Iowa wins put Buttigieg, Sanders at centre of criticism at Democratic debate

[sucit]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I wont bother with Bernie's website. My priority is beating 45.

... so I am gonna vote for Klobuchar who is polling 4% against Trump. lol

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, sucit said:

You do realize you are not making arguments, right?

 

"Soviet Union" is not an argument. 

 

"Socialism" is not an argument. Our high schools are socialist. Our police are socialist. Your social security is... socialist. You are not going to beam into the Soviet Union if your healthcare turns socialist. 

 

I don't get it, but you do while you support a candidate who is getting 4% against Trump right now and I am supporting the one most favorable against Trump? You think getting 4% against Trump in a poll "means nothing", and I don't get it? 

 

You also need to answer for yourself, once again, why is a centrist going to win this time if a centrist lost last time? Answer that. Make an argument, because you have made none. "Socialism" and "Soviet Union" don't count. 

It seems you are intentionally distorting my posd. 

I made my adjustments clearly. 

45's dream opponent is Sanders because he can viciously red bait Sanders better than any other credible choice and in my opinion red baiting is in general a very effective tactic in American politics. 

Sure AOC can win a congressional seat in a very left wing district in New York but that's not a national race. 

Sure but youre mistaken on the 4 percent thing. That was her support in Texas among democrats at the time of that poll.

That has nothing to do with polling her against 45 if she is nominated. 

 

Here is that 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_klobuchar-6803.html

 

General Election: Trump vs. Klobuchar

 

Here is Bloomberg vs. 45

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html

 

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It seems you are intentionally distorting my posd. 

I made my adjustments clearly. 

45's dream opponent is Sanders because he can viciously red bait Sanders better than any other credible choice and in my opinion red baiting is in general a very effective tactic in American politics. 

Sure AOC can win a congressional seat in a very left wing district in New York but that's not a national race. 

Sure but youre mistaken on the 4 percent thing. That was her support in Texas among democrats at the time of that poll.

That has nothing to do with polling her against 45 if she is nominated. 

 

Here is that 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_klobuchar-6803.html

 

General Election: Trump vs. Klobuchar

 

Here is Bloomberg vs. 45

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html

 

I guess I'm confused. Just an hour or two ago, you posted that national polls are irrelevant. Now you've posted TWO national polls. Are national polls irrelevant or not? It seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, sucit said:

... so I am gonna vote for Klobuchar who is polling 4% against Trump. lol

That is incorrect. I hope you were just confused in your reading instead of intentionally posting a blatant lie. 

[JHolmesJr]

28 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It seems you are intentionally distorting my posd. 

I made my adjustments clearly. 

45's dream opponent is Sanders because he can viciously red bait Sanders better than any other credible choice and in my opinion red baiting is in general a very effective tactic in American politics. 

Sure AOC can win a congressional seat in a very left wing district in New York but that's not a national race. 

Sure but youre mistaken on the 4 percent thing. That was her support in Texas among democrats at the time of that poll.

That has nothing to do with polling her against 45 if she is nominated. 

 

Here is that 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_klobuchar-6803.html

 

General Election: Trump vs. Klobuchar

 

Here is Bloomberg vs. 45

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html

 

 

sorry to break this to you but every scenario is a nightmare for the Dems.

its what we call a lose lose situation

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

sorry to break this to you but every scenario is a nightmare for the Dems.

its what we call a lose lose situation

You don't know that. I have said all along that 45 can win this. But he can also lose this. The democrats primary priority other than the inflexible purists is to come up with the best candidate and best tactics to beat him. It's clear that 45's dream is to run against Bernie. I don't think the democrats should play into his hand. 

[Jingthing]

 To wit --

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-sanders-trump-jim-messina-097578
Heading, subhead, and first two sentences only included.

Quote

 

Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie

 

Jim Messina says Sanders' socialism at the top of the ticket would be problematic for the party.

 

 

Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders’ stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate.

