Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race

[Cryingdick]

36 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly. This election certainly will not be about specific policy wonkery. It's about direction. The USA as authoritarian country like Russia/Hungary/Turkey OR working our way back out of the dark abyss that 45 has sunk us into. To obsess about policy details or some fiction of ideological purity now is like someone in a house fire not bothering to evacuate but instead logging onto Amazon to change the cup size of their jock strap order.

 

Not sure the last time you have actually been to the USA but your imagination is getting carried away. The USA is nothing like Russia, Hungary or Turkey. You are residing in a country that is arguably going the wrong way and I think it is affecting your judgement a little bit.

 

Since there is no house fire I feel like I can take my time to adjust my cup size. I like a perfect fit and like my jock straps to be just right. I guess the doom and gloom narrative works better if you aren't on the ground and experiencing the prosperity most people here are.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Jingthing]

What this election is really about and why it's so important for democrats, independents, and the odd republican to be totally focused on the most important goal -- beating 45 and making sure he actually leaves office if he loses. Whether that be with Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or fill in the blank, any other outcome would be tragic. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/02/14/trumps-authoritarian-style-is-remaking-america/
 

Quote

 

Trump’s authoritarian style is remaking America

 

Over the course of his presidency, there have been myriad warnings about President Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. He has played to the fears of his critics by blowing past the republic’s increasingly creaky system of checks and balances. And with the aid of a right-wing echo chamber, he has pushed forward a narrative that conflates national interest with his personal gain, patriotism with unflinching loyalty to the occupant of the Oval Office.

 

 

[Kelsall]

"Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race"

 

Indeed the race has been reshuffled. 

 

Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment backfired big time.  Instead of tanking Bernie, it tanked Biden!  Trump played it well, dragging Biden's name into it as much as he could.  Now we have Bernie, Pete, and Amy in the top three slots.  Pelosi will have to do more to tank Bernie.

 

 

[PattayaJames]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

What this election is really about and why it's so important for democrats, independents, and the odd republican to be totally focused on the most important goal -- beating 45 and making sure he actually leaves office if he loses. Whether that be with Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or fill in the blank, any other outcome would be tragic. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/02/14/trumps-authoritarian-style-is-remaking-america/
 

 

Trump is a winner. Have you not figured that out yet?

Despite everything against him he just keeps winning. This is not going to change.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, PattayaJames said:

Trump is a winner. Have you not figured that out yet?

Despite everything against him he just keeps winning. This is not going to change.

Premature prognostication. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

"Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race"

 

Indeed the race has been reshuffled. 

 

Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment backfired big time.  Instead of tanking Bernie, it tanked Biden!  Trump played it well, dragging Biden's name into it as much as he could.  Now we have Bernie, Pete, and Amy in the top three slots.  Pelosi will have to do more to tank Bernie.

 

 

That's a totally bogus conspiracy theory about Pelosi. 

 

You forgot to mention the biggest threat to 45 - - Mike Bloomberg. 

[sucit]

5 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Geez man, you are naive beyond belief.  So tell me, how do you think Trump got elected in 2016?  Hint: It had nothing to do with his debating skills.  Or facts, policies, ideas,...nothing like that.  Look, we're on the same team...I think.  I want Trump out, I don't care who does it. 

I am naive? And yet we like the same candidate? 

 

You need to work on your debating skills.

 

It is intriguing how nobody addresses points in here. Like I have asked ten times, who is it exactly who wont love getting free healthcare? Why do you think a less well funded, centrist , establishment woman dem can win when one just lost to Trump? Where on earth are you getting your theory that Sanders wont beat Trump (he is polling better than any dem candidate against Trump by the way). Did you know Sanders has a double digit lead among dems now? 

 

So yeah, just don't answer any of those questions, and say "Bernie can't win" without supporting it in any way whatsoever, even though polling days the opposite, and the  call me naive. 

 

Anyway, my stomach still hurts from laughing at the points from earlier. And notice once again, nobody responded to these points, and understandably so, not that it was your point.... "if you add up all the votes for the centrist candidates, Sanders is losing"... that had got to be one for the stupidity record books. And I am the one being labeled naive. Too rich. 

 

 

[sucit]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Premature prognostication. 

I don't think a person who thinks it is wise to add the votes up from all the centrist candidates in a primary will be the "xeno-morphed winner" who beats Bernie sanders gets to have his opinion considered much. 

[sucit]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's a totally bogus conspiracy theory about Pelosi. 

