2019-2020 US Election Megathread III: Biden VS Biden

[The Andromeda Island Group]

Well, duh. You can’t get 100% of the vote without some rigging going on.

What’s the significance of it? You’re insinuating some things very vaguely.

Vague posts are kinda his thing.

It seems that some of the right wingers here are intentionally obtuse. It's almost as if they are more interested in tripping up their political opponents so that they break NS Board rules.

It's easy to call someone an idiot or worse when they aren't expressing themselves clearly. Once that happens, these particular right wingers act as if their opponents are being unreasonable. They love playing the victim. FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio have taught them well.

[Catochristoferson]

Vague posts are kinda his thing.

It seems that some of the right wingers here are intentionally obtuse. It's almost as if they are more interested in tripping up their political opponents so that they break NS Board rules.

It's easy to call someone an idiot or worse when they aren't expressing themselves clearly. Once that happens, these particular right wingers act as if their opponents are being unreasonable. They love playing the victim. FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio have taught them well.

It's important to keep in mind that many conservatives, especially the younger millenial/zoomer ones, don't actually watch Fox '''News''' or mainstream conservative talk shows. They typically watch more fringe stuff like Alex Jones or Rebel Media, or go on subreddits like r/the_donald. Fox '''news''' is more for older conservatives.

[The Andromeda Island Group]

It's important to keep in mind that many conservatives, especially the younger millenial/zoomer ones, don't actually watch Fox '''News''' or mainstream conservative talk shows. They typically watch more fringe stuff like Alex Jones or Rebel Media, or go on subreddits like r/the_donald. Fox '''news''' is more for older conservatives.

You don't think Alex Jones wants his followers to play the victim in the same way?

[Catochristoferson]

It's important to keep in mind that many conservatives, especially the younger millenial/zoomer ones, don't actually watch Fox '''News''' or mainstream conservative talk shows. They typically watch more fringe stuff like Alex Jones or Rebel Media, or go on subreddits like r/the_donald. Fox '''news''' is more for older conservatives.

You don't think Alex Jones wants his followers to play the victim in the same way?

I never said he doesn't.

But my point is that you have to be able to tell apart your enemies.

[South Odreria 2]

yeah and t_d is the same victim mentality stuff but with slightly better memes.

You don't think Alex Jones wants his followers to play the victim in the same way?

I never said he doesn't.

But my point is that you have to be able to tell apart your enemies.

This I agree with.

[Aureumterra]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

“capitalist to the bones” campaigning for a self described socialist (which is completely inaccurate and Bernie really needs to review his PoliSci)

[Major-Tom]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

...Both Bernie and Warren are faring around 15-20% in the polls. Why would one just drop out to support the other this early? Seems highly counter-intuitive - additionally, Warren and Sanders aren't identical on policy. Bernie is definitively a social democrat who wants massive structural change that would be akin to that of FDR in the 1930s. Warren wants to tweak the system here and there, maybe reform a few things, but overall their rhetoric and policies differ substantially in many regards (even if there is overlap).

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

...Both Bernie and Warren are faring around 15-20% in the polls. Why would one just drop out to support the other this early? Seems highly counter-intuitive - additionally, Warren and Sanders aren't identical on policy. Bernie is definitively a social democrat who wants massive structural change that would be akin to that of FDR in the 1930s. Warren wants to tweak the system here and there, maybe reform a few things, but overall their rhetoric and policies differ substantially in many regards (even if there is overlap).

Bernie is too populist, Warren cozies up to the establishment because in modern America, that’s your only chance of winning (unless you’re an uber-rich billionaire yourself)

[Major-Tom]

...Both Bernie and Warren are faring around 15-20% in the polls. Why would one just drop out to support the other this early? Seems highly counter-intuitive - additionally, Warren and Sanders aren't identical on policy. Bernie is definitively a social democrat who wants massive structural change that would be akin to that of FDR in the 1930s. Warren wants to tweak the system here and there, maybe reform a few things, but overall their rhetoric and policies differ substantially in many regards (even if there is overlap).

