Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker with anger issues, but I was impressed by Klobuchar's Midwestern restraint in not ripping Pete Buttigieg's head off.

Just watch. It'll come down to Sanders and Bloomberg, but only because the latter has the money to waste.

Too much talk about a brokered convention. If by chance that happens, it won't be so close as to be reasonable to give it to someone other than the delegate leader. It would be suicide if they gave it to Bloomberg or whoever instead of Sanders, for example. There's no sense getting worked up about this. The DNC is sleazy but not that stupid.

I thought Bernie handled the attacks well. The "socialist millionaire with three houses" was bound to be brought up, and plays very well unfortunately. Better to get it out of the way and give Bernie some practice, because Trump will undoubtedly use this as well (ironically, another billionaire). I don't think "billionaires shouldn't exist" plays well either, and I wish he would be more clear about how he will pay for Medicare for All -- have some response that's quick. If citizens buy into "Mexico will pay for it," then they'll buy anything -- it doesn't matter, but say something and say it quickly.

Otherwise, he did fine as usual, and it was good to have a billionaire contrast on the stage.

Some random impressions about yesterday’s Nevada debate...

In terms of composure, confidence, and handling a possible debate with DT (if he would even deign to appear at one) “Bulldog” Bernie seems the strongest and the best. Followed by Warren, with Joe Biden a distant third IMHO. The others are so-so, and Bloomberg looked like a deer frozen in the headlights, maybe thinking to himself “when did the word billionaire ever get to be a curse word? What planet am I on?” Trump would be relentless against Bloomberg, and just might make him cry. No one wants to see that. Yesterday’s debate was a tickling match, by comparison. (Bloomberg’s use of the word “communist” towards Sanders smacked of desperation. And did anyone else chuckle when he said “the Me-Too mutant... er... MOVEMENT... ? Freudian slips are always fun. And is it me, or does Michael Bloomberg have a slight but noticeable whining tone to his voice? He seems decent and sincere, but to me it’s a case of “too little, too late”.)

Pete B. does indeed present himself rather well. However, as inexperienced as he is, his lukewarm, middle-of-the-road stance on most issues appears to me even more problematic. Just very uninspiring, despite his pride in being the safe choice, or whatever. Vanilla. Sanders is 40 years older and has the burning passion of a college student handing out leaflets. Pete has all the fire of someone preparing their retirement fund, or something. One day, it would be good to see a LGBTQ President. Just not him, not now anyway. Though perhaps he could be Biden’s VP choice, going for a Batman / Robin “the boy wonder” vibe. Not sure. Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol.

Elizabeth Warren did well, as usual. She is probably more articulate when saying similar things than Bernie Sanders, who sometimes shouts a little too much and doesn’t appear as intellectually and verbally subtle as Warren. Am I wrong in assuming a Sanders / Warren ticket if Bernie wins the nomination? Personally, I don’t mind who would be president and who would be VP in that scenario. But Bernie has the mojo at the moment, so he’d be the nominee, one supposes. (Though as an aside, Warren loves to launch into “personal stories” that sometimes cause my eyes to inadvertently roll. I was waiting for her to say “I was talking to a Nevada man who was hospitalized because he had no head. He couldn’t afford the medical treatment, so it had to be removed. That he could still speak was an inspiration to me... :lol: )

Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker with anger issues, but I was impressed by Klobuchar's Midwestern restraint in not ripping Pete Buttigieg's head off. — Maw

Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. I imagine that it must be torture up on that stage. One is either a forgotten loser, or the target of everyone else. Difficult sometimes to watch the Roman senators play gladiator.

Yes, Pete seemed to cruelly and unnecessarily twist the blade when confronting her about her forgetting the name of Mexico’s President. She looked shocked, but recovered nicely. — 0 thru 9

I think she looked rattled and weak. She appeared on the verge of tears almost. Her line about "Do you think I'm dumb, are you mocking me?" was kind of pathetic. Why not just say "I forgot, mistakes happen" strongly, and then move on. This was terrible for her. Pete looked like an ass, too, but he was still successful in making her shake.