 

You forgot to mention the biggest threat to 45 - - Mike Bloomberg. 

Learn how primaries work first before voicing your opinion. You don't add votes from multiple candidates so as to defeat other candidates. 

 

We have a frontrunner, and it is not Mike Bloomberg. 

[sucit]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly. This election certainly will not be about specific policy wonkery. It's about direction. The USA as authoritarian country like Russia/Hungary/Turkey OR working our way back out of the dark abyss that 45 has sunk us into. To obsess about policy details or some fiction of ideological purity now is like someone in a house fire not bothering to evacuate but instead logging onto Amazon to change the cup size of their jock strap order.

I do not even think you know what you are saying half the time. Does not inspire much confidence.

 

So policies do not matter according to you. So, if Klobuchar decided she wanted to run on a anti gay platform, that would not matter, right? 

 

Such utterly eloquent statements you make. "Policy does not matter", and I thought we had seen the bottom. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

"Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race"

 

Indeed the race has been reshuffled. 

 

Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment backfired big time.  Instead of tanking Bernie, it tanked Biden!  Trump played it well, dragging Biden's name into it as much as he could.  Now we have Bernie, Pete, and Amy in the top three slots.  Pelosi will have to do more to tank Bernie.

 

 

So Pelosi is now accused of dragging out the impeachment.  During the Senate trial she was accused of rushing impeachment instead of taking the time to adequately investigate. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, sucit said:

I do not even think you know what you are saying half the time. Does not inspire much confidence.

 

So policies do not matter according to you. So, if Klobuchar decided she wanted to run on a anti gay platform, that would not matter, right? 

 

Such utterly eloquent statements you make. "Policy does not matter", and I thought we had seen the bottom. 

Policies matter.  So does a record of getting things done.  Bernie is strong of the first, weak on the last.

[Jingthing]

The state of the race now.

 

I think we probably have ALL the names in play by now. ONLY six names! That's quite a winnowing. 

 

But still lots of questions.

 

Will Biden win in South Carolina and Nevada? If so, he can stay. 

 

Is Amy a flash in the New England pan, flavor of the week, or can she build klomentum and big bucks to really go forward?

 

Bloomberg. Super Tuesday. Does his bold plan work. It's never worked before like that but these are different times, Bloomberg is a unique force, and then there is all that money!

 

Sanders -- does he hold on to his early and precarious first place lead or not? 

 

Warren -- dead in the water or comeback Liz?

 

Buttigieg -- how does the more homophobic and African American south perform for him?

 

The convention. Early for sure but it's a good bet nobody will be going into it with a FIRST BALLOT shot.

 

Then after that, it's wide open baby!

 

Impossible to predict but at this point if I was betting money, I would bet on Mike Bloomberg's money.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/14/bernie-is-no-1-second-place-tie/?arc404=true

 

Quote

 

Bernie is at No. 1. And in second place? A tie.

 

 

After the first two contests, anyone who tells you they know with certainty who the nominee will be is smoking something, hopefully in a state where it’s legal.

 

Bernie Sanders got more votes in both states than anyone else. But Pete Buttigieg (a married gay man! think back to 2012 and imagine!) was very close and actually came away with more delegates than Sanders in Iowa and just as many in New Hampshire.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Policies matter.  So does a record of getting things done.  Bernie is strong of the first, weak on the last.

Sure policies matter. But their policies are really not all that different in contrast to 45 and they will all need to deal with congress anyway to get anything done at all  (so coattails matter a lot too!). Democrats and correctly so are prioritizing trying to pick a candidate that has the best chance of winning against 45, he who must be beaten. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

So Pelosi is now accused of dragging out the impeachment.  During the Senate trial she was accused of rushing impeachment instead of taking the time to adequately investigate. 

 

They couldn't wait to go to the court to get the issue of exec privilege resolved. At that point they took a vote because although they didn't do that and lost their shot at their key witnesses it was a matter of urgency. A national emergency they claimed and put it to the vote. 

 

After that for whatever reason Nancy thought she had a brilliant tactical move to not send the articles.It was nothing more than game playing. But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately. You are trying to have it both ways. Quite frankly so was she.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Cryingdick

[bendejo]

In the past week I've heard both Steve Bannon and DT speak well of Bernie.

