Democrats

[Mike]

No. I've asked you to express yourself without the slurs. You refuse. In fact, you said you'd continue to use them but try to explain them better. I was asking for the same level of consideration I expect from all friends and even acquaintances. If someone I knew in real life was this openly dismissive of my feelings, I'd have stopped associating with them a long time ago. I'm treating you now the same way I would someone in real life.

So I'm banning you now. Hell, when I expressed my disapproval of your word choice, there were tons of ways you could have responded (or not responded at all) and I would have just taken it and let it slide. I've done it plenty of times before. Or maybe not.

[Phoebe]

Looking at some polling numbers () , so take with grain of salt, but in SC the black voters prefer Biden while those who prefer Warren more likely to be the white voters. The trust level with Biden seems to be higher, maybe not because Warren doesn't deserve it, but she's less of a known quantity and has spent less time communicating specifically with these voters. I feel like you don't win without getting enthusiastic black voter turnout and support in nearly every key swing state. So this is a big deal and I wish we'd hear more about how it develops over time and what candidates are saying to black voters, but cold day in hell etc.

[poorpete]

Demographics as a way of predicting the race had some success in 2016, where sites like 538 noting that a string of Bernie wins didn't denote a trend as demographics wouldn't change and thus were bigger than any perceived momentum. It proved largely true. A difference this year is although Biden has a healthy lead of 40% of the black vote in SC, Obama's total in 2008 was near 80% and so was Clinton's in 2016. Still anyone's game...

... but speaking of game, Mayor Pete may have made a politically smart switch up, attacking positions he held a few months ago, positions I supported, is the opposite of endearing. Either way, looking back only a few weeks, the photo of Mayor Pete and Zuckerberg was a turning point. People at first thought it was a turning point for Mark, who people have rightly criticized for inaction-to-little-action-to-abetting the poisoning of our political system by bad actors. Finally, Mark shows his progressive side, maybe everything will be alright. Nope. Now it's a sign that Mayor Pete was willing to reinvent himself to appease big money.

[Phoebe]

Yeah, I remain singularly unimpressed by him.

[FlameBlade]

Warren got 2 million dollars.

Over 30 years. That amounts to about 60000 dollars a year. Below rate relative to many other lawyers.

All of this while Steyer and Bloomberg is spending over 30 times that amount in 2 weeks.

Why?

[Phoebe]

I have no time for that purity test lying bulls*** and it makes me want to vote for Warren just to spite those dumb enough to complain about this.

[poorpete]

I remember the big news when it came out that Michael Moore owned an expensive house. The most financially successful film documentarian doesn't live in a shack, how hypocritical!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/el ... 42681.html

[poorpete]

I've said before, somewhere, maybe to myself, that free trade is great only if coupled with excellent rights for workers here and abroad. That American unions got concessions on NAFTA2 a major of which is more rights for Mexican workers, is great news, and fuck the optics.

[Phoebe]

Trying to talk myself out of going full Bernie, which I arrived at via pessimism about Biden's current manifestation (what to me is his lovable goofiness is not translating well as he ages, unlike angry old man Sanders who can keep that up indefinitely), doubt that Warren can pull off the victory with Biden and Sanders both in her way, and just plain NO to Buttigieg as anything other than a minimally-prepped VP. Feeling like Sanders' anger and stick-it-to-the man rhetoric might be the ticket to winning, and right now we are reminded of his radically different foreign policy approach that makes him preferable to his Democrat rivals. And therein lies the rub: I don't think of Sanders as a Democrat because, come on, he's not one, and while that might be good for peeling off the angry white people who were blindly angry enough to vote for Trump, I worry it won't motivate the rank and file Ds who need to show up in droves. I trust proven turnout more than potential Sanders voters who never voted before, because the best predictor of future voting is VOTING. Sanders excites a lot of proven non-voters. Damn it all, we desperately need a winner. Who is that person? Why aren't any of these Ds ringing that bell hard?

[Mike]

Your post clearly reflects my current thoughts.

[Phoebe]

I flop around wildly between supporting Warren or Sanders at the moment. Really don't know.

[poorpete]

I've been supporting Warren. I don't know who'd I vote for if she's out of the race, but I kinda don't know who'd she support either. Here's my silly guess with percentages even though I have no idea what I'm talking about:

70% she does not endorse anyone while it matters, ala 2016, because she still wants to be seen as a unifying force.
10% she endorses Bernie, who is very close to her in opinion and camaraderie. Unlikely, she did not do this in 2016, she knows her Hillary->Warren supporters (like me) might not follow, but likely if she feels she can push him over the precipice.
9% she endorses Biden, to try to unify the party, but maybe to angle for a VP/cabinet spot. She'd only do this if Bernie gets knocked out and/or if the race gets really dirty and/or if there's a chance Mayor Pete or Gabbard might take the nom.
7% she endorses Klobuchar, because women, have you heard, are doing it for themselves. But unlikely, due to policy and Klobuchar's relatively low polling numbers. If she hit a hot streak and it's between the three people above, she might make the move.