 

 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-bernie-sanders-socialism.html

(Left wing slanted source slate.com and left wing slanted writer Saletan)
 

Quote

 

Bernie Is the Opponent Trump Wants

The president has a game plan to win the election. A Sanders nomination is just what he needs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/29/when-will-democrats-realize-trump-desperately-wants-run-against-sanders/

 

Quote

When will Democrats realize Trump desperately wants to run against Sanders?

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Jingthing

[Monomial]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It seems you are intentionally distorting my posd. 

I made my adjustments clearly. 

45's dream opponent is Sanders because he can viciously red bait Sanders better than any other credible choice and in my opinion red baiting is in general a very effective tactic in American politics. 

Sure AOC can win a congressional seat in a very left wing district in New York but that's not a national race. 

Sure but youre mistaken on the 4 percent thing. That was her support in Texas among democrats at the time of that poll.

That has nothing to do with polling her against 45 if she is nominated. 

 

Here is that 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_klobuchar-6803.html

 

General Election: Trump vs. Klobuchar

 

Here is Bloomberg vs. 45

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html

 

 

We've engaged in discussions previously, and actually I think you make your arguments more clearly than most posters on this forum, but here is why I think you are wrong about Bernie. You are still seeing politics as if it were a line.  While that may have been a legitimate perspective 40 years ago, it is becoming increasingly less true today. If you look at political parties throughout history, there are inflection points where a 3rd party rises up and dies out quickly, but in the process completely rotates and swaps the policies of the 2 parties that survive. We are at such an inflection point today.

 

I'm not saying a 3rd party will arise, only that the mood in the country today is ameniable to it, and this introduces another political axis to consider. Yes, you could "redbait Bernie". A few of the baby boomers out there might listen. But be honest. Those people are likely hard core Trump supporters anyway. You won't get their vote no matter who you run.  The rest of Trump's base is made up by people who are simply disgusted with politics as usual, and want somebody who is going to fight the establishment and implement something radically different.

 

These people are not going to reject Sanders because he took a trip to Russia in his younger days. Not if he comes out fighting for them and saying what they want to hear. "Drain the Swamp!" is a poweful message. Most don't care strongly about the idea of socialism. They only know the existing system is completely broken, and they have no idea what to replace it with. Right now, Trump is the only one offering a choice. He's going to win unless you give them another choice. It wasn't "just Hillary" as you say. It was absolutely everything that Hillary stood for that cost her the election.  You put up another centrist candidate like that, and you are only going to see the 2016 election repeated in spades.

 

Take a chance on Sanders. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

We've engaged in discussions previously, and actually I think you make your arguments more clearly than most posters on this forum, but here is why I think you are wrong about Bernie. You are still seeing politics as if it were a line.  While that may have been a legitimate perspective 40 years ago, it is becoming increasingly less true today. If you look at political parties throughout history, there are inflection points where a 3rd party rises up and dies out quickly, but in the process completely rotates and swaps the policies of the 2 parties that survive. We are at such an inflection point today.

 

I'm not saying a 3rd party will arise, only that the mood in the country today is ameniable to it, and this introduces another political axis to consider. Yes, you could "redbait Bernie". A few of the baby boomers out there might listen. But be honest. Those people are likely hard core Trump supporters anyway. You won't get their vote no matter who you run.  The rest of Trump's base is made up by people who are simply disgusted with politics as usual, and want somebody who is going to fight the establishment and implement something radically different.

 

These people are not going to reject Sanders because he took a trip to Russia in his younger days. Not if he comes out fighting for them and saying what they want to hear. "Drain the Swamp!" is a poweful message. Most don't care strongly about the idea of socialism. They only know the existing system is completely broken, and they have no idea what to replace it with. Right now, Trump is the only one offering a choice. He's going to win unless you give them another choice. It wasn't "just Hillary" as you say. It was absolutely everything that Hillary stood for that cost her the election.  You put up another centrist candidate like that, and you are only going to see the 2016 election repeated in spades.

 

Take a chance on Sanders. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

 

 

 

I largely reject your narrative but you knew I would already. 

 

Among other things I find it too simplistic. There is a lot more to this than leftist vs. centrist left. 