 

Read that sentence again.
If you don't see the ploy there you should keep away from political discussion, stick to topics about sports and sex.
Part of Bernie's speeches are about what a corrupt piece of slime the Man With the Orange Face is, yes, that same one with skin as thin as tissue paper who can't handle the slightest disagreement.  But he speaks well of Sanders!  I wonder why...

In 2016 Ted Cruz was being interviewed by Chris Matthews ("I'm not an idiot but I play one on TV").  Ted said Bernie is a good candidate.  Matthews laughed in his face and said "So, there it is! Ted Cruz is a Bernie Sanders Republican!"  These GOP guys are so obvious it's like they're trying to get you to drink from the poisoned glass.  They probably have the whole Sanders playbook all laid out, gathering dust on a shelf these past 4 years.

And now Karl Rove has emerged from his coffin and is talking about what the best strategy for the Dems would be.  Sure, Karl...

 

 

[Kelsall]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

So Pelosi is now accused of dragging out the impeachment.  During the Senate trial she was accused of rushing impeachment instead of taking the time to adequately investigate. 

She held the articles of impeachment, delayed sending them to the Senate so Bernie would have to be in the trial instead of campaigning.  Backfired.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They couldn't wait to go to the court to get the issue of exec privilege resolved. At that point they took a vote because although they didn't do that and lost their shot at their key witnesses it was a matter of urgency. A national emergency they claimed and put it to the vote. 

 

After that for whatever reason Nancy thought she had a brilliant tactical move to not send the articles.It was nothing more than game playing. But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately. You are trying to have it both ways. Quite frankly so was she.

You just confirmed my post.  Kelsall posted " Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment ..."  and you posted "But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately."

 

Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things. 

 

Funny that you accuse me of trying to have it both ways.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

She held the articles of impeachment, delayed sending them to the Senate so Bernie would have to be in the trial instead of campaigning.  Backfired.

Actually it was Moscow Mitch McConnell who determined when the trial would start and how long it would last. 

[bendejo]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things.

The the Moscow Mitch/DT plan was to have it all sewn up before SOTU.  It can be looked up in any legit news archive.

 

But alas!  If they would have delayed the impeachment trial so that in was still going on after the new year they would have got Lev and Bolton's testimony.  Or maybe those two only came forward because it was "too late"?

 

 

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You just confirmed my post.  Kelsall posted " Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment ..."  and you posted "But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately."

 

Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things. 

 

Funny that you accuse me of trying to have it both ways.

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Berkshire]

6 hours ago, sucit said:

12 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Geez man, you are naive beyond belief.  So tell me, how do you think Trump got elected in 2016?  Hint: It had nothing to do with his debating skills.  Or facts, policies, ideas,...nothing like that.  Look, we're on the same team...I think.  I want Trump out, I don't care who does it. 

I am naive? And yet we like the same candidate? 

 

You need to work on your debating skills.

 

It is intriguing how nobody addresses points in here. Like I have asked ten times, who is it exactly who wont love getting free healthcare? Why do you think a less well funded, centrist , establishment woman dem can win when one just lost to Trump? Where on earth are you getting your theory that Sanders wont beat Trump (he is polling better than any dem candidate against Trump by the way). Did you know Sanders has a double digit lead among dems now? 

Again you're missing my point.  So you're going on and on about the free healthcare that Bernie is promising.  This is what Trump will say: "My healthcare plan is better and it's cheaper.  Half as cheap.  No, one fourth as cheap.  And it will be the best healthcare plan ever.  The most wonderful healthcare plan in the history of the world.  And by the way, I'm not a socialist."

 

And you didn't answer my question about how Trump got elected in 2016.  One big reason was he and his right wing machine made Hillary unelectable.  Not to everyone of course, but to enough.  And he did it with lies and half-truths.  He could do the same with Bernie, and it'd be much easier.  That's my point.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

So you presume you know why Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment?  Did you consider the reason she gave?

 

" “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” she said, referring to the House “managers” who present the case for removal to the Senate. “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

If you don't like that news source, there's also this one:

 

" Pelosi spoke to reporters after Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump in a Wednesday evening vote. She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward. "  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-delay-impeachment-mcconnell

 

Her explanation sounds much more reasonable than paranoid conspiracy theories about interfering in the Iowa caucus.

[Cryingdick]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you presume you know why Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment?  Did you consider the reason she gave?

 

" “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” she said, referring to the House “managers” who present the case for removal to the Senate. “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

If you don't like that news source, there's also this one:

 

" Pelosi spoke to reporters after Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump in a Wednesday evening vote. She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward. "  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-delay-impeachment-mcconnell

 

Her explanation sounds much more reasonable than paranoid conspiracy theories about interfering in the Iowa caucus.

