Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 270: Bloomberg/Clinton 2020 Campaign HQ

(+) Yeah! (+)

RaidenGarai posted...

Hey, another Wisconsinite! My in laws live in pretty rural areas of the state and a few of them have left the Republican party after voting with them their entire lives (in one case, over 80 years).

There's a house a few minutes from me that had TRUMP and MAGA everything all over their yard in 2016, and then a huge THANK YOU AMERICA banner after the election. That wasn't something I expected to see anywhere.

I still wonder how Clinton would have done here if she didn't assume she won before the election took place. It's hard to think of realistic ways that she could have ran a worse campaign.

yeahhh it's definitely wild and unfortunate. clinton doing any kind of campaigning here definitely would have helped but i'm not sure it would have been enough to overcome the built-in hatred there seems to be for her here

---

oh hey, nomiki konst is streaming about what i was talking about earlier with the false narrative about the unity reform committe. if you're curious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyiBcHaeCxo

(rewind to the beginning if she's still live when you try to watch)

---

pxlated posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARLqEgsC0HI

oof. this warren surrogate just did a damn good job of killing any support warren won back from me last night.

not only is his response at the end to the question about super delegates weasel-y as all hell, but he repeats the false claim that the sanders people were in charge of the new iowa caucus rules.

the sanders people on that committee were in the minority of people in the committee (IIRC there were only 2), and large portions of the changes they proposed were ignored. that whole narrative is just outright false and it's pretty gross seeing a warren surrogate propogating it.

"winning because you won the most votes is winning on a technicality!"

those are some real good optics

I mean "most votes" is not a good system for an open, multiple-choice race like this, or anything more important than say a gamefaqs contest. I think the surrogate is right to frame it around the superdelegates not being a good solution (they're not) and supporting ranked choice (this is). The delegate system is like a bad ranked choice by party insiders, but equating "most votes" here to popular vote in the presidency like the host does is totally disingenuous.

Agreed on the Iowa talking point but I honestly have no idea what point is even being made whenever it gets brought up. Bernie's camp supported the caucus, helped reform it for more transparency, and exposed a clusterfuck. Okay. I dont understand the leap in logic to it being their fault from there.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean "most votes" is not a good system for an open, multiple-choice race like this, or anything more important than say a gamefaqs contest. I think the surrogate is right to frame it around the superdelegates not being a good solution (they're not) and supporting ranked choice (this is). The delegate system is like a bad ranked choice by party insiders, but equating "most votes" here to popular vote in the presidency like the host does is totally disingenuous.

Agreed on the Iowa talking point but I honestly have no idea what point is even being made whenever it gets brought up. Bernie's camp supported the caucus, helped reform it for more transparency, and exposed a clusterfuck. Okay. I dont understand the leap in logic to it being their fault from there.

obviously we would all prefer ranked choice voting, but that's not the system we have and not the system we're going to have come convention time. i'll agree that the host is using loaded framing sometimes (i have some issues with krystal ball/rising overall) but ultimately i think she's right.

the argument that the iowa shit is bernie's fault is that there were bernie sanders surrogates on the unity reform committee. but honestly if you're really interested in that, just watch the first couple minutes of the video in my previous post. nomiki explains it much better (and she was one of the two sanders people on the committee)

honestly watch the whole thing (it's a bit long and unscripted but she covers many great points).

---

Democrats need to flip 38 electoral votes in order to win. While flipping Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin would be "easiest" I don't think any of the main candidates are well suited in that area (Buttigieg/Sanders would be the best options IMO). I imagine they will have to target Arizona/Florida/Georgia/North Carolina along with the above three

---

charmander6000 posted...

Democrats need to flip 38 electoral votes in order to win. While flipping Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin would be "easiest" I don't think any of the main candidates are well suited in that area (Buttigieg/Sanders would be the best options IMO). I imagine they will have to target Arizona/Florida/Georgia/North Carolina along with the above three

real curious to hear you reason how buttigieg of all people is the best option here

---

charmander6000 posted...

Arizona/Florida/Georgia/North Carolina along with the above three

None of those states are flipping without tremendous turnout from the black community. The GOP is well aware of this and it's exactly why Trump is 1). trying to appeal to black voters and 2). doing what he can to make sure Bernie is the nominee above Biden.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean "most votes" is not a good system for an open, multiple-choice race like this, or anything more important than say a gamefaqs contest.

