.
Anyway, a lot of questions will be answered soon. And yes, it does seem to be everyone against Bernie.
At least Chris Matthews was fired er mutually parted ways. He was a raging anti-bernite on MSNBC.
But you say she doesn't like Biden but it seems like she's only staying in to hurt Bernie as she tried to hurt him before.
At least Chris Matthews was fired er mutually parted ways. He was a raging anti-bernite on MSNBC.
This is in some ways my central thesis. She seems to deeply resent his position on their conversation, so she's slow to help him given the situation. I reject the premise she's only staying in to hurt Bernie (I honestly think she's playing at a brokered convention), but that's essentially immaterial.
Glad to hear about Chris Matthews. He'd gone totally nuts about Bernie and needed to be seen off.
But you say she doesn't like Biden but it seems like she's only staying in to hurt Bernie as she tried to hurt him before.
At least Chris Matthews was fired er mutually parted ways. He was a raging anti-bernite on MSNBC.
This is in some ways my central thesis. She seems to deeply resent his position on their conversation, so she's slow to help him given the situation. I reject the premise she's only staying in to hurt Bernie (I honestly think she's playing at a brokered convention), but that's essentially immaterial.
Glad to hear about Chris Matthews. He'd gone totally nuts about Bernie and needed to be seen off.
That's the rub, you see it as her caring deeply.
I see a cynical attempt at hurting Bernie through identity politics.
You must see that it was awfully convenient for her, the timing of it all. She suddenly felt the need to say a comment really bothered her.
This comment just struck her like a thunderbolt, months after the alleged incident. It didn't bother her for the other debates they'd had before that. And her playing besties with Bernie up until that point when it suddenly spilled out must have been soo difficult for her.
Wait, was she hurt all of a sudden months after the incident or was she hurt back when it happened and then she just spent months pretending to love Bernie through rivers of tears? Gee that must have been tough.
OR.... Maybe she was making a cynical politicial attack. This long delayed thunderbolt of pain was so terribly hurtful that she had to try to ambush him after the debate on a hot mic. It hurt so bad she tried to get Bernie in a gotcha moment. Yeah, right.
It seems clear to me, there's no way you can reasonably assume this wasn't a cynical attack. Either:
1. She was really hurt and pretended that it didn't hurt (for no apparent reason). She then spent months pretending to be best friends with Bernie.
2. Bernie said something small months previously and Warren, noting that her campaign needed a shot in the arm, tried to make something out of nothing in a cynical attempt to damage Bernie and help herself. It didn't work out that way for her.
3. She's lying for the reasons stated above.
Either way this whole thing says more about her than him. I mean if it happened she should have taken it for a challenge to prove him wrong. Going this route of 'mean man was so mean' to me won't win you votes. Just look a Trump who won despite being on tape saying he sexually assaulted women without permission. Trump just grabs women's crotches because he's famous. What Bernie allegedly said is NOTHING compared to that.
Well here you go. Moderate Republicans will vote for Biden for sure. I'm sure this guy is not going to vote for Trump if there's a reasonable alternative. Yeah, right....
The only 'disaster' for this guy would be Bernie. He'd rather that option not even be there than chance it. Biden is the same old 'Republican Light' that the Democratic Party has been throwing out there for years...
And you can laugh at this all you want, but the narrative among Bernie supporters is this: Buttigieg, Kloubachar, and Beto are all running to Biden's side to shore up all centrist support, and Elizabeth Warren is staying in until told to siphon off votes from Bernie. They BELIEVE this is completely coordinated, and that it is basically now 5 on 1. And frankly, where the hell are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard?? They CLEARLY have nothing in common with the above list, so why aren't they rushing to Bernie's side with endorsements?? He is, as of tonight, one man against everyone. And his supporters believe that the core reason is because of money in politics. Again, at this point, it's hard not to concede they're correct. I did not expect anyone significant to drop out before Tuesday, simply because it was a mere 3 days away and why not see what happens. Something shifted. The one thing I do appreciate is that Obama has, and will continue to say, nothing.
Someone over at the DNC called Buttigieg and Klobuchar and begged/forced them to drop out and support Biden; in return, they will be given Cabinet positions in his Administration should he win. That is a win-win for those two--they weren't going to post very good numbers today, meaning they were going to drop on Wednesday, and a Cabinet position pads the resume for 2024 or 2028.
Robert Francis....Biden thinks getting him on board will help him win Texas. It won't. The only people here who loved Robert Francis during his campaign were his devoted fans in El Paso and reporters/staff at the Texas Tribune. Everyone else had already moved on.
Mr. Yang is enjoying his job as political commentator at CNN--yes, he gets paid to do what we do here...but then none of us have run for President--and Ms. Gabbard is...who knows? Ever since she voted "present" she has been persona non grata for Democrats.
Pelosi is going to ask for an "en banc" review of that court decision about McGahn, which would allow *all* Federal judges currently sitting on appeals court benches to review the case. The case will probably still go to the Supreme Court but I suspect the ruling will side with the Executive. The result of this case will slightly imbalance the two branches no matter which way it goes--if Congress can force any Executive Branch person to testify whenever it wants to then the Executive Branch is subservient to the Legislative but if not then there will be many instances where the Executive can dodge any sort of oversight. Truthfully, I have to side with the Executive here--Congress is not empowered to look at anything it wants to whenever it feels like it. This will also protect a future Democrat POTUS against a Republican-controlled Congress--I am looking at it long-term and in terms of balance.
Hillary....jeez--that is old news and no one cares any more. Does that judge think she is going to say anything she has not already said?
Pelosi is going to ask for an "en banc" review of that court decision about McGahn, which would allow *all* Federal judges currently sitting on appeals court benches to review the case. The case will probably still go to the Supreme Court but I suspect the ruling will side with the Executive. The result of this case will slightly imbalance the two branches no matter which way it goes--if Congress can force any Executive Branch person to testify whenever it wants to then the Executive Branch is subservient to the Legislative but if not then there will be many instances where the Executive can dodge any sort of oversight. Truthfully, I have to side with the Executive here--Congress is not empowered to look at anything it wants to whenever it feels like it. This will also protect a future Democrat POTUS against a Republican-controlled Congress--I am looking at it long-term and in terms of balance.
Or,
Stop looking at the situation as black and white and determine when it is appropriate and when it isn’t appropriate to have congress force a person to testify and when it isn’t.
Get it in writing. Get it into law with clear repercussions for when a person or administration refuses to testify and use that as a baseline for moving forward.
