USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Love Mountain]

I would be amazed if Middle America trusted Sanders' quixotic plan to replace the fossil fuel industry (and all of its dependant sectors) en masse. ​

Okay I guess, but that's not really an issue of energy security.

[Cope]

Okay I guess, but that's not really an issue of energy security.

People who don't trust the GND's promises are likely to believe that Sanders poses a threat to energy security.

[Ludicus]

Documents reveal DNC was 'intimately involved' with Iowa ...

We requested access to the tool solely for the purpose of doing security testing,” Hinojosa said.
Fallout from the Iowa debacle continues. The Associated Press has declined to name a winner, even though the Iowa Democratic Party had said Pete Buttigieg edged out Bernie Sanders in delegates, while Sanders won the popular vote

-------

Ludicus' contention however is that Trump believes he would lose against Bernie,

Not exactly, but he fears Sanders more than anybody else.Fox News' Laura Ingraham Fears Bernie Sanders Is A Donal

“The Ingraham Angle” host, commenting on Sanders’ projected win in the New Hampshire primary, recalled how the failure of Trump’s moderate rivals in the 2016 Republican primary to get behind one person helped propel him to the GOP nomination.

Ingraham, who frequently uses her widely watched show on the conservative network to advocate for Trump, feared the same could happen this year with Sanders.

“The Trump juggernaut passed South Carolina, kept rolling along, and then it was too late,” she said. “The same will happen with Bernie. He’ll become the juggernaut. The new anti-establishment juggernaut of the Democrat party.”

--
Edit,
How Will The Democratic Primary Change Now That It’s Moving To More Diverse States? The results in Nevada will be really telling

Nevada is really the only early-voting state that has a Democratic electorate broadly similar to the national Democratic electorate. And Nevada shows why our forecast model thinks much more highly of Sanders’s chances than Buttigieg’s: Sanders has shown more signs of winning over non-white voters — particularly young black voters and Hispanic voters — and he currently leads in our Nevada polling average (though we haven’t gotten new polling there in a long time)

[Elfdude]

The reality here is the person who can energize the most voters will win. There's no such thing as swing voters (or at least not enough of them to really matter). Sanders populism actually intrigues the democratic base more than the other candidates. He beats trump by the largest margins, if you really want trump to lose sanders is your best ticket period because dems need young voters to engage to win. Old voters will still vote regardless. Sanders can move a base which is notoriously difficult to engage, that's what you need to win.

[Aexodus]

Do you really think that people who didn’t vote for clinton in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida will vote for Bernie?

[Love Mountain]

I don't see why not. These are swing states, and Sanders is a populist.

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't see why not. These are swing states, and Sanders is a populist.

Champagne socialists draw support from coastal urbanites, as they themselves no longer intend to groom the working class, nor would their policies benefit it. Just look at how Labor lost North-East of England, which was their support base for decades.

[Love Mountain]

Champagne socialists draw support from coastal urbanites, as they themselves no longer intend to groom the working class, nor would their policies benefit it. Just look at how Labor lost North-East of England, which was their support base for decades.

You can keep deluding yourself.

In the meantime, new Nevada poll.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can keep deluding yourself.

So in your reality Labor won elections in UK and didn't lose the north-east? Because Sanders and Corbyn both lead a very similar set of policies.

In the meantime, new Nevada poll.

Seems that Iowa results were cooked harder then meth consumed by Democrat voting base.

[Love Mountain]

So in your reality Labor won elections in UK and didn't lose the north-east? Because Sanders and Corbyn both lead a very similar set of policies.

Seems that Iowa results were cooked harder then meth consumed by Democrat voting base.

Cooked in favor of a gay neoliberal. Sanders won and he continues to be the frontrunner.

[PointOfViewGun]

So in your reality Labor won elections in UK and didn't lose the north-east? Because Sanders and Corbyn both lead a very similar set of policies.
Seems that Iowa results were cooked harder then meth consumed by Democrat voting base.

I think most people can see through the idiocy and intellectual dishonesty of such remarks. I don't understand why in any universe it would work.

[Heathen Hammer]

What an intelligent response. I wonder if Sanders will manage to break Mondale's "record" from 1984 election.

Cooked in favor of a gay neoliberal. Sanders won and he continues to be the frontrunner.

Do you have a problem with him being gay? I mean he has enticing and charismatic personality of a mid-quarter tax report, but at least he is not economically illiterate and isn't as terrifying to moderates and undecideds as Sanders.

[Cope]

I don't see what's funny about the comparison. Sanders and Corbyn share a similar ideological platform.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think most people can see through the idiocy and intellectual dishonesty of such remarks. I don't understand why in any universe it would work.

I see childish insults, but I don't see a counter-argument. What a surprise.