FiveThirtyEight is now showing no majority as clearly more likely than anyone getting a majority, and Bernie far more likely than anyone else to get a plurality. Combined with the last question yesterday about whether the plurality winner should get the nomination or not, I'm really fearing a brokered convention where the superdelegates coronate one of their preferred corporate candidates (like Biden, still second-most-likely behind Bernie; or probably even worse, Bloomberg), pissing off the whole left half of the country and basically handing the election to Trump.

One of the top recommended things on YouTube this morning is The Democratic Debate in About a Minute, from.... Bloomberg Politics. It's a bunch of short clips from the debate, most of them devoid of any context (if I hadn't already read about the debate elsewhere I wouldn't understand what most of them were about), with one longer one of Bloomberg himself, and another of Warren talking about Bloomberg. The overall message it seems to be saying is "all these communists and fat broads attacking me [Bloomberg] is just going to hand the election to Trump", but it's not framed as being a message from Bloomberg himself, just a neutral summary of the whole debate.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. And Sanders will most likely get the plurality, yes -- but others will drop out as well along the way, leaving some distance between his delegate count and the count of the potential second-place finisher, making it even more striking if they simply declare a winner other than Sanders. In other words, if he ends up with 1400 delegates, it's not as if second place will have the remaining 1591 or whatever it is. The rest will either vote according to who their the candidate who dropped out endorsed or can vote however they'd like at the convention -- but the point is, the distance will be sufficiently large, and this in itself will almost force the DNC's hand to give it to Sanders.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Like I said earlier, the DNC are indeed sleazy, but they're not completely blind. They don't like Sanders, but they'll very easily recognize what a big mistake it is, especially this time around. — Xtrix

I think that this (or something close) will indeed be the case. Truly hope so anyway. For people like me on the back edge of the sidelines, it doesn’t affect much whatever we say. For those directly involved, I imagine they have plans A, B, C, D, etc. lined up ready for any contingency.

I sometimes wonder how much the exclusive two-party system in the US feeds the imbalanced situation. The two parties pretend to be so different, but to my eyes they are very similar. Even if Sanders is elected, any improvements that the general public sees might be slow coming. Guess we’ll take what we can get, and get the type of leaders we ask for. For the leaders really don’t do much on their own. They just get in front of whichever way the people and times are going.

Yes, and it'll be very hard to defeat Trump, win congress, get things passed, etc. But what's the alternative? Lay down and die? Passivity? Apathy? That's been tried. We call it the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We see what we got for aspiring to be nothing more than television watchers working steady 9-5 jobs with the hope of meeting someone, buying a house and starting a family. There's a big world out there and it's worth understanding and, more importantly, worth fighting for.

So yes, it'll probably be slow going and is an uphill battle. No doubt. We knew it from the beginning. We've gotten THIS far, though. Would we have dreamed of being this close even 6 years ago?

I’ll say this... if Sanders or Warren wins the upcoming election, then in some strange way I’ll be glad that HRC lost in 2016. (I felt devastated then). Even though the last four years have been white-knuckle anxiety at times. If Hillary were occupying the White House for 8 years, keeping the status quo while trying to seem to appear to care... well, it’d be depressing for everyone on both “sides”.

But that’s IF Sanders or Warren win, of course. Just my two cents, adjusted for stagflation, lol.

We see what we got for aspiring to be nothing more than television watchers working steady 9-5 jobs with the hope of meeting someone, buying a house and starting a family. — Xtrix

Personally, that's still something I aspire to... like, the bare minimum I aspired to have had already well over a decade ago, and am still very slowly struggling toward, despite making better progress at it than like 75% of the country if the statistics are to believed. The apparently near-impossibility of ever achieving that bare minimum any time in my natural lifespan is a large part of what's got me so pissed off about politics.

(I got the steady job and met someone just shy of a decade ago... but even beginning to buy a house, and so being able to afford to live together, and get married, is still years if not decades away, even at my breakneck rate of saving... and actually paying off that house before I'm too old to work, so we don't just die homeless in the streets when we're old, is not something I'm sure will ever be possible).

Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol. — 0 thru 9

Boot-ih-judge. :wink:

Am I wrong in assuming a Sanders / Warren ticket if Bernie wins the nomination? — 0 thru 9

I'd love that, but I think they're all probably courting Booker and Harris right now. I prefer Booker, myself, but Harris would be okay as VP.

I'd love that, but I think they're all probably courting Booker and Harris right now. I prefer Booker, myself, but Harris would be okay as VP. — Artemis

I was just wondering about Kamala Harris. Thought that she’d be one of the finalists. But yes, she (or Booker) definitely could be someone’s VP choice. There’s a lot of soap opera left to go...

William Rivers Pitt wrote an interesting (and occasionally humorous) editorial article on the Nevada debate.
https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-made-a-meal-of-mike-bloomberg-in-las-vegas/

Nice article. Very accurate about Buttigieg, whom I've nicknamed Petty Pete after last night.

I think The Onion really nailed it though. :joke:

In other words, if he ends up with 1400 delegates, it's not as if second place will have the remaining 1591 or whatever it is. The rest will either vote according to who their the candidate who dropped out endorsed or can vote however they'd like at the convention -- but the point is, the distance will be sufficiently large, and this in itself will almost force the DNC's hand to give it to Sanders. — Xtrix

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. The only question is whether the Bernie bros will burn down the convention center or the entire city of Milwaukee. (/jk Bernie fans).

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. The only question is whether the Bernie bros will burn down the convention center or the entire city of Milwaukee — fishfry

Bernie Bro or no, every American citizen should be up in arms if the DNC blatantly refuses to accept the will of the people.

Warren doing an excellent job of alienating the Left

Also, I might be a little predisposed against him because I can’t pronounce his last name, lol.

Boot-edge-edge.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/buttigieg-2020-president.html

I certainly sympathize with this point of view. I too was very disappointed in 2016 -- I voted for Clinton as the least damaging candidate, although I couldn't stand her. I think I was in very good and very large company. It was those friends of mine that felt that there was no big difference between candidates that swung the election; despite being ridiculous to me, for them there was not enough contrast between Clinton and Trump. They convinced themselves, or were convinced by the equivalence argument. Others stayed home because Clinton wasn't their 1st choice.

Anyone in a swing state that cares about climate change, to take one of the most important examples, and who didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 -- these are the people who angered me the most. They made a huge mistake, and essentially helped contribute to the last 3 years' policies which further accelerated the possibly of killing our species off (and this is not exaggeration, alarmism, or hyperbole-- this is real life). I'm hoping they are the ones who show up this time around.

But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).

I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. Granted, that's normally been the case after 8 years, as most incumbents get re-relected, but Trump is an animal all of his own.

I digress.

Personally, that's still something I aspire to... like, the bare minimum I aspired to have had already well over a decade ago, and am still very slowly struggling toward, despite making better progress at it than like 75% of the country if the statistics are to believed. — Pfhorrest

What statistics? What metric are you referring to here? Yearly salary or something, or are you saying that 75% of Americans don't have a partner and steady job?

I think it should be either bare minimum as it once was (an economy that allowed for people to have a car and house and savings on a one-salary family income with inexpensive or affordable education and healthcare), or else given up on if it becomes too costly to personal well-being and living a good and happy life.

In other words, trying to keep up with the Jones or the standard idea of the "American Dream," if it means having to work non-stop, get into extreme debt -- why bother? And what's the dream, exactly? What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family. Plenty of people all around the world and throughout history have done just fine without most of what we view as "essential." They may have been the standard way of American living in the 50s or something, but we live in a very different world and should therefore adjust our expectations and ambitions. Why are we still going for "success" in the form of money, material status, and having a family?

That was my point.

Once you get to the second round and the superdelegates take over, Bernie is certain to be screwed. — fishfry

Explain why you think this is true. I don't see it.

Warren doing an excellent job of alienating the Left — Maw

How so?