Well here you go. Moderate Republicans will vote for Biden for sure. I'm sure this guy is not going to vote for Trump if there's a reasonable alternative. Yeah, right....
The only 'disaster' for this guy would be Bernie. He'd rather that option not even be there than chance it. Biden is the same old 'Republican Light' that the Democratic Party has been throwing out there for years...
The autopsy on the Hillary campaign was that it focused too much on Trump being a bad guy. Now, the guy who's campaign SLOGAN is Trump is a bad guy is being viewed as only one who can beat him. I don't think Biden has a single policy initiative. Democratic voters are being scared shitless by the media. They are being told Bernie can't win, and instead of voting for the person they want to (not necessarily Bernie) they are making a calculation based on "who can win the November". And yes, the crowd MOST in Biden's corner besides the establishment Dem types are......Never Trump Republicans. Who I have never trusted from the beginning.
Well here you go. Moderate Republicans will vote for Biden for sure. I'm sure this guy is not going to vote for Trump if there's a reasonable alternative. Yeah, right....
The only 'disaster' for this guy would be Bernie. He'd rather that option not even be there than chance it. Biden is the same old 'Republican Light' that the Democratic Party has been throwing out there for years...
The autopsy on the Hillary campaign was that it focused too much on Trump being a bad guy. Now, the guy who's campaign SLOGAN is Trump is a bad guy is being viewed as only one who can beat him. I don't think Biden has a single policy initiative. Democratic voters are being scared shitless by the media. They are being told Bernie can't win, and instead of voting for the person they want to (not necessarily Bernie) they are making a calculation based on "who can win the November". And yes, the crowd MOST in Biden's corner besides the establishment Dem types are......Never Trump Republicans. Who I have never trusted from the beginning.
Well the difference was back then it was “how bad can he be? Can’t be worse than Clinton who was *fill in the right-wing media talking point that has been hurled at her since her husband was president*”
But that question has now been answered. And if Sanders get’s the nomination, you have that same uncertainty of “how bad can it be to adapt all these social programs.”
It human nature to rather go with certainty (Trump four more years) than into another turbulent unknown.
The people voting for the primaries are not the same people who are going to swing an election.
Stop looking at the situation as black and white and determine when it is appropriate and when it isn’t appropriate to have congress force a person to testify and when it isn’t.
Get it in writing. Get it into law with clear repercussions for when a person or administration refuses to testify and use that as a baseline for moving forward.
Who gets to decide when oversight is appropriate, though? Congress? If Congress, then they will *always* think that what they are doing is appropriate. If the Executive, then they will *always* think that the oversight is not appropriate.
The only repercussion which is possible at this time is to find the person refusing to testify as being in "contempt of Congress", which is not a violation of the U. S. Code and therefore not a crime. Since there is no law about it, Congress could enact one...but good luck getting the current House and Senate to agree to it. Even if such a law came in to existence it is only a matter of time before a Republican-controlled House uses it against a Democrat POTUS.
No, Congress is just going to need to find some other way to fight back against the Executive Branch.
Stop looking at the situation as black and white and determine when it is appropriate and when it isn’t appropriate to have congress force a person to testify and when it isn’t.
Get it in writing. Get it into law with clear repercussions for when a person or administration refuses to testify and use that as a baseline for moving forward.
Who gets to decide when oversight is appropriate, though? Congress? If Congress, then they will *always* think that what they are doing is appropriate. If the Executive, then they will *always* think that the oversight is not appropriate.
The only repercussion which is possible at this time is to find the person refusing to testify as being in "contempt of Congress", which is not a violation of the U. S. Code and therefore not a crime. Since there is no law about it, Congress could enact one...but good luck getting the current House and Senate to agree to it. Even if such a law came in to existence it is only a matter of time before a Republican-controlled House uses it against a Democrat POTUS.
No, Congress is just going to need to find some other way to fight back against the Executive Branch.
Well I was going to say the Senate can draft legislation for it, figuring the oversight that is provided by congress is used in impeachment trials that the senate is in control of.
Then make sure it has the 2/3rds vote before sending it to congress to be rubber stamped making sure it is bipartisan.
I kept saying, I respect the view of some senators saying what trump did wasn’t merit enough to remove him from office but I still want them to give me an example of something that would constitute removal.
They won’t because they know Trump will just go ahead and do that example anyway out of spite.
And it’s amusing that you think the Republicans won’t be doing this if they are in charge of Congress. I have one city for you: Benghazi.
Well here you go. Moderate Republicans will vote for Biden for sure. I'm sure this guy is not going to vote for Trump if there's a reasonable alternative. Yeah, right....
The only 'disaster' for this guy would be Bernie. He'd rather that option not even be there than chance it. Biden is the same old 'Republican Light' that the Democratic Party has been throwing out there for years...
The autopsy on the Hillary campaign was that it focused too much on Trump being a bad guy. Now, the guy who's campaign SLOGAN is Trump is a bad guy is being viewed as only one who can beat him. I don't think Biden has a single policy initiative. Democratic voters are being scared shitless by the media. They are being told Bernie can't win, and instead of voting for the person they want to (not necessarily Bernie) they are making a calculation based on "who can win the November". And yes, the crowd MOST in Biden's corner besides the establishment Dem types are......Never Trump Republicans. Who I have never trusted from the beginning.
Well the difference was back then it was “how bad can he be? Can’t be worse than Clinton who was *fill in the right-wing media talking point that has been hurled at her since her husband was president*”
But that question has now been answered. And if Sanders get’s the nomination, you have that same uncertainty of “how bad can it be to adapt all these social programs.”
It human nature to rather go with certainty (Trump four more years) than into another turbulent unknown.
The people voting for the primaries are not the same people who are going to swing an election.
Part of the reason why the Democrats lost the 2016 election was because the progressives within the party felt as though they were being done dirty by the establishment. Therefore, they stayed home in droves, or voted third party rather than lend their support to a candidate that wasn't terribly popular. I can see them doing the same in 2020 if Biden were to be nominated.
The thing about Sanders that makes him a wild card against Trump is that he can pull from different sections of the American population (libertarians, progressives, youth vote) that might not otherwise consider voting blue in this election. I get the impression that @Balrog99 is one of those types of voters who respects Bernie's unwavering stances of issues enough to give him a shot; and I suspect that he's not alone.
Americans have bucked convention in two of the last three election cycles. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they do so again when it comes to electing a democratic socialist this time around.