It's actually pretty bad for a GameFAQs contest too unless there are only 2 characters per match. <_<

---

Think there is zero chance Georgia is gonna flip. Just like Texas. Pipe dreams

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/skelley-BIDEN-SUPPORT-0220.png?w=575

and a reminder, biden has underperformed all of his polling so far.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Think there is zero chance Georgia is gonna flip. Just like Texas. Pipe dreams

I'd honestly throw NC and FL in there as well. Those ain't flipping. The only other one I see any minute possibility of is Arizona. That might maybe have hit a tipping point, although it is tough to tell in a non-presidential year. I still think that is Republican by 1 or 2%.

---

pxlated posted...

obviously we would all prefer ranked choice voting, but that's not the system we have and not the system we're going to have come convention time

I dont mean to condescend but is this a consistent position you hold or is it just because Bernie is leading? If the popular vote shakes out 30% Joe 70% Not Joe should it go to Joe? Should Hillary have been the 2008 nominee after the popular vote fuckery then? I honestly just think that's a worse system than the delegates. In a sane one we would at LEAST have a runoff but here you just have to hope the party recognizes the strength of a plurality and votes to support.

I honestly think Bernie is full of shit when he says it should go to the FPTP vote leader since he has argued for ranked choice in the past. But now it benefits him not to.

---

but anyway, plurality in a 6 candidate race might not be the best way to decide the nominee, but do you think 700 establishment elites who are clearly and openly biased against particular candidates deciding it is better or more democratic?

obviously the whole thing is fucked up. and "the process we have is the process we have" and all that, sure. but good lord is it disgusting and leads to candidates who very, very obviously have no path forward sticking around because they think they can win on the second ballot.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I dont mean to condescend but is this a consistent position you hold or is it just because Bernie is leading? If the popular vote shakes out 30% Joe 70% Not Joe should it go to Joe? Should Hillary have been the 2008 nominee after the popular vote fuckery then? I honestly just think that's a worse system than the delegates. In a sane one we would at LEAST have a runoff but here you just have to hope the party recognizes the strength of a plurality and votes to support.

I honestly think Bernie is full of shit when he says it should go to the FPTP vote leader since he has argued for ranked choice in the past. But now it benefits him not to.

this is a pointless question to ask and you know it - not only can i not actually now what i would do in this situation until it happens, even if i felt like i would be arguing that biden shouldn't get it in this scenario, why would i admit to that?

edit: as to your second point, i can't be sure of course but i'm pretty sure if we were still in the rules-forming stages of this thing bernie would be arguing for ranked choice still.

but yeah, the whole thing is a mess and there's no good way to handle it at this point if no one gets the magic number. the whole thing is going to be a fucking disaster and we will more than likely end up with trump again, because the democrats can't ever get their act together.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I honestly think Bernie is full of s*** when he says it should go to the FPTP vote leader since he has argued for ranked choice in the past. But now it benefits him not to.

He literally called for ranked choice voting like 2 weeks ago, so hes certainly still for it, I dont see why these things are mutually exclusive so if youd care to elaborate I would appreciate it, because I dont understand your point.

---

pxlated posted...

real curious to hear you reason how buttigieg of all people is the best option here

Not an expert on Buttigieg, but from what I know I see him having more appeal than Biden or Bloomberg. Am I missing something that would cause the mid-west to not like him?

---

Pete is literally the worst choice in a field that literally has Bloomberg in it.

---

the only real way that this whole thing doesn't end in complete fucking disaster is increasing voter turnout and getting bernie to the magic number. he needs to win so big that he can't be cheated by incompetence and a second ballot super-delegate swing.

this is why we need to preach optimism. there's every reason to be jaded and pessimistic, and i certainly am all of that and more. but i try to force as much optimism as i can because attitudes are infectious and we *need* as many people to go out and vote as possible.

---

Bloomberg is absolutely the worst one not named Tulsi Gabbard.

---

charmander6000 posted...

Not an expert on Buttigieg, but from what I know I see him having more appeal than Biden or Bloomberg. Am I missing something that would cause the mid-west to not like him?

you're missing the point where his national polling average is barely 10%



---

Tulsi doesn't count anymore because no one takes her seriously.

---

In 2016, Bernie argued that superdelegates should consider flipping the race to him because he claimed he was more electable:

https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/1230522067218554880?s=21

And you know, I think his case was bullshit, but he was entitled to make it under the rules. Superdelegates have a substantially reduced impact now, but I dont see any reasonable argument for why superdelegates giving the nomination to someone other than the person with the pledged delegate majority would be okay but multiple candidates forming a coalition to form a majority wouldnt also be okay. Theyre both what the rules allow for.