Bernie Bro or no, every American citizen should be up in arms if the DNC blatantly refuses to accept the will of the people. — Artemis

Bernie isn't a registered Democrat yet he's seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party with the promise to take a (very much needed and overdue) wrecking-ball to establishment power structures which includes the DNC and donors, etc. Bernie's like a house guest that's come to visit and over breakfast announces he not only intends to rearrange the furniture but also replace some of it and remodel the kitchen, bathrooms, maybe finish the basement (rip out that funky ol' "man cave"), and redo the landscaping. Of course the DNC will protect itself - the status quo - and show this homewrecking guest - "revoluntionary" :roll: - the door any way they can as soon as they can. And this hyperbole - wtf - "will of the people"? The vox populi only applies to General Elections and not to 'nominating' elections & caucases within PRIVATE political parties (or conventions) which aren't under any obligation by statute or the constitution to be "fair & democratic". Btw, last time I checked, a plurality is less a majority and therefore only "the will of SOME of the people" ...

But to your point -- yes, losing those people and costing us the election in 2016 may indeed be a blessing, but remember that Bernie could have been the nominee that year as well, and was polling better than Clinton was versus Trump. It's hard to forgive the DNC for that, in that case. But this is all speculation in the end -- maybe 4 years of Sanders would have resulted in an even more extreme Republican nominee, or 4 years of Clinton just status quo inaction and apathy on the Left and the continuation of Right's dominance of state and local politics through grassroots organization (I think that would have been far more probable).

I think it's time to pull more to the left now, because it's the only way to bring balance back after such a rightward shift for the last 40 years, culminating in this administration and embodied in the Great Opportunist, Donald Trump. There are still many in the middle, but best to provide the "middle" and all the "independents" out there with a real contrast: not deep red and reddish pink, but deep red and deep blue. I think most independents naturally get tired of the party in charge. — Xtrix

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Much appreciated. :up:

What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water.

but Trump is an animal all of his own. — Xtrix

Certainly. Where I live, the city is very quick to respond to a call about a rabid animal, and quickly puts it out of its misery, for everyone’s sake and safety. Just a random thought... (so vote early, and often!) :lol:

About Elizabeth Warren... I certainly would not mind to see her elected President, and she may have a very good chance at the nomination. She is very impressive, intelligent, likable, and has not shown any large weakness. At least none that I’ve seen from my distant seat in the peanut gallery, lol.

But... (how to put this in the right way?)... she is in the same “lane” as Bernie Sanders (to use that buzzword). And she is the only other person close to sharing his viewpoints, and therefore his potential voters. Now, even though she might conceivably do as well against “the incumbent” (or even perhaps better, her being less somewhat less radical or “socialist” than Sanders in the view of some voters)...
The question could soon arise as to if (or when) the best time for her to “throw her support” behind Bernie might be.

Now, in another campaign year, the normal strategy would be to stay in the race as long as possible, and let the chips fall where they may. But this time is a bit unusual, with its still crowded field, and polarized sides. Like many have mentioned, both here and in the media, it would GREATLY benefit Sanders to lock up the nomination as quickly as possible, long before the convention. Every single delegate is important. The thinking seems to be that Biden walks away with the nomination if the “super-delegates” decide the matter.

So... as great a candidate as she may indeed be... when would it become advantageous to the “progressive movement” (for lack of a better term) for her to clear the way for Sanders, and to unite forces?

What helps me when thinking about these things in particular (or about the past in general) is to say to myself that the time just wasn’t ready for (X). The situation or circumstances (for whatever reason, fair or not) were not completely ripe. Maybe now it is ripe for a change. If so, then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop the flow of the river that was once a tiny trickle of water. — 0 thru 9

True, and it's also important to remember that YOU are a part of that river. We all have far more influence than we think, in my view. The state of politics in this country is at a very interesting stage, and hasn't always been this way.

We've become alienated from politics in a way similar to other fields, yet many more people have opinions about it that are becoming more and more rigid, dogmatic and fanatical.