But you say she doesn't like Biden but it seems like she's only staying in to hurt Bernie as she tried to hurt him before.
At least Chris Matthews was fired er mutually parted ways. He was a raging anti-bernite on MSNBC.
This is in some ways my central thesis. She seems to deeply resent his position on their conversation, so she's slow to help him given the situation. I reject the premise she's only staying in to hurt Bernie (I honestly think she's playing at a brokered convention), but that's essentially immaterial.
Glad to hear about Chris Matthews. He'd gone totally nuts about Bernie and needed to be seen off.
That's the rub, you see it as her caring deeply.
I see a cynical attempt at hurting Bernie through identity politics.
You must see that it was awfully convenient for her, the timing of it all. She suddenly felt the need to say a comment really bothered her.
This comment just struck her like a thunderbolt, months after the alleged incident. It didn't bother her for the other debates they'd had before that. And her playing besties with Bernie up until that point when it suddenly spilled out must have been soo difficult for her.
Wait, was she hurt all of a sudden months after the incident or was she hurt back when it happened and then she just spent months pretending to love Bernie through rivers of tears? Gee that must have been tough.
OR.... Maybe she was making a cynical politicial attack. This long delayed thunderbolt of pain was so terribly hurtful that she had to try to ambush him after the debate on a hot mic. It hurt so bad she tried to get Bernie in a gotcha moment. Yeah, right.
It seems clear to me, there's no way you can reasonably assume this wasn't a cynical attack. Either:
1. She was really hurt and pretended that it didn't hurt (for no apparent reason). She then spent months pretending to be best friends with Bernie.
2. Bernie said something small months previously and Warren, noting that her campaign needed a shot in the arm, tried to make something out of nothing in a cynical attempt to damage Bernie and help herself. It didn't work out that way for her.
3. She's lying for the reasons stated above.
Either way this whole thing says more about her than him. I mean if it happened she should have taken it for a challenge to prove him wrong. Going this route of 'mean man was so mean' to me won't win you votes. Just look a Trump who won despite being on tape saying he sexually assaulted women without permission. Trump just grabs women's crotches because he's famous. What Bernie allegedly said is NOTHING compared to that.
/shrug - you are free to promote any theory you want. Without proof, I’m disinclined to believe it was completely cynical. We’re both biased in our own ways, you being an ardent Bernie supporter and me liking him perhaps least in the field (okay - second least. Eff Bloomberg).
I think it says more about him than her. You disagree. I’m done arguing unless you have some kind of useful evidence to put forward to support your claim.
And it’s amusing that you think the Republicans won’t be doing this if they are in charge of Congress. I have one city for you: Benghazi.
Did you miss the part where I said that a Republican House would gladly bend the rules to impeach a future Democrat POTUS if given even a sliver of an opportunity? It isn't enough for Democrats to have either Sanders or Biden win--they also need to hope the House does not flip back to Republican control.
Benghazi was 8 years ago and none of the people in charge at that time are in charge now. That is a non-issue except for conspiracy theory folks who never let *anything* go.
And it’s amusing that you think the Republicans won’t be doing this if they are in charge of Congress. I have one city for you: Benghazi.
Did you miss the part where I said that a Republican House would gladly bend the rules to impeach a future Democrat POTUS if given even a sliver of an opportunity? It isn't enough for Democrats to have either Sanders or Biden win--they also need to hope the House does not flip back to Republican control.
Benghazi was 8 years ago and none of the people in charge at that time are in charge now. That is a non-issue except for conspiracy theory folks who never let *anything* go.
Wasn’t Kevin McCarthy the guy who famously let slip that the Benghazi hearing were just a stunt to try to hurt Clinton’s numbers? And isn’t that guy also still the House Minority Leader?
As an aside -!it seems very unlikely that Biden or Sanders would lose the house if they win. They’d maybe lose it in 2022 though.
Stop looking at the situation as black and white and determine when it is appropriate and when it isn’t appropriate to have congress force a person to testify and when it isn’t.
Get it in writing. Get it into law with clear repercussions for when a person or administration refuses to testify and use that as a baseline for moving forward.
Who gets to decide when oversight is appropriate, though? Congress? If Congress, then they will *always* think that what they are doing is appropriate. If the Executive, then they will *always* think that the oversight is not appropriate.
The only repercussion which is possible at this time is to find the person refusing to testify as being in "contempt of Congress", which is not a violation of the U. S. Code and therefore not a crime. Since there is no law about it, Congress could enact one...but good luck getting the current House and Senate to agree to it. Even if such a law came in to existence it is only a matter of time before a Republican-controlled House uses it against a Democrat POTUS.
No, Congress is just going to need to find some other way to fight back against the Executive Branch.
I don't think any new laws are necessary - just for SCOTUS to confirm how to apply the existing ones. There is quite a bit of case law on this already, so the arguments and criteria to be applied are all pretty easily available - they just need to be set down in a fresh, clear precedent.
I think the main shape of what the Supreme Court would be likely to say is already known:
- testimony can be compelled where the case reflects individual rights (particularly criminal cases).
- testimony can't be compelled where individuals are asserting rights on behalf of an institution (so individual members of Congress can't require testimony using the argument they are defending the rights of Congress).
- the first main issue where there's currently uncertainty is whether Congress as a whole can assert their rights against the Executive through a legal process (rather than just a political one). That's where conflicting opinions are being given in the Appeal Courts over the McGahn case, but the underlying legal issue is clearly understood and all the arguments have already been rehearsed - the Supreme Court just needs to be clear about which of these arguments they accept.
- if they support the view that Congress can enforce their rights through a legal process, that would almost certainly mean they reject the idea of absolute immunity from testimony. I would expect them to then go on to give guidance on the extent to which Executive Privilege could be used to avoid providing information during testimony. That would be general guidance on how competing rights would be weighed against each other - and therefore always open to interpretation in future cases based on different facts. It would thus not provide all the answers, but would at least considerably narrow the ground on which competing arguments were made ...
@GundanRTO "Part of the reason why the Democrats lost the 2016 election was because the progressives within the party felt as though they were being done dirty by the establishment. Therefore, they stayed home in droves, or voted third party rather than lend their support to a candidate that wasn't terribly popular. I can see them doing the same in 2020 if Biden were to be nominated."
That reminds me a lot of the first election I participated in. It was Obama's second term up for grabs and some of the young conservatives (myself included a the time) refused to back the Republican party because we felt our choice of candidate was being disrespected by the party.