---

...whoa, i can paste images directly into gamefaqs now and they'll embed?

i did that without even thinking and it worked. what a time to be alive

---

FFDragon posted...

Tulsi doesn't count anymore because no one takes her seriously.

How dare you. I bet you're just not counting her because she's the only person of color remaining!

---

Lack of context: in 2016 cable news had been giving super delegates to hillary on tv well before they voted. This amounts to Bernie being like "well they haven't voted maybe they should choose me!" And is a dishonest attack lacking context.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

he claimed he was more electable:

I mean, I don't see him losing to 2016 Trump tbqh. Superdelegates are the dumbest thing ever though and they shouldn't impact a nomination.

---

pxlated posted...

but anyway, plurality in a 6 candidate race might not be the best way to decide the nominee, but do you think 700 establishment elites who are clearly and openly biased against particular candidates deciding it is better or more democratic?

obviously the whole thing is fucked up. and "the process we have is the process we have" and all that, sure. but good lord is it disgusting and leads to candidates who very, very obviously have no path forward sticking around because they think they can win on the second ballot.

I mean, even the regular delegates can be an issue. Some states free them after the first or second vote. No doubt there will be scheming to "Trojan Horse" some delegates to one candidate only for them to be free and move to your side.

---

Superdelegates are dumb. If you don't want the masses to choose your candidate you need methods that don't look like rigging an election.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In 2016, Bernie argued that superdelegates should consider flipping the race to him because he claimed he was more electable:

https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/1230522067218554880?s=21

And you know, I think his case was bullshit, but he was entitled to make it under the rules. Superdelegates have a substantially reduced impact now, but I dont see any reasonable argument for why superdelegates giving the nomination to someone other than the person with the pledged delegate majority would be okay but multiple candidates forming a coalition to form a majority wouldnt also be okay. Theyre both what the rules allow for.

Wasn't the point at the time then that superdelegates had picked Hillary at the very beginning so it wasn't like they were waiting to find out if that's what the people wanted anyway

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Lack of context: in 2016 cable news had been giving super delegates to hillary on tv well before they voted. This amounts to Bernie being like "well they haven't voted maybe they should choose me!" And is a dishonest attack lacking context.

Heres a better clip to make my point. Jake Tapper specifically asks about Bernies position if Hillary had a pledged delegate majority after all states had voted, and he says the same thing:

https://twitter.com/jdmcauliffe/status/1230358723824115712?s=21

---

pxlated posted...

you're missing the point where his national polling average is barely 10%

Obviously I'm assuming he wins the nomination, even if it is quite unlikely. Unless something happens on Super Tuesday the race is down to Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg

---

FFDragon posted...

I mean, I don't see him losing to 2016 Trump tbqh. Superdelegates are the dumbest thing ever though and they shouldn't impact a nomination.

If he had won by superdelegates going over to him many of the Clinton people would have stayed home or voted for Trump. If he won fair and square he wins the general too.

---

charmander6000 posted...

Obviously I'm assuming he wins the nomination, even if it is quite unlikely. Unless something happens on Super Tuesday the race is down to Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg

why do you think he would do significantly better in the general?

his biggest appeal is to white people, and in the general, most of those are going to be going to trump. you think a gay, establishment centrist is going to sway trump voters?

---

pxlated posted...

but anyway, plurality in a 6 candidate race might not be the best way to decide the nominee, but do you think 700 establishment elites who are clearly and openly biased against particular candidates deciding it is better or more democratic?

obviously the whole thing is fucked up. and "the process we have is the process we have" and all that, sure. but good lord is it disgusting and leads to candidates who very, very obviously have no path forward sticking around because they think they can win on the second ballot.

It's not more democratic but the convention exists to allow the party to build a coalition and choose a consensus candidate when the shitty democratic option fails them. It's a compromise solution. I can and will blame the Democratic establishment for not having a better primary voting system, but I honestly dont think FPTP is any more definitively democratic.

pxlated posted...

this is a pointless question to ask and you know it - not only can i not actually now what i would do in this situation until it happens, even if i felt like i would be arguing that biden shouldn't get it in this scenario, why would i admit to that?