 

Nothing to lose huh?!? 

 

How about the house and the chance to flip the senate? 

 

Is that nothing? 

 

Third parties?

 

No we are not there. Everyone knows that's mostly about gifting the presidency to one side or the other. 

 

Different times? 

 

Sure. It's always different times. 

 

45 won and shocked the world. He never tempered under the awe of the office and clearly never will. 

 

But 45 is a black swan. Black swans are by definition very rare. 

 

One possible area of semi agreement between us is that the democrats tend strongly to lose when they pick the perceived safest it's their turn choice. Not only HRC but multiple examples of that. 

 

The person that personifies that this time is Joe Biden. But so far happily it appears he is being rejected for the nomination. But still possible for him unfortunately. 

 

So among the group that I think would be tops for beating 45 none are occupying that HRC slot as the safest it's their turn thing. 

 

Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and possibly Buttigeig. 

 

Nobody thinks of Klobuchar as an it's her turn choice. Her name recognition is still poor. She hasn't peaked too early but if she doesn't place well in NH then it's over. So we'll know soon. Well probably over but she stil might have a chance as a compromise pick in a brokered convention. 

 

Bloomberg's run is extremely unconventional and he's counting on going into the convention with no clear front runner. He's positioned to be a perfect personal. contrast to 45 as a fellow super rich guy New Yorker but with tons more integrity and legitimacy. Bloomberg has 45's number on a deep level and 45 is afraid of him because of that. Bloomberg is weirdly with his history of being a democrat, republican, and an independent kind of a virtual 3rd party candidate running within the democratic party. I think his chances against 45 are very good indeed if nominated of course 

 

Buttigeig may be more moderate than Sanders but as a small town mayor openly gay man he can't be pigeonholed as another HRC safe choice either. He is positioning himself in the Obama slot this time and he is that  to some degree but he isn't Obama and lacks his charisma. 

 

I don't talk much about Warren but she would definitely be a better choice than Sanders as well. But I don't like her odds to be nominated and unfortunately the racist label given to her by 45 would hurt her in the general. 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Jingthing

[Cryingdick]

This is playing out quite nicely. This thread is a tiny microcosm of the dem party at large. Deeply divided. 

 

Anyway aside from that major problem there are a few others for the dems. Let's say the bickering that has only just begun get's settled and they pick a candidate. There is not one on that stage that can win.

 

The reason for this and the dems seem to keep forgetting that this election is fought in the rust belt. All of them are saying they will end fracking, pipelines, mining you name it they end it.

 

Not only have they said they will end many people's livelihoods in these states but for some strange reason have gone out of their way to outright alienate and insult. Learn to code. 

 

Michael Moore also called it this way. I do not like him but he called the election last time. He is saying Trump will win because he will easily carry the battleground rust belt. There are over 700,000 jobs paying at least six figures in PA, OH, MI. They are in gas, energy or car manufacturing.

 

Now if you have one of these jobs or are from some place that you depend on these workers to support your business the dems are offering you nothing good. Maybe you are a liberal in some small town with a restaurant. You know if the gas industry stops you are going to go out of business. 

 

For these communities there isn't an alternative in the near term. So the dems are basically saying they are going to destroy their incomes, raise the price of gas and energy. Now you are out of work and heating your home just got more expensive. 

 

Driving to work is more expensive. Your taxes are going to be higher, Electricity will also go up for the electric vehicle people, your retirement fund will stagnate, your taxes will go to forgiving student loans.

 

The things they say it's almost like they simply don't care about those states and this is the number one reason they are going to lose. The result will be known very quickly just like last year. 

 

The dems don't need more people in California they need to take OH, PA, MI it's that simple. The way they are approaching it nobody in those states are going to vote for their own financial suicide. Learn to code indeed. 

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

We've engaged in discussions previously, and actually I think you make your arguments more clearly than most posters on this forum, but here is why I think you are wrong about Bernie. You are still seeing politics as if it were a line.  While that may have been a legitimate perspective 40 years ago, it is becoming increasingly less true today. If you look at political parties throughout history, there are inflection points where a 3rd party rises up and dies out quickly, but in the process completely rotates and swaps the policies of the 2 parties that survive. We are at such an inflection point today.