That reminds me a lot of the first election I participated in. It was Obama's second term up for grabs and some of the young conservatives (myself included a the time) refused to back the Republican party because we felt our choice of candidate was being disrespected by the party.
Obviously, feel free to disregard this question if you dont want to say, but I'm curious: Who was your candidate in 2012 that you felt was being disrespected?
No one is being "cheated" out of anything here, but perception is going to be reality. If Bernie walks into that convention with a plurality and Biden walks out the nominee, you better hope and pray you get every damn swing vote there is in the states that are up for grabs, because 25-30% of them are going to walk away from the Democratic Party and never look back if it happens. All these young voters are seeing is a bunch of establishment politicians rallying together to stop the guy who is fighting to actually make their lives better. Argue about the merits all you want, I'm not here to do that. I'm telling you what will happen. Democrats will be throwing away an entire portion of a generation of voters because they are piss their pants scared of advocating for universal healthcare. Trump isn't on Twitter talking about Bernie getting robbed because he is so eager to face him. He is doing it because he knows Sanders being denied the nomination by an alliance of centrist Democrats will almost guarantee him re-election.
Biden is running on literally nothing but "bringing decency and civility back to the White House". I mean........good luck with that. If that actually meant anything Trump would be at 30% approval, not 43%. The people who are convinced Biden is a shoe-in are honestly totally perplexing to me. I get that alot of Sanders supporters are assholes online. But everyone rallying around this guy whose cognitive function on the trail is, lacking to say the least, and it's doing nothing but re-enforcing the belief that the Democratic Party isn't interested in anything but milquetoast moves on the edges that DO help people, but not at the expense of the people who fund their campaigns. And it's getting hard to disagree with those sentiments.
And you can laugh at this all you want, but the narrative among Bernie supporters is this: Buttigieg, Kloubachar, and Beto are all running to Biden's side to shore up all centrist support, and Elizabeth Warren is staying in until told to siphon off votes from Bernie. They BELIEVE this is completely coordinated, and that it is basically now 5 on 1. And frankly, where the hell are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard?? They CLEARLY have nothing in common with the above list, so why aren't they rushing to Bernie's side with endorsements?? He is, as of tonight, one man against everyone. And his supporters believe that the core reason is because of money in politics. Again, at this point, it's hard not to concede they're correct. I did not expect anyone significant to drop out before Tuesday, simply because it was a mere 3 days away and why not see what happens. Something shifted. The one thing I do appreciate is that Obama has, and will continue to say, nothing.
Completely agreed. EVEN IF Biden wins the nomination and goes onto defeat Trump, which is certainly possible, the long term damage to the Democrats will be felt for many years to come.
I talk to these people all the time. It's "Bernie or burn it down". Has been since 2016, still is today. I admire the way they won't compromise, really.
I think they're mostly right about the field coming together to stop Bernie as well. I'm inclined to believe just about anything is possible after the sabatoge of 2016, and the numbers and endorsements make sense with that theory in my view.
Whatever happened this weekend completely shifted the Democratic primary electorate. Late deciders are going for Biden by almost 3 to 1 in some states. I think this is just a huge mistake. No one is an "enthusiastic" Biden supporter. It's all game theory about who they perceive can win the general election against Trump without even a cursory glance at his non-existent platform:
Guess all the fearmongering against "ahhh socZIALizM" and all the millionaire pundits on TV have been against him too. All the establishment dems folding and endorsing him the day before the election definitely had an effect. Gotta hand it to old Joe so far.
Anyway, it ain't over yet.
Here's what Biden should do when he beats Trump.
Pardon Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is a witch hunt anyway. I'm completely confident all the conservatives begging Trump to pardon Roger Stone for much worse offenses would surely be fine with this. Pardon everyone, that's all good right Republicans? Hahahaha..
Guess all the fearmongering against "ahhh socZIALizM" and all the millionaire pundits on TV have been against him too. All the establishment dems folding and endorsing him the day before the election definitely had an effect. Gotta hand it to old Joe so far.
Anyway, it ain't over yet.
Here's what Biden should do when he beats Trump.
Pardon Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is a witch hunt anyway. I'm completely confident all the conservatives begging Trump to pardon Roger Stone for much worse offenses would surely be fine with this. Pardon everyone, that's all good right Republicans? Hahahaha..
...there is nothing to pardon either Hilary or Hunter for...
But this is what happens when people call the race after the first state and blaming the 1% is conspiracy theory territory. Black voters are not the 1% and that is who carried Biden in the southern states and saying their votes are invalid because they don't match up with your ideology is not the way to approach this.
It was always going to be a two man race. Once the debate floor gets down to 4 (I think its already there with Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren), Sanders needs to adjust and go on the offensive and prove he's the better option over the other 3 (or at least Biden).
If Sander's supporters want to be whiny babies and stay home in November because they don't like the outcome of the primaries. Good more power to them. But if Trump wins again they better not be complaining about anything he does. It's there fault, more than the people who voted for Trump, that he'll be in the White House again.
Guess all the fearmongering against "ahhh socZIALizM" and all the millionaire pundits on TV have been against him too. All the establishment dems folding and endorsing him the day before the election definitely had an effect. Gotta hand it to old Joe so far.
Anyway, it ain't over yet.
Here's what Biden should do when he beats Trump.
Pardon Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is a witch hunt anyway. I'm completely confident all the conservatives begging Trump to pardon Roger Stone for much worse offenses would surely be fine with this. Pardon everyone, that's all good right Republicans? Hahahaha..
...there is nothing to pardon either Hilary or Hunter for...
But this is what happens when people call the race after the first state and blaming the 1% is conspiracy theory territory. Black voters are not the 1% and that is who carried Biden in the southern states and saying their votes are invalid because they don't match up with your ideology is not the way to approach this.
It was always going to be a two man race. Once the debate floor gets down to 4 (I think its already there with Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren), Sanders needs to adjust and go on the offensive and prove he's the better option over the other 3 (or at least Biden).
If Sander's supporters want to be whiny babies and stay home in November because they don't like the outcome of the primaries. Good more power to them. But if Trump wins again they better not be complaining about anything he does. It's there fault, more than the people who voted for Trump, that he'll be in the White House again.
