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

(+) Yeah! (+)

it's very fortunate that he had no good answer to that one. he's probably having to consider how many NDAs and what they all are exactly now. he knew going into this he'd have to go on an apology tour and change everything but goddamn everything is a pretty broad scope in his case.

---

watching it a few times and the rest of the debate, that's the only time i remember when multiple other candidates couldn't help but quip along the way. biden's come on responses and pete's 'they could release from that' one, or something to that wording. doesn't seem intentionally done as much as balking and being bewildered at his answer.

---

NATE SILVER9:45 PM
As your Bloomberg correspondent, I think they should have held him out of this debate.

I am dead.

---

soooo this is interesting. I was trying to find the clip of the last question in the debate where everyone but bernie said that whoever gets the most votes shouldn't win (i realize this is loaded paraphrasing)

they cut it out of the official VOD on youtube.

https://youtu.be/TZkV0ISxcQY?t=5362

they removed it entirely, and i haven't been able to find the footage anywhere else. obviously it has to be *somewhere* and it's still in the full transcripts of the debate, but wow. they really just cut it out of the VOD like that

that video is timestamped right before a commercial break. they cut from that to the closing statements (which was after a different commercial break). here's the transcript:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546

i can't seem to highlight that text to copy and paste it, but if you just search for what someone says you can jump to it. there's a whole section of the debate just missing


---

as a side note: if anyone has that clip, please link it!

---

Also the company thing was ownership after all. The question was on Bernie requiring all large companies to turn over up to 20% of their ownership to employees.

Definite nonstarter phrased that way. Workers having ownership isn't happening.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Also the company thing was ownership after all. The question was on Bernie requiring all large companies to turn over up to 20% of their ownership to employees.

Definite nonstarter phrased that way. Workers having ownership isn't happening.

Isn't this essentially what owning stock is? It's just carving out a dedicated portion for employees. I don't see why this is so controversial to you.

---

Warren had a similar plan to that as well, with workers being guaranteed slots of the board of trustees or whatever. The system Germany has

---

ayy, looks like the hill just uploaded a video that contains that footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjW_zh-xEXA

still pretty weird that it was cut out of the official vod!

(note: i'm not endorsing the opinions the hill is saying here, it's just the only clip i've been able to find with that footage so far)

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Isn't this essentially what owning stock is? It's just carving out a dedicated portion for employees. I don't see why this is so controversial to you.

That's socialism. Real socialism.

---

red sox 777 posted...

That's socialism. Real socialism.

Real socialism would be if the employees owned 100%, or at least a majority of the company so that they truly called the shots. And you could still go further from there - it could be owned by the entire public. This is just giving workers more leverage and considerably more monetary assets.

---

I'd have to look up Warren's plan for specifics but yeah last I checked it was codetermination and basically required that like 40% of the board of directors were chosen by the workers in order to ensure they have a voice at the table to represent their concerns and issues. The % is the main thing I'd have to check. For some reason I think it was 40 but idk.

---

Yeah IIRC Bernie has it at 45% of the board, Warren has 40%. Warren doesn't carve out the worker ownership baseline and that's the main difference - they'd have to negotiate for it. Other than that they're pretty similar.

So hey if you don't like Bernie's plan here because socialism or whatever, there's Warren!

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

...MWC has voted for a democrat in the past? when?

He used to be a registered Democrat and said Bush was the worst president ever....until Obama.

---

https://poll.qu.edu/2020-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=3656

This is sort of what I expect "best" case scenario to be. Dems take Pennsylvania back fairly easily. Win Michigan. And then Wisconsin still breaks our heart. Even if everything goes absolutely right, I think Wisconsin is the state that is going to remain out of reach. It has been getting increasingly awful there over the past decade, and I think 2016 was a turning point. Yeah, dems got the governorship back in 2018, but it was a wave election with a good candidate and they still barely got it.

In terms of most to least likely to flip back, I think it would be Pennsylvania (think dems have a decent shot depending on candidate) > Michigan (it'll be close either way but Trump probably has a narrow advantage) > Wisconsin (welcome to the midwest's Alabama).