So while we're equally alienated from, and possess the same level of understanding as, say, physics, there are many more political "buffs" and "nerds" out there than there are physics buffs, in the sense of a hobby. That's a dangerous phenomenon. It's dangerous because politics isn't simply an academic subject one studies in school in an abstract, theoretical way. What happens in what's called our political realm has real-world consequences, and so our participation in the process matters all the more. It doesn't take a degree in "political science." All you need to do is look around at your own life and the lives of the people around you, the laws being passed, the distribution of wealth and resources, the quality of life of various groups (or "classes") of people. You don't have to know who Machiavelli, or John Locke, or Adam Smith, or Karl Marx, or Aristotle is, you don't have to read esoteric journals, and you don't have to know the history of every country. All of that can help, of course, but it's not necessary to seeing the truth and describing it accurately. It takes no greater level of intelligence than understanding sports.

This is a particularly good example in the US, because there are for more sports enthusiasts out there than even political hobbyists, and while perhaps most have a very detailed knowledge of the sport and can give vehement arguments about a team or a player, they're as equally removed from actual participation as political hobbyists like you and I (if that's a fair label). We don't run for anything or organize people in any way, and probably don't follow or contribute to an organization either. There was an excellent article in the Atlantic about this I'll link below. It opened my eyes even wider to how little influence all my thinking, reading, writing and talk about politics actually has on the state of affairs compared to concrete action, organization and collaboration with otherpeople in the real world.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/

About Elizabeth Warren... as great a candidate as she may indeed be... when would it become advantageous to the “progressive movement” (for lack of a better term) for her to clear the way for Sanders, and to unite forces? — 0 thru 9

March 4th is my guess: the day after Super Tuesday (unless, of course, she emerges with the most delegates, then Bernie should "clear the way" for her ...)

I think Warren has had a bit of bad luck in the sense of running alongside someone with similar ideology but also more experience and already existing, large base of supporters. That's one strike. Another strike is simply being a woman. As correct, intelligent, articulate, and confident as she is, I think there's a bias about both her looks and her delivery that works against her in much the same way it did for Hillary. I don't think that's fair, but I see it all around me and feel it in myself at times -- seems too calculated.

But the main reason is just getting less of a share of the progressive vote, and that's because of Sanders. For me, it's because he's been around longer and in that time has been far more consistent in his ideology and has been therefore consistently on the right side of history, even when the choices were extremely unpopular even within his own "party."

What statistics? What metric are you referring to here? Yearly salary or something, or are you saying that 75% of Americans don't have a partner and steady job? — Xtrix

I was talking about income there, as apparently the mean personal income (which I approximately make) falls at around the 75th percentile of personal incomes, i.e. 75% of people make less than that.

What's so essential about a house and a car? You don't need either to find someone to love, or to raise a family. — Xtrix

You need a home big enough for two people to live in if they're going to be a family, even if they're not planning on having kids (which we're not). We're scraping by because she lives with family on super-discounted rent and I own a tiny one-room mobile home in a shitty trailer park that's also rent-controlled; when either of us visits the other, we can at most bring a backpack full of stuff to the other's place, and even that just sits on the floor in the way and constantly needs to be moved to get about, so there's no way we could actually live together on a long-term basis unless one of us was just living out of a backpack indefinitely.

An apartment big enough for two would leave us scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck, not saving anything for the future, and so when we're too old to have paychecks to pay toward that rent anymore, would leave us out on the street. The interest alone on a mortgage on the cheapest available house in the area would be just as bad, never mind paying down the principle.

So we're waiting for ages and ages and ages until we have enough saved up to put a big enough down payment on a house that the interest on the mortgage would not eat up even more than our rent already does and so even-further delay finally not owing money just for the right to exist somewhere, which at our current rates of savings we might just barely manage by the time we're too old to work anymore.

That is why a house is essential.

And apparently 75% of people make even less money than me, so are even more screwed.


Anyway, I wasn't meaning originally to contradict your point, but to emphasize that things were even worse than you're already making them out to be, to double down on your original point.