It is absolutely not over but losing Minnesota and Massachusetts was not supposed to happen. Klobuchar basically handed Biden the former by dropping out (she is super-popular in the State), but Biden winning Elizabeth Warren's state is more problematic. If Bernie wins Texas and California (which will likely happen) it carries just as much weight as alot of Biden's smaller states. But this onslaught of changing minds within the last 72 hours is frankly, kind of nuts. There needs to be a debate or two between JUST these two candidates. Because now this is going all the way to the convention. Warren and Bloomberg need to be out tomorrow. It's absurdity for either on to stay in the race, unless we put stock in Bloomberg winning 6 delegates in American Samoa.
Bernie HAS to win Michigan now, and likely Ohio as well.
Guess all the fearmongering against "ahhh socZIALizM" and all the millionaire pundits on TV have been against him too. All the establishment dems folding and endorsing him the day before the election definitely had an effect. Gotta hand it to old Joe so far.
Anyway, it ain't over yet.
Here's what Biden should do when he beats Trump.
Pardon Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is a witch hunt anyway. I'm completely confident all the conservatives begging Trump to pardon Roger Stone for much worse offenses would surely be fine with this. Pardon everyone, that's all good right Republicans? Hahahaha..
...there is nothing to pardon either Hilary or Hunter for...
But this is what happens when people call the race after the first state and blaming the 1% is conspiracy theory territory. Black voters are not the 1% and that is who carried Biden in the southern states and saying their votes are invalid because they don't match up with your ideology is not the way to approach this.
It was always going to be a two man race. Once the debate floor gets down to 4 (I think its already there with Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren), Sanders needs to adjust and go on the offensive and prove he's the better option over the other 3 (or at least Biden).
If Sander's supporters want to be whiny babies and stay home in November because they don't like the outcome of the primaries. Good more power to them. But if Trump wins again they better not be complaining about anything he does. It's there fault, more than the people who voted for Trump, that he'll be in the White House again.
It is absolutely not over but losing Minnesota and Massachusetts was not supposed to happen. Klobuchar basically handed Biden the former by dropping out (she is super-popular in the State), but Biden winning Elizabeth Warren's state is more problematic. If Bernie wins Texas and California (which will likely happen) it carries just as much weight as alot of Biden's smaller states. But this onslaught of changing minds within the last 72 hours is frankly, kind of nuts. There needs to be a debate or two between JUST these two candidates. Because now this is going all the way to the convention. Warren and Bloomberg need to be out tomorrow. It's absurdity for either on to stay in the race, unless we put stock in Bloomberg winning 6 delegates in American Samoa.
Bernie HAS to win Michigan now, and likely Ohio as well.
The NYT Upshot needle has Texas a virtual tie in Texas (They estimate the remaining vote based on precincts that have not reporter, and such).
Bernie might win Texas, but if he wins it by like... .3% or something, it'll have less impact. Conversely, Biden won Virginia by 30 points. To put that in perspective, a week ago, Sanders was just about tied in Virginia. That's an INSANE change.
I dont disagree with your bottom line. It is sounding like Bloomberg (might, MIGHT) be ready to drop out - Warren's speech and donation emails have suggested she plans to stick it out for a full week and go into Michigan.
Edit - Looks like the NYT Upshot needle on Texas is bugged atm. It's not updating. At last update, it was a 50-50 coin flip on who would win Texas. Since then, Biden has significantly closed the gap in overall vote (going from 5 down to like 1.5 or 2 down).
I mean this really feels to me like a significant portion of the primary electorate was just sitting there waiting for someone to tell them who can beat Trump, the media pounded the drum for 3 days and they said "oh, Joe Biden, ok then." I mean Biden winning in the South is 100% because of being a loyal VP to Obama. There is absolutely nothing else to that.
Joe Biden's record is sort of horrendous on alot of progressive issues. He let Senate Republicans walk all over Anita Hill as Chairman of the Judiciary (he has at least, at long last, apologized for this). His bankruptcy bill vote is inexcusable. The crime bill in the 90s, his constant tall-tales and gaffes. Do NOT assume Biden is going to get graded on the same curve as Trump. Biden will be held to account for things on a normal scale, and Trump will continue to get graded on the biggest curve in human history. Not to mention the Senate Republicans are going to (mark my words) call him and his son in for questioning at the most important moment of the campaign. Maybe there are enough people out there who just want to "go back to normal". That's a hell of a risky bet. I don't like this at all.
I mean this really feels to me like a significant portion of the primary electorate was just sitting there waiting for someone to tell them who can beat Trump, the media pounded the drum for 3 days and they said "oh, Joe Biden, ok then." I mean Biden winning in the South is 100% because of being a loyal VP to Obama. There is absolutely nothing else to that.
Joe Biden's record is sort of horrendous on alot of progressive issues. He let Senate Republicans walk all over Anita Hill as Chairman of the Judiciary (he has at least, at long last, apologized for this). His bankruptcy bill vote is inexcusable. The crime bill in the 90s, his constant tall-tales and gaffes. Do NOT assume Biden is going to get graded on the same curve as Trump. Biden will be held to account for things on a normal scale, and Trump will continue to get graded on the biggest curve in human history. Not to mention the Senate Republicans are going to (mark my words) call him and his son in for questioning at the most important moment of the campaign. Maybe there are enough people out there who just want to "go back to normal". That's a hell of a risky bet. I don't like this at all.
One of the interesting things about this race is how much turnout is up. I dont have hard data on all the races, but I know Virginia was up something like 60% over 2016. Now. It's a pretty well established that the turnout in primaries doesnt necessarily correlate to turnout in the general election... but all things being equal, you prefer higher turnout whenever possible.
One of the Sanders' campaign central theses was that he'd benefit from higher turnout races. Iowa was lower turnout (but there was some awful weather, and it was a caucaus). NH was higher in turnout over 2016, but Bernie under performed expectations there. It looks like this argument doesnt hold. He isnt benefiting from turnout. (I think he did benefit after a larger turnout in Nevada, although I think I heard Nevada's turnout was lower than expected, but still higher than 2016).
If Biden is the nominee then then the race is absolutely nothing but a referendum on Trump's character and literally NOTHING else. Is that enough?? To assume Biden can succeed where Hillary failed seems to be betting that the only problem was misogyny, because policy-wise they might as well be clones. That COULD be true. But frankly, no one knows who the better candidate in the general would be with any certainty.
Marianne Williamson is not doing the Sanders camp any favors by calling this a "coup". Look, I don't necessarily LIKE what happened over the weekend. But it's not nefarious. It's called politics. And the Sanders camp has no other campaigns to turn to because they have burned all the bridges.