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

with a good candidate

Debatable. Tony Evers was very 'meh' as a candidate.

---

Tony Evers was a very good candidate for Wisconsin imo!

---

as someone who lives here, tony evers was not a great candidate

he could only manage 1% over scott walker, of all people. coming off an incredibly embarassing presidential campaign and then trying to get the state to pay off his debt for it no less

his best quality was not being a republican

---

weren't you also convinced klobuchar was going to be a great candidate too?


---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Isn't this essentially what owning stock is? It's just carving out a dedicated portion for employees. I don't see why this is so controversial to you.

Companies choose to go public and can determine just how much is actually public. This is all their decision. Government requiring it is entirely different. When Bloomberg balked on that and called it communism he had a point, government demanding companies give up ownership to workers ain't happening.


---

pxlated posted...

as someone who lives here, tony evers was not a great candidate

he could only manage 1% over scott walker, of all people. coming off an incredibly embarassing presidential campaign and then trying to get the state to pay off his debt for it no less

his best quality was not being a republican

I mean I'll defer to your judgment, but I think this has equal amounts to do with Wisconsin than it does to Evers.

Russ Feingold got bodied by Ron Johnson of all people twice. Progressives having a foothold in Wisconsin is a thing of the past, I fear.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://poll.qu.edu/2020-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=3656

This is sort of what I expect "best" case scenario to be. Dems take Pennsylvania back fairly easily. Win Michigan. And then Wisconsin still breaks our heart. Even if everything goes absolutely right, I think Wisconsin is the state that is going to remain out of reach. It has been getting increasingly awful there over the past decade, and I think 2016 was a turning point. Yeah, dems got the governorship back in 2018, but it was a wave election with a good candidate and they still barely got it.

In terms of most to least likely to flip back, I think it would be Pennsylvania (think dems have a decent shot depending on candidate) > Michigan (it'll be close either way but Trump probably has a narrow advantage) > Wisconsin (welcome to the midwest's Alabama).

I think Minnesota is a problem state for Dems also. I agree with PA. Michigan is iffier. Think NH is in play too.

---

I'm not too worried about Minnesota or NH considering they both voted for Clinton. And the honest truth is Minnesota and NH aren't flipping unless PA, MI, WI are all red already, so it doesn't really matter all that much. I mean, I could be wrong obviously, but if WI goes blue I would be absolutely floored for Minnesota of all places to go red. Dems have been winning statewide office their easily for years. I know 2016 was close but again that was a republican year with a bad democratic candidate.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I mean I'll defer to your judgment, but I think this has equal amounts to do with Wisconsin than it does to Evers.

Russ Feingold got bodied by Ron Johnson of all people twice. Progressives having a foothold in Wisconsin is a thing of the past, I fear.

it isn't. it definitely isn't. i will say though that we do seem particularly susceptible to complacency. bernie had crazy momentum and support here. even amongst older, generally conservative people. i cannot tell you the massive volumes of people i have heard that voted for bernie in the primary and switched to trump or didn't vote at all because they hated hillary and hated how they percieved bernie to have been cheated.

i'm not going to say that flipping wisconsin is a sure thing, or even likely. but one thing i am sure about is that we love the fuck out of bernie,

---

also don't forget that hillary decided to completely ignore wisconsin. that definitely was a big deal.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I'm not too worried about Minnesota or NH considering they both voted for Clinton. And the honest truth is Minnesota and NH aren't flipping unless PA, MI, WI are all red already, so it doesn't really matter all that much. I mean, I could be wrong obviously, but if WI goes blue I would be absolutely floored for Minnesota of all places to go red. Dems have been winning statewide office their easily for years. I know 2016 was close but again that was a republican year with a bad democratic candidate.

Depends how Trump affected them economically

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I'm not too worried about Minnesota or NH considering they both voted for Clinton. And the honest truth is Minnesota and NH aren't flipping unless PA, MI, WI are all red already, so it doesn't really matter all that much. I mean, I could be wrong obviously, but if WI goes blue I would be absolutely floored for Minnesota of all places to go red. Dems have been winning statewide office their easily for years. I know 2016 was close but again that was a republican year with a bad democratic candidate.