 

In my opinion it was two birds with one stone. She got the disrupting the senators in Iowa part right. However the attempt to influence the senate didn't work out. Let's not forget she can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Cryingdick

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

Pelosi’s timing was perfect.

 

She was well aware that the GOP Senators would not convict, so she exposed their corruption by waiting until Bolton stated he had evidence and was ready to testify.

 

The GOP Senators, with the exclusion of Romney, did the corrupt thing and the nation saw them do it.

 

Roll on the election.

[mikebike]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:47 PM, Jingthing said:

Many people including me are clear on why we oppose Bernie. More than anything else it's because Bernie is who 45 wants to run against because he intends to red bait him to a pulp. I happen to think the Bernie vs. 45 would mean a landslide for 45 and his party retaking the house. In other words a disaster. Totally not worth the risk.

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

In my opinion it was two birds with one stone. She got the disrupting the senators in Iowa part right. However the attempt to influence the senate didn't work out. Let's not forget she can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

In your opinion Pelosi held up sending impeachment charges to the Senate in the hope of hurting the campaign of every Senator running for President and with full knowledge that Moscow Mitch would decide when the Senate trial would begin and how it would be conducted, so she wasn't in control.  That doesn't make sense.

 

A more logical conspiracy theory is that Moscow Mitch made a point of ensuring the Senate trial would be in full swing before and during the Iowa caucus, thus disrupting the campaigns of Biden and others.  However I'm sure you have a reason why that can't be true.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

 

Those videos are all about a totally different election. 2016. We're now in the 2020 election. The dynamics are very very different. What 45 said about the 2016 election made sense. An HRC - Bernie ticket would have beat 45 because without it she lost a lot of potential Bernie voters to not voting or even voting for 45. Remember how bitter the DNC convention was? Remember the timing of the leaks and how damaging they were? 

 

I don't see any relevance at all to 2020. Then it was a two person  democratic race, HRC and Bernie with a fairly close split.

 

Now Bernie has a ceiling. A much lower ceiling. Now it's very obvious that 45 would most like to run directly against Bernie because of the commie label thing and also don't forget he's an incumbent now. 

 

Totally different dynamics.

 

Most likely Bernie and probably nobody else is going to go into the convention with a first ballot nomination victory.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-is-powered-by-a-loyal-base-but-results-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire-show-the-movement-has-limits/2020/02/14/e10c570a-4296-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html

 

 

Quote

 

Bernie Sanders is powered by a loyal base, but results in Iowa and New Hampshire show the movement has limits

 

CONCORD, N.H. — The first two contests of the Democratic presidential race have demonstrated the power — and the limits — of the movement that Bernie Sanders has built since he began running for the White House nearly five years ago, obscuring the future of his ascendant candidacy.

 

A core base of young, liberal and working-class voters inspired by the Vermont senator's calls for a political revolution powered the self-described democratic socialist to an effective tie atop the Iowa caucuses and an outright win in this week's New Hampshire primary.

 

Yet the early returns show that Sanders's loyal army represents a limited slice of the party, accounting for just over a quarter of the vote in each of the first two states.

 

 

[sucit]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Sure policies matter. But their policies are really not all that different in contrast to 45 and they will all need to deal with congress anyway to get anything done at all  (so coattails matter a lot too!). Democrats and correctly so are prioritizing trying to pick a candidate that has the best chance of winning against 45, he who must be beaten. 

You do not get to say policies don't matter, the say they do an hour later. See how that works?

 

Sanders is in the lead in Texas. In Texas! 

 

I am not sure how much more writing on the wall people need. It is not 1950 any more. A democratic socialist is in the lead in Texas.

 

Everything you have said in these threads about Bernie is turning out to be empirically wrong. You have blinders on. Fine, that is your right. 

 

His lead in California is 14 points. 

 

He was down by 20 points or something like this in Texas. To be honest that even blew me away. 

 

 

[sucit]

Amy Klobuchar is 3% in Texas. But, if you add up all the centrist votes... 

 

Ok ok, I got enough mileage out of that one already. 

 

Bernie 24% and Biden 22% in TEXAS! <deleted> Texas! 

 

If you can't see that Bernie has the best chance beating Trump looking at these numbers... well, not much to say. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by sucit