Biden will have to win without my vote. This is more of the fucking same as far as I'm concerned. I'm afraid the Democrats are very close to handing Trump a 2nd term. Congratulations CNN, you got you wanted. Now burn. You had a chance for real change and you're pissing it away. I'm done with the Democratic Party, likely forever. I don't think I can even stomach voting for them at all anymore. Their establishment hasn't got a clue. Libertarian is going to be my vote. Color me completely disgusted...
Watching Bernie supporters on twitter (and here, to an extent) act like Elizabeth Warren is some sort of Republican/DNC/Satanic plant is disgusting.
Y'all need Jesus. Or a multiparty system. Or a understanding of how your own system works. Or maybe just the realisation that you can disagree with someone on something and not automatically assume their existence is the culmination of a sinister plot. Cripes, the very idea that Warren would deliberately try to get Biden the nomination over Sanders is absurd on its face.
Lefties and righties both: stop assuming the reason your candidate didn't win/do as well as expected is because of another candidate. You're usually wrong when the numbers come out (Bush loses in 92 even if Ross Perot wasn't there, for an oldie but goodie), it breeds pointless bad feelings, and it feed dumb conspiracy theories.
Any progressive who doesn't think both Sanders and Warren are generally good people fighting the good fight is deeply ignorant of their backgrounds and accomplishments (and political positions, which are very similar). Your opinion on what she should do about her presidential bid is just that, and most people's opinions in this thread and elsewhere on what was going to transpire in these primaries have turned out to be spectacularly wrong on one or more occasions - maybe we should count up how many people said Biden's campaign was dead in the water?
But don't think this is limited to the leftiest progressives either - Biden supporters were already preemptively whining about Bloomberg before the votes came in too. It's bad logic, bad understanding of the process, bad understanding of what the whole point of election campaigns is (if you cannot draw enough support from the other candidates to win, that is a flaw as a political candidate), and corrosively bad for the democratic process.
Comments
Biden is running on literally nothing but "bringing decency and civility back to the White House". I mean........good luck with that. If that actually meant anything Trump would be at 30% approval, not 43%. The people who are convinced Biden is a shoe-in are honestly totally perplexing to me. I get that alot of Sanders supporters are assholes online. But everyone rallying around this guy whose cognitive function on the trail is, lacking to say the least, and it's doing nothing but re-enforcing the belief that the Democratic Party isn't interested in anything but milquetoast moves on the edges that DO help people, but not at the expense of the people who fund their campaigns. And it's getting hard to disagree with those sentiments.
And you can laugh at this all you want, but the narrative among Bernie supporters is this: Buttigieg, Kloubachar, and Beto are all running to Biden's side to shore up all centrist support, and Elizabeth Warren is staying in until told to siphon off votes from Bernie. They BELIEVE this is completely coordinated, and that it is basically now 5 on 1. And frankly, where the hell are Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard?? They CLEARLY have nothing in common with the above list, so why aren't they rushing to Bernie's side with endorsements?? He is, as of tonight, one man against everyone. And his supporters believe that the core reason is because of money in politics. Again, at this point, it's hard not to concede they're correct. I did not expect anyone significant to drop out before Tuesday, simply because it was a mere 3 days away and why not see what happens. Something shifted. The one thing I do appreciate is that Obama has, and will continue to say, nothing.
I dont think Biden is as bad off as you think. I do think there is a case for Biden to win if he's the nominee. That said, I completely agree that whomever has the most delegates at the convention should be the nominee, unless something(very, very) weird happens. If Bernie comes in close to the threshold, and also has a plurality, he absolutely needs to be the nominee.
Sanders does need all the delegates he can get, he doesn't need HER. She brings baggage, drama, taint. She needs to come back and apologize really to him for reasons I explained on the previous page (it was a cheap stunt). But you say she doesn't like Biden but it seems like she's only staying in to hurt Bernie as she tried to hurt him before.
Anyway, a lot of questions will be answered soon. And yes, it does seem to be everyone against Bernie.
At least Chris Matthews was fired er mutually parted ways. He was a raging anti-bernite on MSNBC.
This is in some ways my central thesis. She seems to deeply resent his position on their conversation, so she's slow to help him given the situation. I reject the premise she's only staying in to hurt Bernie (I honestly think she's playing at a brokered convention), but that's essentially immaterial.
Glad to hear about Chris Matthews. He'd gone totally nuts about Bernie and needed to be seen off.
That's the rub, you see it as her caring deeply.
I see a cynical attempt at hurting Bernie through identity politics.
You must see that it was awfully convenient for her, the timing of it all. She suddenly felt the need to say a comment really bothered her.
This comment just struck her like a thunderbolt, months after the alleged incident. It didn't bother her for the other debates they'd had before that. And her playing besties with Bernie up until that point when it suddenly spilled out must have been soo difficult for her.
Wait, was she hurt all of a sudden months after the incident or was she hurt back when it happened and then she just spent months pretending to love Bernie through rivers of tears? Gee that must have been tough.
OR.... Maybe she was making a cynical politicial attack. This long delayed thunderbolt of pain was so terribly hurtful that she had to try to ambush him after the debate on a hot mic. It hurt so bad she tried to get Bernie in a gotcha moment. Yeah, right.
It seems clear to me, there's no way you can reasonably assume this wasn't a cynical attack. Either:
1. She was really hurt and pretended that it didn't hurt (for no apparent reason). She then spent months pretending to be best friends with Bernie.
2. Bernie said something small months previously and Warren, noting that her campaign needed a shot in the arm, tried to make something out of nothing in a cynical attempt to damage Bernie and help herself. It didn't work out that way for her.
3. She's lying for the reasons stated above.
Either way this whole thing says more about her than him. I mean if it happened she should have taken it for a challenge to prove him wrong. Going this route of 'mean man was so mean' to me won't win you votes. Just look a Trump who won despite being on tape saying he sexually assaulted women without permission. Trump just grabs women's crotches because he's famous. What Bernie allegedly said is NOTHING compared to that.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/opinions/sanders-versus-trump-disaster-dent/index.html
The only 'disaster' for this guy would be Bernie. He'd rather that option not even be there than chance it. Biden is the same old 'Republican Light' that the Democratic Party has been throwing out there for years...
Someone over at the DNC called Buttigieg and Klobuchar and begged/forced them to drop out and support Biden; in return, they will be given Cabinet positions in his Administration should he win. That is a win-win for those two--they weren't going to post very good numbers today, meaning they were going to drop on Wednesday, and a Cabinet position pads the resume for 2024 or 2028.