Bernie is too populist, Warren cozies up to the establishment because in modern America, that’s your only chance of winning (unless you’re an uber-rich billionaire yourself)

Nonsense - Trump won without the establishment and with running a full-blown populist campaign. At this point in American politics, we arguably need candidates who can tap into populist sentiment, they're the only Dems who can defeat Trump. How would an establishment lackey fare against Trump? Quite poorly, even if Trump has become one with the swamp, he would take every chance possible to label an establishment opponent as "corrupt," "crooked," "dirty," etc etc. His attacks wouldn't quite stick were he running against a populist that runs on a platform that caters to the working class first and foremost.

[Ngelmish]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

...Both Bernie and Warren are faring around 15-20% in the polls. Why would one just drop out to support the other this early? Seems highly counter-intuitive - additionally, Warren and Sanders aren't identical on policy. Bernie is definitively a social democrat who wants massive structural change that would be akin to that of FDR in the 1930s. Warren wants to tweak the system here and there, maybe reform a few things, but overall their rhetoric and policies differ substantially in many regards (even if there is overlap).

Sanders and FDR really aren't that politically equivalent. The perceived overlap is a combination of the Reagan stranglehold on the overton window and FDR's generally heterodox approach to methods.

That said, neither Warren nor Sanders are anywhere near the point where dropping out would be anything other than political malpractice.

[Major-Tom]

...Both Bernie and Warren are faring around 15-20% in the polls. Why would one just drop out to support the other this early? Seems highly counter-intuitive - additionally, Warren and Sanders aren't identical on policy. Bernie is definitively a social democrat who wants massive structural change that would be akin to that of FDR in the 1930s. Warren wants to tweak the system here and there, maybe reform a few things, but overall their rhetoric and policies differ substantially in many regards (even if there is overlap).

Sanders and FDR really aren't that politically equivalent. The perceived overlap is a combination of the Reagan stranglehold on the overton window and FDR's generally heterodox approach to methods.

That said, neither Warren nor Sanders are anywhere near the point where dropping out would be anything other than political malpractice.

It's merely a comparison - there hasn't been a winning candidate since FDR that proposed such large scale reconfiguration and restructuring of the American economy as a whole until Bernie came about.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Bernie is too populist, Warren cozies up to the establishment because in modern America, that’s your only chance of winning (unless you’re an uber-rich billionaire yourself)

Nonsense - Trump won without the establishment and with running a full-blown populist campaign. At this point in American politics, we arguably need candidates who can tap into populist sentiment, they're the only Dems who can defeat Trump. How would an establishment lackey fare against Trump? Quite poorly, even if Trump has become one with the swamp, he would take every chance possible to label an establishment opponent as "corrupt," "crooked," "dirty," etc etc. His attacks wouldn't quite stick were he running against a populist that runs on a platform that caters to the working class first and foremost.

I wouldn’t say Trump has become one with the swamp yet, although his cabinet is basically that. Trump is also an idiot, he poses no real threat to the establishment which is why they’ve let him stick around for so long

[Ngelmish]

Sanders and FDR really aren't that politically equivalent. The perceived overlap is a combination of the Reagan stranglehold on the overton window and FDR's generally heterodox approach to methods.

That said, neither Warren nor Sanders are anywhere near the point where dropping out would be anything other than political malpractice.

It's merely a comparison - there hasn't been a winning candidate since FDR that proposed such large scale reconfiguration and restructuring of the American economy as a whole until Bernie came about.

That's still a poor fit to my mind; in '32 FDR ran on pretty conventional politics and torched Hoover on deficit spending all the time. He didn't start rolling out specific restructuring plans until he was in office, and was remarkably fluid about what he was willing to try. I'd agree, he ran and won on that record in '36 (and, in a different context in '40), but that's not really what Sanders is trying now.