[Stan]

If Warren drops, I bet she throws in with Bernie. They've been very nice to each other in the campaign, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a pact. There's a chance this could play out as late as the convention - depending on whether anyone makes an enormous goof and who picks up the votes of the candidates with single digit support.

She might have felt enough allegiance to Clinton to stay away from endorsements in 2016. How does she feel about Biden?

[Phoebe]

I've been listening to snippets of all of them speaking and she just does a wonderful job. I'm still really worried that she can't win. I'm also feeling my own sense of "fine, then, burn it all down and put the socialist in there!" that leads to Bernie support. It is driven by a certain amount of contempt rather than reason or practicality. Like if we have to endure Trump, let's send the pendulum as far as we can possibly get it the other way, because that's what we have to do to deal with the third of our nation that is batshit crazy.

[poorpete]

I can see how a pendulum switch could be satisfying. My main worry with Sanders is foreign policy I think.

1. he supports hard-left leaders, which is fine, but sometimes those leaders are bad actors, to their people and to the US, and I think he overlooks that sometimes. But being president will give him more knowledge of the behind-the-scenes issues, and I'd trust him doing what was right in consultation with advisors and generals, and I can't say that for all the candidates.
2. I also worry he's more anti-war than pro-peace. But I get it, I don't want to go to war either.

But, I think, as long as he has a solid cabinet and advisors to listen to, he could be a great foreign policy president, especially in these ways:
1. no foreign policy action will be taken to advance business causes
2. no action to advance/maintain America's sphere-of-influence unless our influence is the only thing keeping that country safe.

These would be good changes.

[Phoebe]

I have heard so many ads for Tom Steyer at this point that I have lost all ability to reason and know only that he will take urgent action on climate change and will fight Trump by pointing out his economic mistakes - i.e. hitting him in his apparent strong suit, which we now understand most people care about exclusive of any other good or principle, including whether they themselves stand to benefit from the current situation.

It's an odd thing: normally one would praise people who unselfishly put the good of the whole before their own personal economic interests, but in this case the people think they're being selfish and are just too stupid to understand that they didn't get a tax cut. It's hard not to be a pessimist when you see how many of your Republican family and friends truly believe they benefit from these economic policies even though there's not a chance in hell they do.

[poorpete]

As the mess of Iowa is clearing up, I'm left with some unease with who is left. They all have a decent chance to be elected, but I'm still interested in how'd they be as actual presidents. I think any of them will make competent good presidents, but I still think Gillibrand would have made the best, and Warren a great one.

The Moderate B guys will be a calming and competent force that will return us to relative normalcy. They could be great, but not expecting greatness.

Sanders would not be a calming force. I prefer progress + stability, but I understand that sometimes big changes require instability. Sometimes big systems like slavery, Jim Crow, don't go down without a fight. He could be great. At the very least he has a noble moral code, but would he be FDR or or Carter?

I need to realize I've been lucky that my pick for the nominee in 08 and 16 got picked. Debatably 04 too, as I was mainly concerned with electability that cycle. My top choices probably won't happen this time.

Who do you think Sanders would pick as his VP? Would he consider swing states? Would he pick a "moderate"?

[Phoebe]

I like your larger question about how they would govern; unfortunately not thrilled about anyone left. We know Biden would assemble a good team to restore some sanity, if only by bringing back some key Obama people. I expect Warren and Klobuchar would do similar. Sanders is an unknown; my trust in Buttigieg is about zero. I also put about zero stock in what we saw out of Iowa. They damaged the whole cause nationally with their state party's multiple lousy decisions, and their electorate isn't very representative of the whole. They should have just disqualified themselves from being first, and the rest of the party should insist on that.

[Tahlvin]

Yes, nothing like having one candidate win the popular vote in your caucus but give more delegates to a different candidate! Iowa is a shit show this year. They should get rid of all of the different dates and just have everything on Super Tuesday and get it over with at once. And that should go with making election day a federal holiday. But it won't. So F it all. At this point, I'm seriously thinking about becoming an expat when I retire in 5-10 years.

[Tahlvin]

And the video of the woman wanting to pull her vote for Buttigieg when she finds out that he's gay? Wow!