Robert Francis....Biden thinks getting him on board will help him win Texas. It won't. The only people here who loved Robert Francis during his campaign were his devoted fans in El Paso and reporters/staff at the Texas Tribune. Everyone else had already moved on.
Mr. Yang is enjoying his job as political commentator at CNN--yes, he gets paid to do what we do here...but then none of us have run for President--and Ms. Gabbard is...who knows? Ever since she voted "present" she has been persona non grata for Democrats.
Pelosi is going to ask for an "en banc" review of that court decision about McGahn, which would allow *all* Federal judges currently sitting on appeals court benches to review the case. The case will probably still go to the Supreme Court but I suspect the ruling will side with the Executive. The result of this case will slightly imbalance the two branches no matter which way it goes--if Congress can force any Executive Branch person to testify whenever it wants to then the Executive Branch is subservient to the Legislative but if not then there will be many instances where the Executive can dodge any sort of oversight. Truthfully, I have to side with the Executive here--Congress is not empowered to look at anything it wants to whenever it feels like it. This will also protect a future Democrat POTUS against a Republican-controlled Congress--I am looking at it long-term and in terms of balance.
Hillary....jeez--that is old news and no one cares any more. Does that judge think she is going to say anything she has not already said?
Or,
Stop looking at the situation as black and white and determine when it is appropriate and when it isn’t appropriate to have congress force a person to testify and when it isn’t.
Get it in writing. Get it into law with clear repercussions for when a person or administration refuses to testify and use that as a baseline for moving forward.
The autopsy on the Hillary campaign was that it focused too much on Trump being a bad guy. Now, the guy who's campaign SLOGAN is Trump is a bad guy is being viewed as only one who can beat him. I don't think Biden has a single policy initiative. Democratic voters are being scared shitless by the media. They are being told Bernie can't win, and instead of voting for the person they want to (not necessarily Bernie) they are making a calculation based on "who can win the November". And yes, the crowd MOST in Biden's corner besides the establishment Dem types are......Never Trump Republicans. Who I have never trusted from the beginning.
Well the difference was back then it was “how bad can he be? Can’t be worse than Clinton who was *fill in the right-wing media talking point that has been hurled at her since her husband was president*”
But that question has now been answered. And if Sanders get’s the nomination, you have that same uncertainty of “how bad can it be to adapt all these social programs.”
It human nature to rather go with certainty (Trump four more years) than into another turbulent unknown.
The people voting for the primaries are not the same people who are going to swing an election.
Who gets to decide when oversight is appropriate, though? Congress? If Congress, then they will *always* think that what they are doing is appropriate. If the Executive, then they will *always* think that the oversight is not appropriate.
The only repercussion which is possible at this time is to find the person refusing to testify as being in "contempt of Congress", which is not a violation of the U. S. Code and therefore not a crime. Since there is no law about it, Congress could enact one...but good luck getting the current House and Senate to agree to it. Even if such a law came in to existence it is only a matter of time before a Republican-controlled House uses it against a Democrat POTUS.
No, Congress is just going to need to find some other way to fight back against the Executive Branch.
Well I was going to say the Senate can draft legislation for it, figuring the oversight that is provided by congress is used in impeachment trials that the senate is in control of.
Then make sure it has the 2/3rds vote before sending it to congress to be rubber stamped making sure it is bipartisan.
I kept saying, I respect the view of some senators saying what trump did wasn’t merit enough to remove him from office but I still want them to give me an example of something that would constitute removal.
They won’t because they know Trump will just go ahead and do that example anyway out of spite.
And it’s amusing that you think the Republicans won’t be doing this if they are in charge of Congress. I have one city for you: Benghazi.
Part of the reason why the Democrats lost the 2016 election was because the progressives within the party felt as though they were being done dirty by the establishment. Therefore, they stayed home in droves, or voted third party rather than lend their support to a candidate that wasn't terribly popular. I can see them doing the same in 2020 if Biden were to be nominated.
The thing about Sanders that makes him a wild card against Trump is that he can pull from different sections of the American population (libertarians, progressives, youth vote) that might not otherwise consider voting blue in this election. I get the impression that @Balrog99 is one of those types of voters who respects Bernie's unwavering stances of issues enough to give him a shot; and I suspect that he's not alone.
Americans have bucked convention in two of the last three election cycles. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they do so again when it comes to electing a democratic socialist this time around.
/shrug - you are free to promote any theory you want. Without proof, I’m disinclined to believe it was completely cynical. We’re both biased in our own ways, you being an ardent Bernie supporter and me liking him perhaps least in the field (okay - second least. Eff Bloomberg).
I think it says more about him than her. You disagree. I’m done arguing unless you have some kind of useful evidence to put forward to support your claim.
Did you miss the part where I said that a Republican House would gladly bend the rules to impeach a future Democrat POTUS if given even a sliver of an opportunity? It isn't enough for Democrats to have either Sanders or Biden win--they also need to hope the House does not flip back to Republican control.
Benghazi was 8 years ago and none of the people in charge at that time are in charge now. That is a non-issue except for conspiracy theory folks who never let *anything* go.
Wasn’t Kevin McCarthy the guy who famously let slip that the Benghazi hearing were just a stunt to try to hurt Clinton’s numbers? And isn’t that guy also still the House Minority Leader?
As an aside -!it seems very unlikely that Biden or Sanders would lose the house if they win. They’d maybe lose it in 2022 though.
I don't think any new laws are necessary - just for SCOTUS to confirm how to apply the existing ones. There is quite a bit of case law on this already, so the arguments and criteria to be applied are all pretty easily available - they just need to be set down in a fresh, clear precedent.
I think the main shape of what the Supreme Court would be likely to say is already known:
- testimony can be compelled where the case reflects individual rights (particularly criminal cases).
- testimony can't be compelled where individuals are asserting rights on behalf of an institution (so individual members of Congress can't require testimony using the argument they are defending the rights of Congress).
- the first main issue where there's currently uncertainty is whether Congress as a whole can assert their rights against the Executive through a legal process (rather than just a political one). That's where conflicting opinions are being given in the Appeal Courts over the McGahn case, but the underlying legal issue is clearly understood and all the arguments have already been rehearsed - the Supreme Court just needs to be clear about which of these arguments they accept.
- if they support the view that Congress can enforce their rights through a legal process, that would almost certainly mean they reject the idea of absolute immunity from testimony. I would expect them to then go on to give guidance on the extent to which Executive Privilege could be used to avoid providing information during testimony. That would be general guidance on how competing rights would be weighed against each other - and therefore always open to interpretation in future cases based on different facts. It would thus not provide all the answers, but would at least considerably narrow the ground on which competing arguments were made ...