[Major-Tom]

It's merely a comparison - there hasn't been a winning candidate since FDR that proposed such large scale reconfiguration and restructuring of the American economy as a whole until Bernie came about.

That's still a poor fit to my mind; in '32 FDR ran on pretty conventional politics and torched Hoover on deficit spending all the time. He didn't start rolling out specific restructuring plans until he was in office, and was remarkably fluid about what he was willing to try. I'd agree, he ran and won on that record in '36 (and, in a different context in '40), but that's not really what Sanders is trying now.

Fair point, I suppose the New Deal wasn’t a common household phrase until far after 1932’s election.

[Major-Tom]

Nonsense - Trump won without the establishment and with running a full-blown populist campaign. At this point in American politics, we arguably need candidates who can tap into populist sentiment, they're the only Dems who can defeat Trump. How would an establishment lackey fare against Trump? Quite poorly, even if Trump has become one with the swamp, he would take every chance possible to label an establishment opponent as "corrupt," "crooked," "dirty," etc etc. His attacks wouldn't quite stick were he running against a populist that runs on a platform that caters to the working class first and foremost.

I wouldn’t say Trump has become one with the swamp yet, although his cabinet is basically that. Trump is also an idiot, he poses no real threat to the establishment which is why they’ve let him stick around for so long

I’d argue that you’re often defined by the company you keep, and in Trump’s case, it’s a plethora of Bush era neocons, hardline Tea Partiers and ex-Paleocons who have all been involved in the Beltway for eons.

[Aureumterra]

Nonsense - Trump won without the establishment and with running a full-blown populist campaign. At this point in American politics, we arguably need candidates who can tap into populist sentiment, they're the only Dems who can defeat Trump. How would an establishment lackey fare against Trump? Quite poorly, even if Trump has become one with the swamp, he would take every chance possible to label an establishment opponent as "corrupt," "crooked," "dirty," etc etc. His attacks wouldn't quite stick were he running against a populist that runs on a platform that caters to the working class first and foremost.

I wouldn’t say Trump has become one with the swamp yet, although his cabinet is basically that. Trump is also an idiot, he poses no real threat to the establishment which is why they’ve let him stick around for so long

Yes yes there’s a secret organization that controls America and puppets everything and its us against them and blah blah blah

Isn’t it a bit too late for the Mussolini rhetoric?

[True Refuge]

Vague posts are kinda his thing.

It seems that some of the right wingers here are intentionally obtuse. It's almost as if they are more interested in tripping up their political opponents so that they break NS Board rules.

It's easy to call someone an idiot or worse when they aren't expressing themselves clearly. Once that happens, these particular right wingers act as if their opponents are being unreasonable. They love playing the victim. FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio have taught them well.

People from all sides here use cheap gotchas. Dishonesty isn’t strictly partisan round here.

[Saturna1ia]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

This is not well thought out. Think about how the delegate process works at the Democratic National Convention. If there are 3 or 4 candidates with a fair amount of pledged delegates that stop any one candidate from winning a majority on the first ballot, then multiple ballots will be held with delegates no longer bound to vote for their original candidate until enough delegates break off and a frontrunner emerges. Since there are progressives who support Sanders and dislike Warren and vice versa, more progressive delegates will be present at the convention if both stay until the end of the primaries. So even if on the first ballot Biden has many more pledged delegates than Warren or Sanders, it's not a done deal.

[Valrifell]

Imho Warren should drop out and start campaigning hard for Bernie. Splitting the progressive vote is gonna lead nowhere and will likely just result in Biden winning the nomination.

This is not well thought out. Think about how the delegate process works at the Democratic National Convention. If there are 3 or 4 candidates with a fair amount of pledged delegates that stop any one candidate from winning a majority on the first ballot, then multiple ballots will be held with delegates no longer bound to vote for their original candidate until enough delegates break off and a frontrunner emerges. Since there are progressives who support Sanders and dislike Warren and vice versa, more progressive delegates will be present at the convention if both stay until the end of the primaries. So even if on the first ballot Biden has many more pledged delegates than Warren or Sanders, it's not a done deal.