Agreed that Minnesota and Wisconsin probably aren't flipping in opposite directions. I don't think NH is that correlated to those Midwestern states though. Trump only lost by about 3,000 vote in NH, with a strong economy I think he is fairly likely to flip it. He has a shot in Maine too.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Real socialism would be if the employees owned 100%, or at least a majority of the company so that they truly called the shots. And you could still go further from there - it could be owned by the entire public. This is just giving workers more leverage and considerably more monetary assets.

I think that would be full Communism. The thing the Soviet Union was supposedly working toward for 70 years but never got to because they got stuck at the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage.

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/highest-number-of-independents-to-date-approve-of-trump-poll?_amp=true

Trump is positive in the Gallup

---

Kinglicious posted...

Companies choose to go public and can determine just how much is actually public. This is all their decision. Government requiring it is entirely different. When Bloomberg balked on that and called it communism he had a point, government demanding companies give up ownership to workers ain't happening.

So your issue is more with the government intervention than the actual mechanical effects? I'd argue that major companies have little to no incentive to have employee ownership in the absence of outside pressure, either from workers or the government on their behalf. The role of the government should be to assist when the market has no profitable incentive to solve a problem.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Depends how Trump affected them economically

So here are some election results from Minnesota in 2018:
Governor - Democrat Walz 53.8% Republican Bergstrom 42.4%
Attorney General - Democrat Ellison (very liberal and had a scandal right around election time) 49.% Republican Wardlow 45.1%
Senate seat 1: Klobuchar 60.3% Republican Newberger 36.2%
Senate seat 2: Democrat Smith 53% Republican Housley 42.4%
Cumulative total for 8 house seats: Democrats 55.13% Republicans 43.68%

Compare to Wisconsin, same year:
Governor - Democrat Evers 49.5% Republican Walker 48.4%
Attorney General - Democrat Kaul 49.4% Republican Schimel 48.8%
Senate - Democrat Baldwin 55.4% Republican Vukmir 44.5%
Cumulative total for 8 house seats: Democrats 53.18% Republicans 45.61%

You know pxlated might be correct. Maybe Wisconsin isn't totally hopeless? Those house numbers are actually fairly good. The "fun" thing? Those numbers give Minnesota a 5-3 advantage for democrats and Wisconsin a 5-3 advantage for Republicans.

But overall those numbers look good for democrats in Minnesota. Those are big wins almost across the board. Again, you could be right, but if democrats lose Minnesota it is a huge blowout and it doesn't matter. Minnesota isn't the tipping point state.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

So here are some election results from Minnesota in 2018:
Governor - Democrat Walz 53.8% Republican Bergstrom 42.4%
Attorney General - Democrat Ellison (very liberal and had a scandal right around election time) 49.% Republican Wardlow 45.1%
Senate seat 1: Klobuchar 60.3% Republican Newberger 36.2%
Senate seat 2: Democrat Smith 53% Republican Housley 42.4%
Cumulative total for 8 house seats: Democrats 55.13% Republicans 43.68%

Compare to Wisconsin, same year:
Governor - Democrat Evers 49.5% Republican Walker 48.4%
Attorney General - Democrat Kaul 49.4% Republican Schimel 48.8%
Senate - Democrat Baldwin 55.4% Republican Vukmir 44.5%
Cumulative total for 8 house seats: Democrats 53.18% Republicans 45.61%

You know pxlated might be correct. Maybe Wisconsin isn't totally hopeless? Those house numbers are actually fairly good. The "fun" thing? Those numbers give Minnesota a 5-3 advantage for democrats and Wisconsin a 5-3 advantage for Republicans.

But overall those numbers look good for democrats in Minnesota. Those are big wins almost across the board. Again, you could be right, but if democrats lose Minnesota it is a huge blowout and it doesn't matter. Minnesota isn't the tipping point state.