To rephrase it's just asking if you would support the plurality vote winner no matter who it is, even if the tides change and it ends up being Biden or Bloomberg. I wouldn't!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He literally called for ranked choice voting like 2 weeks ago, so hes certainly still for it, I dont see why these things are mutually exclusive so if youd care to elaborate I would appreciate it, because I dont understand your point.

Put simply, I don't think he argues the plurality winner should be the nominee if he wasn't the current projected plurality winner. I think it is a cynical move to increase pressure on the establishment, not something he'd consider otherwise. And that's probably the right play, but he's still full of shit!

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Wasn't the point at the time then that superdelegates had picked Hillary at the very beginning so it wasn't like they were waiting to find out if that's what the people wanted anyway

Yes and we already explained this to LotM.

The entire argument was based on the fact that the Superdelegates had already tainted the entire process, as evidenced by the fact that in the end Bernie demanded they be removedwhich ended up with them just being put onto the second round

---

yeah i can't say i disagree with most of what you're saying.

it's all a fucking mess.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yes and we already explained this to LotM.

The entire argument was based on the fact that the Superdelegates had already tainted the entire process, as evidenced by the fact that in the end Bernie demanded they be removedwhich ended up with them just being put onto the second round

Oh I mean, come on

---

I think the worst part about arguments like LotMs, Neera Tanden, and other Democratic talking heads essentially kamikaze-ing onto Bernie in an effort to sink him is that about 6 months ago when it looked like Biden was going to walk away with it, literally every single one of them was saying Bernie needed to chill on criticisms of Dems because itd weaken them in the general.

That position has 100% evaporated, and if you read the replies to every one of these tweets youll almost certainly find multiple #NeverBernie people in the replies.

My how the turntables

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Oh I mean, come on

come on what?

the overwhelming majority of superdelegates came out for hillary well in advance of any actual voting, and those numbers were thrown into ever single news story to create a false narrative. bernie making that argument to try to balance a situation that was stacked against him from day 0 is not the same scenario as this

---

pxlated posted...

come on what?

the overwhelming majority of superdelegates came out for hillary well in advance of any actual voting, and those numbers were thrown into ever single news story to create a false narrative

The idea that Bernie is being super principled here and wouldn't be sticking to his "the plurality winner should be the winner" stance if it didn't benefit him when he didn't have that position in 2016 is just ridiculous. The attempts to spin the situations as completely different don't make any sense.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Oh I mean, come on

Look, do I agree with it? No! Im perfectly able to admit Bernie was wrong there.

But look, these people screwed me when I think Id be the better candidate against Trump makes perfect sense, and you cant really argue its not completely without merit when the candidate that was selected ended up losing!

And thats not the same as this time, when Bernie is currently winning fair and square.

---

The IT'S HER TURN memes were born out of the super delegates basically making their choice known before any vote was cast. It definitely warped that whole nomination process.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The idea that Bernie is being super principled here and wouldn't be sticking to his "the plurality winner should be the winner" stance if it didn't benefit him when he didn't have that position in 2016 is just ridiculous. The attempts to spin the situations as completely different don't make any sense.

who said bernie is being super principled?

at the end of the day he's a politician. he's proven over decades that he is one of the most honest and best representatives of the people we've ever had, but he's still a politician. he still wants to win. does this look bad in todays context? yes. do i wish it had happened differently? yes. but don't act like these scenarios are the same.

---

pxlated posted...

who said bernie is being super principled?

Well, if everyone agrees that the candidates would all take whichever stance benefits them on who should win and that nobody has the moral high ground here then I'm fine with it!

---

pxlated posted...

at the end of the day he's a politician. he's proven over decades that he is one of the most honest and best representatives of the people we've ever had, but he's still a politician. he still wants to win. does this look bad in todays context? yes. do i wish it had happened differently? yes. but don't act like these scenarios are the same.

I think the pledged delegate coalition strategy is actually more fair than getting a superdelegate majority, but both are equally allowed under the Democratic party's rules.

---

To rephrase it's just asking if you would support the plurality vote winner no matter who it is, even if the tides change and it ends up being Biden or Bloomberg. I wouldn't!

late response to @HeroDelTiempo17

to be clear i'm understanding correctly, you would not support biden or bloomberg if they got plurality? would you just not vote? or what?

at the end of the day i'm voting for whoever the democratic nominee is. if joe or mike gets plurality somehow, so be it. bloomberg would really make it tough but it'd have to be done.

---