Not a bad take, a brokered convention might have more beneficial outcomes to progressives than just winning outright.

[South Odreria 2]

This is not well thought out. Think about how the delegate process works at the Democratic National Convention. If there are 3 or 4 candidates with a fair amount of pledged delegates that stop any one candidate from winning a majority on the first ballot, then multiple ballots will be held with delegates no longer bound to vote for their original candidate until enough delegates break off and a frontrunner emerges. Since there are progressives who support Sanders and dislike Warren and vice versa, more progressive delegates will be present at the convention if both stay until the end of the primaries. So even if on the first ballot Biden has many more pledged delegates than Warren or Sanders, it's not a done deal.

Not a bad take, a brokered convention might have more beneficial outcomes to progressives than just winning outright.

Although I have certain beef with Warren, her heart is in the right place and I am confident she would do the right thing at a convention, whatever that might be.

[Shrillland]

This is not well thought out. Think about how the delegate process works at the Democratic National Convention. If there are 3 or 4 candidates with a fair amount of pledged delegates that stop any one candidate from winning a majority on the first ballot, then multiple ballots will be held with delegates no longer bound to vote for their original candidate until enough delegates break off and a frontrunner emerges. Since there are progressives who support Sanders and dislike Warren and vice versa, more progressive delegates will be present at the convention if both stay until the end of the primaries. So even if on the first ballot Biden has many more pledged delegates than Warren or Sanders, it's not a done deal.

Not a bad take, a brokered convention might have more beneficial outcomes to progressives than just winning outright.

No, a brokered convention would lead to disaster in November regardless of who wins. Remember '68, '72, and almost '80.

[San Lumen]

This is not well thought out. Think about how the delegate process works at the Democratic National Convention. If there are 3 or 4 candidates with a fair amount of pledged delegates that stop any one candidate from winning a majority on the first ballot, then multiple ballots will be held with delegates no longer bound to vote for their original candidate until enough delegates break off and a frontrunner emerges. Since there are progressives who support Sanders and dislike Warren and vice versa, more progressive delegates will be present at the convention if both stay until the end of the primaries. So even if on the first ballot Biden has many more pledged delegates than Warren or Sanders, it's not a done deal.

Not a bad take, a brokered convention might have more beneficial outcomes to progressives than just winning outright.

a brokered convention is not what you want. Since we had direct primaries no party has even go on to victory in November form a brokered convention

[Saturna1ia]

No, a brokered convention would lead to disaster in November regardless of who wins. Remember '68, '72, and almost '80.

The Democratic Party may need a brokered convention and even another presidential loss to see that it's current, elitist establishment is not the way forward.
It's time to bring back those unapologetic, progressive roots. Every Man a King and Woman a Queen!

[San Lumen]

No, a brokered convention would lead to disaster in November regardless of who wins. Remember '68, '72, and almost '80.

The Democratic Party may need a brokered convention and even another presidential loss to see that it's current, elitist establishment is not the way forward.

enough with this word establishment. It seems like anyone whose been in office more than one term is labeled establishment. Trump getting another term means the end of the Republic as we know it and by the time he leaves office it will be too late to to anything about climate change. Maybe you should cut the elitism.

[San Lumen]

https://www.cjonline.com/news/20191203/ ... -residence

Kansas Representative Steve Watkins (R) who narrowly won another term last year faces allegations of voter fraud and perjury. On his voter registration form and two other election documents he listed a UPS store in Topeka which could constitute felony voter fraud under federal law and election perjury under state statute.

By listing the store it isnt clear what his city council district is. He voted in a city council district election this year decided by 13 votes.

Funny how Republicans are the whose who scream about voter fraud yet they are ones who seem to commit it more often.