Presidential elections skew results in favor of the presidential pick. The midterm year isn't going to reflect a whole lot for 2020 just as people thought stuff like PA Senate was a shoo-in for the Dem in 2016 and Trump carrying the state carried the Senate seat also

---

yeah, if you want to see what a good candidate for wisconsin is, look for someone more like baldwin.

evers literally only won because he wasn't walker. and that was *barely* enough.

get more progressive candidates in there and you're going to win over a lot of independents and even conservative-leaning people.

it's definitely not going to be easy. but if bernie is the nomination, and he spends good time campaigning here, it is absolutely a not-unrealistic possibility.

---

Oh you know what, those WI numbers are skewed a bit for the house. No republican ran in district 2, so dems won that 300k to nothing. Every race in MN had a republican and democrat.

---

So anyways. States flipping to red that I am looking at are Minnesota and New Hampshire.

States flipping to blue that I am looking at are PA, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida.

---

I think Florida is probably one place Bernie is weak. With all those retired people who have gotten rich off of capitalism I can't imagine his socialism is going to play well.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I think Florida is probably one place Bernie is weak. With all those retired people who have gotten rich off of capitalism I can't imagine his socialism is going to play well.

Lots of lgbtq that need to be motivated to vote though

---

Corrik7 posted...

Presidential elections skew results in favor of the presidential pick. The midterm year isn't going to reflect a whole lot for 2020 just as people thought stuff like PA Senate was a shoo-in for the Dem in 2016 and Trump carrying the state carried the Senate seat also

Well this was more to directly compare MN to WI. Again, my point was more along the lines of "I am not worried about MN because if dems lose that they've already lost the election". MN voted for democrats in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, etc etc etc etc. For senate seats, governorships, house memberships, basically every metric you can think of. By big numbers a lot of the time. WI has much more mixed results, voted out Russ Feingold (and kept him out) and still had Walker hovering at like 42% approval rating even with all the issues pxlated pointed out.

WI is much riper ground for Trump. I don't live there, but I am nearby and we visit a lot to see family (and for vacation). WI is markedly different than MN, IL, MI now, or what you'd would once consider the "liberal" midwestern states.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So anyways. States flipping to red that I am looking at are Minnesota and New Hampshire.

States flipping to blue that I am looking at are PA, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida.

I'd put Arizona above both NC and FL. Not that I think AZ will flip blue, but I'd say it is way more likely than those last two.

---

don't get me wrong - we're definitely really fucked and there's tons of trump support

but don't write us off. i think our worst problem, more than anything, is complacency and discouragement.

get bernie in here whipping up enthusiasm and momentum and i think that will change.

---

I hope you're right! I'm very pessimistic about it at the moment, but I could be wrong.

---

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1230552778453458944

We have a race!

---

pessimism is how voter turnout gets depressed! gotta stay optimistic and hope it spreads around.

"fake it til you make it"

---

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/datacrat/status/1229547427767570433

The average journalist on Twitter has politics that place them somewhere between Bernie and AOC.

There are more journalists to the left of AOC than there are to the right of Mitt Romney.

Journalists are enemies of the people. Everyone with a blue check should be assumed to be lying to you, at all times.

Why is your thought that liberals are enemies, rather than considering that journalists deal in factual reporting, and thus wouldnt appeal as a career to conservatives, who disavow facts?

---

Espeon posted...

Why is your thought that liberals are enemies, rather than considering that journalists deal in factual reporting, and thus wouldnt appeal as a career to conservatives, who disavow facts?

Because in fascism anyone who disagrees is an 'enemy of the people'

---

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

---

https://twitter.com/johnrobertgage/status/1230535037554167808

liberals.mp4

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://twitter.com/johnrobertgage/status/1230535037554167808

liberals.mp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66Tc0wLQZs

---

pxlated posted...

don't get me wrong - we're definitely really fucked and there's tons of trump support

but don't write us off. i think our worst problem, more than anything, is complacency and discouragement.

get bernie in here whipping up enthusiasm and momentum and i think that will change.

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.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

https://twitter.com/johnrobertgage/status/1230535037554167808

liberals.mp4

"You gotta fight fire with fire!" Joy Behar said, torching her house and all her belongings. "Now," she thought to herself, "at least my house will be safe from that other fire down the street!"

---