 

I'm not saying a 3rd party will arise, only that the mood in the country today is ameniable to it, and this introduces another political axis to consider. Yes, you could "redbait Bernie". A few of the baby boomers out there might listen. But be honest. Those people are likely hard core Trump supporters anyway. You won't get their vote no matter who you run.  The rest of Trump's base is made up by people who are simply disgusted with politics as usual, and want somebody who is going to fight the establishment and implement something radically different.

 

These people are not going to reject Sanders because he took a trip to Russia in his younger days. Not if he comes out fighting for them and saying what they want to hear. "Drain the Swamp!" is a poweful message. Most don't care strongly about the idea of socialism. They only know the existing system is completely broken, and they have no idea what to replace it with. Right now, Trump is the only one offering a choice. He's going to win unless you give them another choice. It wasn't "just Hillary" as you say. It was absolutely everything that Hillary stood for that cost her the election.  You put up another centrist candidate like that, and you are only going to see the 2016 election repeated in spades.

 

Take a chance on Sanders. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand that Sanders will get wiped out in the rust belt. All the other dems will as well but out of that field Sanders is the most dangerous candidate to the largest amount of people that he says in no uncertain terms would be out of work.

 

The dems don't need larger numbers they need more votes in very specific locations. This is going to be a big problem for them. 

[Monomial]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You don't seem to understand that Sanders will get wiped out in the rust belt. All the other dems will as well but out of that field Sanders is the most dangerous candidate to the largest amount of people that he says in no uncertain terms would be out of work.

 

The dems don't need larger numbers they need more votes in very specific locations. This is going to be a big problem for them. 

 

It's interesting. At this point, I don't think anyone is going to be able to reverse the current trend toward increased trade tariffs and energy "independence". Like it or not, whoever is nominated is going to have to give up on those platforms and accept the new normal. Trump pulled a Reagan here with "Morning in America."  The damage won't show up for another 20 years, but only an idiot would try and repeat Jimmy Carter's sweater speech.  You have to simply accept that you are operating in damage control mode here, and not policy reversal. America voted. Like it or not, that's it.

 

There is a difference between campaigning to win the nomination, and campaigning to win the presidency. So yes. I am assuming in my analysis that he will be forced into moderating his stance on these issues. This is not actually that unusual in a presedential race.

 

Instead, what I am pointing out is you need someone who appeals to anger like Trump, but finds a different focal point. Trump found a nice niche blaming immigrants for all America's social ills. I think someone like Bernie could easily turn that anger on Wall Street instead (where it more correctly belongs).  Because the truth is you can't win the rust belt with a status quo, centrist candidate. You need someone Washington hates....someone who those people feel represents them, and not the people who caused the flyover states to become the rust belt in the first place.

 

Who is currently more hated in the Democratic party right now than Sanders? Don't know enough about Bloomberg to really say. He could be a wildcard. But you need a demagogue like character to defeat a demagogue.  Nobody other than Bernie could possibly be that person right now. I am happy to be proven wrong. Show me another Trump like character in the Democratic party.

 

[Jingthing]

Again, the outlook for a President Bernie is grim. Better to make a better bet as we really, really need to beat 45.

 

 

[Kelsall]

And Trump is also doing well in Iowa!

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Iowa.html

 

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

And Trump is also doing well in Iowa!

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Iowa.html

 

 

That snapshot is not nearly as bad as it might look to some people. That's the Iowa contest only. All of those margins are LESS than the margin that 45 won with in Iowa in 2016. 45 is of course the incumbent now and the democrats aren't even close yet to unifying behind their ultimate ONE nominee. So when you look at it that way, I see those current numbers as showing vulnerability for 45 in Iowa in 2020 with the exception of Sanders, who as I've stated before would be political suicide. Also Iowa doesn't have many delegates and is not one of the must win states for the democrats in 2020. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.