That reminds me a lot of the first election I participated in. It was Obama's second term up for grabs and some of the young conservatives (myself included a the time) refused to back the Republican party because we felt our choice of candidate was being disrespected by the party.
Obviously, feel free to disregard this question if you dont want to say, but I'm curious: Who was your candidate in 2012 that you felt was being disrespected?
Completely agreed. EVEN IF Biden wins the nomination and goes onto defeat Trump, which is certainly possible, the long term damage to the Democrats will be felt for many years to come.
I talk to these people all the time. It's "Bernie or burn it down". Has been since 2016, still is today. I admire the way they won't compromise, really.
I think they're mostly right about the field coming together to stop Bernie as well. I'm inclined to believe just about anything is possible after the sabatoge of 2016, and the numbers and endorsements make sense with that theory in my view.
Anyway, it ain't over yet.
Here's what Biden should do when he beats Trump.
Pardon Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton.
This whole thing is a witch hunt anyway. I'm completely confident all the conservatives begging Trump to pardon Roger Stone for much worse offenses would surely be fine with this. Pardon everyone, that's all good right Republicans? Hahahaha..
...there is nothing to pardon either Hilary or Hunter for...
But this is what happens when people call the race after the first state and blaming the 1% is conspiracy theory territory. Black voters are not the 1% and that is who carried Biden in the southern states and saying their votes are invalid because they don't match up with your ideology is not the way to approach this.
It was always going to be a two man race. Once the debate floor gets down to 4 (I think its already there with Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren), Sanders needs to adjust and go on the offensive and prove he's the better option over the other 3 (or at least Biden).
If Sander's supporters want to be whiny babies and stay home in November because they don't like the outcome of the primaries. Good more power to them. But if Trump wins again they better not be complaining about anything he does. It's there fault, more than the people who voted for Trump, that he'll be in the White House again.
It is absolutely not over but losing Minnesota and Massachusetts was not supposed to happen. Klobuchar basically handed Biden the former by dropping out (she is super-popular in the State), but Biden winning Elizabeth Warren's state is more problematic. If Bernie wins Texas and California (which will likely happen) it carries just as much weight as alot of Biden's smaller states. But this onslaught of changing minds within the last 72 hours is frankly, kind of nuts. There needs to be a debate or two between JUST these two candidates. Because now this is going all the way to the convention. Warren and Bloomberg need to be out tomorrow. It's absurdity for either on to stay in the race, unless we put stock in Bloomberg winning 6 delegates in American Samoa.
Bernie HAS to win Michigan now, and likely Ohio as well.
The NYT Upshot needle has Texas a virtual tie in Texas (They estimate the remaining vote based on precincts that have not reporter, and such).
Bernie might win Texas, but if he wins it by like... .3% or something, it'll have less impact. Conversely, Biden won Virginia by 30 points. To put that in perspective, a week ago, Sanders was just about tied in Virginia. That's an INSANE change.
I dont disagree with your bottom line. It is sounding like Bloomberg (might, MIGHT) be ready to drop out - Warren's speech and donation emails have suggested she plans to stick it out for a full week and go into Michigan.
Edit - Looks like the NYT Upshot needle on Texas is bugged atm. It's not updating. At last update, it was a 50-50 coin flip on who would win Texas. Since then, Biden has significantly closed the gap in overall vote (going from 5 down to like 1.5 or 2 down).
Joe Biden's record is sort of horrendous on alot of progressive issues. He let Senate Republicans walk all over Anita Hill as Chairman of the Judiciary (he has at least, at long last, apologized for this). His bankruptcy bill vote is inexcusable. The crime bill in the 90s, his constant tall-tales and gaffes. Do NOT assume Biden is going to get graded on the same curve as Trump. Biden will be held to account for things on a normal scale, and Trump will continue to get graded on the biggest curve in human history. Not to mention the Senate Republicans are going to (mark my words) call him and his son in for questioning at the most important moment of the campaign. Maybe there are enough people out there who just want to "go back to normal". That's a hell of a risky bet. I don't like this at all.
One of the interesting things about this race is how much turnout is up. I dont have hard data on all the races, but I know Virginia was up something like 60% over 2016. Now. It's a pretty well established that the turnout in primaries doesnt necessarily correlate to turnout in the general election... but all things being equal, you prefer higher turnout whenever possible.
One of the Sanders' campaign central theses was that he'd benefit from higher turnout races. Iowa was lower turnout (but there was some awful weather, and it was a caucaus). NH was higher in turnout over 2016, but Bernie under performed expectations there. It looks like this argument doesnt hold. He isnt benefiting from turnout. (I think he did benefit after a larger turnout in Nevada, although I think I heard Nevada's turnout was lower than expected, but still higher than 2016).
Also - Biden is now up slightly in Texas.
Marianne Williamson is not doing the Sanders camp any favors by calling this a "coup". Look, I don't necessarily LIKE what happened over the weekend. But it's not nefarious. It's called politics. And the Sanders camp has no other campaigns to turn to because they have burned all the bridges.
Y'all need Jesus. Or a multiparty system. Or a understanding of how your own system works. Or maybe just the realisation that you can disagree with someone on something and not automatically assume their existence is the culmination of a sinister plot. Cripes, the very idea that Warren would deliberately try to get Biden the nomination over Sanders is absurd on its face.
Lefties and righties both: stop assuming the reason your candidate didn't win/do as well as expected is because of another candidate. You're usually wrong when the numbers come out (Bush loses in 92 even if Ross Perot wasn't there, for an oldie but goodie), it breeds pointless bad feelings, and it feed dumb conspiracy theories.
Any progressive who doesn't think both Sanders and Warren are generally good people fighting the good fight is deeply ignorant of their backgrounds and accomplishments (and political positions, which are very similar). Your opinion on what she should do about her presidential bid is just that, and most people's opinions in this thread and elsewhere on what was going to transpire in these primaries have turned out to be spectacularly wrong on one or more occasions - maybe we should count up how many people said Biden's campaign was dead in the water?
But don't think this is limited to the leftiest progressives either - Biden supporters were already preemptively whining about Bloomberg before the votes came in too. It's bad logic, bad understanding of the process, bad understanding of what the whole point of election campaigns is (if you cannot draw enough support from the other candidates to win, that is a flaw as a political candidate), and corrosively bad for the democratic process.