[Love Mountain]

What an intelligent response. I wonder if Sanders will manage to break Mondale's "record" from 1984 election.

Comparing Raegan to Trump. That's intelligent. If I didn't know better, I would've assumed this was satire.

Do you have a problem with him being gay? I mean he has enticing and charismatic personality of a mid-quarter tax report, but at least he is not economically illiterate and isn't as terrifying to moderates and undecideds as Sanders.

I don't think you have the capacity to determine what constitutes economic literacy. No offense, but your never-ending praise of Trump and his policies makes your competency on the subject questionable.

I don't see what's funny about the comparison. Sanders and Corbyn share a similar ideological platform.

I think it's hilarious to assume that Corbyn lost because people didn't like the economic policy in his party's manifesto.

[Heathen Hammer]

Comparing Raegan to Trump. That's intelligent. If I didn't know better, I would've assumed this was satire.

Again, I don't see any counter-arguments.

I don't think you have the capacity to determine what constitutes economic literacy. No offense, but your never-ending praise of Trump and his policies makes your competency on the subject questionable.

Trump and his policies resulted with economy doing comparatively well, so it seems that you just have a partisan aversion to reality, rather then objective stance on economics. Hence your rooting for a fiscally illustrate "democratic socialist" neo-marxist.

I think it's hilarious to assume that Corbyn lost because people didn't like the economic policy in his party's manifesto.

The assumption stems from the fact that people din't vote for him and he lost Labor's electoral stronghold, that it enjoyed for decades before. Its almost like disregarding interests of working class in favor of "woke" urbanites will cost you support of the former.

[Love Mountain]

Again, I don't see any counter-arguments.

I don't respond to Breitbart articles either.

Trump and his policies resulted with economy doing comparatively well, so it seems that you just have a partisan aversion to reality, rather then objective stance on economics. Hence your rooting for a fiscally illustrate "democratic socialist" neo-marxist.

If this is what your pedagogy on the current economy boils down to, then I'll repeat my earlier accusation. Your opinion on economic literacy is not particularly credible.

[Ludicus]

Krugman has a point,

If you have the people on the right who denounce any attempt to provide a little bit more security and decency in life as "socialism," then at some point people are going to say, "Well, in that case, I’m a socialist." You can listen to a recording of Ronald Reagan in 1961 saying that Medicare was socialism and would destroy American freedom. If you’re somebody who thinks that Medicare was a pretty good idea, but you accept his framing of it, then you say, "Well, then, I’m a socialist." But that’s not at all what socialism really means in practice. The trouble is that people claim that he wants to turn America into Venezuela - when in fact, he has literally said he wants America to be more like Denmark.

Socialism used to be a dirty word. Is America now ready to ..The Guardian...

Half of Americans under 40 say they would prefer to live in a socialist country.
But quite what people mean by “socialist” is an open question.

“The way I translated it to people was: you shouldn’t have to choose between paying for prescription and paying for groceries,” explains Sarah Innamorata, the socialist Pennsylvania state representative I met in Pittsburgh, who defeated a five-term incumbent who had been elected unopposed the last three times. “If you work for 40 hours a week you deserve to be able to support yourself and your family. And when you go outside you should be able to breathe clean air and turn on the faucets and get clean water. And really none of that is going to change unless we change who represents us and we change the way our government works.”
According to Gallup, Americans are more likely to associate socialism with “equality” than “government ownership or control”, as they did in the 40s. “I don’t think it’s about class antagonism,” explains Jesse Sharkey, the leader of the Chicago Teachers’ Union. “It’s about humane capitalism – having social control over the harshest features of capitalism like healthcare and pensions.”

The Hill's Campaign Report: New challenges for 2020 Dems ...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appears to be riding high. On Friday, the Nevada Poll, conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and AARP Nevada, showed the Vermont senator taking the lead in the Battle Born State, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Twenty-five percent are backing Sanders, followed by 18 percent for Biden and 13 percent for Warren.

The Latest Primary Poll Averages Five Thirty Eight UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
Sanders 22.7%
Biden 18.6%

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't respond to Breitbart articles either.

What Breitbart article? You claimed that Sanders will flip Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, but your only "argument" is telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are dumb. Your opinion has no bearing in reality and your partisan bias can be seen from Mars.

If this is what your pedagogy on the current economy boils down to, then I'll repeat my earlier accusation. Your opinion on economic literacy is not particularly credible.

Your opinion on my opinion is irrelevant. If you can't even come up with an argument in favor of your comrade Sanders, then problem is with your stance, not mine.

[Aexodus]

That Teacher’s Union official is dead wrong. Socialism is about absence of capitalism, not some kind of ‘humane capitalism’.

You can keep deluding yourself.

In the meantime, new Nevada poll.

What about it? Clinton won Nevada in 2016. What states could Bernie win that Clinton couldn’t?