SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

From her Facebook page today:

Senator Warren responded to a question on the Electoral College at an event by expressing her support for abolishing it in her first term, stating that she wants to be the last President elected by the Electoral College and that she wants to be elected to her second term by direct vote.

Honestly? This would probably make Warren my top choice of the major candidates by itself. While Bernie pushes a little further sometimes on economic reform, and has perhaps been more consistent on those points, nobody beats Warren for pushing for bold, substantive reform to the political and legal system (she was also at the forefront of supporting impeachment, and supports decriminalizing illegal immigration).

[Elheru Aran]

To narrow down the field so you have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Which again is something that wasn't planned on by the Founding Fathers, but it's now TRADITION that there can be only ONE Candidate per Party when the November election comes along.

I follow you, but has anyone ever decided "fuck the primaries, sort it at the convention?" Because having a building full of the party's people at one time should be a good time to pick the candidate.

The usual approach is to use the Convention as basically a show of unity to rally the party around whoever the nominee is. Actually fighting out the nomination on the convention floor could be messy and divisive- but given how many people are running this time, and the fact that the Dems don't have winner take all primaries (any candidate who gets over 15% in a state gets some delegates for that state), its quite possible.

Mind you, it has come down to that at some points; Ted Kennedy almost became the Democratic candidate in 197(6?) instead of Carter due to primary difficulties and a very close convention, IIRC. I wasn't around for that, of course, but I've read a bit about it. Rather an interesting situation.

Most of the time, the primaries do their job of winnowing out the also-rans and the third- and second-best candidates (according to the party's vision anyway). It's fairly rare that a race is so closely matched that you have more than one candidate who can claim the undivided support of the party at the convention, whether that's because the other candidates run out of money, lack visibility, or simply don't have enough popular appeal to pull in the votes.

[TimothyC]

Mind you, it has come down to that at some points; Ted Kennedy almost became the Democratic candidate in 197(6?) instead of Carter due to primary difficulties and a very close convention, IIRC. I wasn't around for that, of course, but I've read a bit about it. Rather an interesting situation.

You're thinking of the 1976 Republican Convention where going in, Pres. Ford had plurality of the delegates, but not the outright majority to win. Prior to the first ballot, Gov. Reagan announced that if nominated, he would select Sen. Schweiker as his running mate. Sen. Schweiker was from Pennsylvania, and was a part of the northeast liberal wing of the party. While Gov. Reagan had hoped this would swing enough moderates to his camp, it failed to do so, and resulted in some conservatives jumping ship and supporting Pres. Ford, who translated that swing into enough votes to win on the first round.

The 1980 Democratic Convention was the one where Sen. Kennedy challenged Pres. Carter, and secured less than 35% of the delegates vs. Pres. Carter's 60-some percent.

[Elheru Aran]

Mind you, it has come down to that at some points; Ted Kennedy almost became the Democratic candidate in 197(6?) instead of Carter due to primary difficulties and a very close convention, IIRC. I wasn't around for that, of course, but I've read a bit about it. Rather an interesting situation.

You're thinking of the 1976 Republican Convention where going in, Pres. Ford had plurality of the delegates, but not the outright majority to win. Prior to the first ballot, Gov. Reagan announced that if nominated, he would select Sen. Schweiker as his running mate. Sen. Schweiker was from Pennsylvania, and was a part of the northeast liberal wing of the party. While Gov. Reagan had hoped this would swing enough moderates to his camp, it failed to do so, and resulted in some conservatives jumping ship and supporting Pres. Ford, who translated that swing into enough votes to win on the first round.

The 1980 Democratic Convention was the one where Sen. Kennedy challenged Pres. Carter, and secured less than 35% of the delegates vs. Pres. Carter's 60-some percent.

Cheers for the clarification. It does illustrate the point that conventions can get, ah, interesting... but for the most part these are the exceptions. In the case of Kennedy vs Carter, Kennedy had enough votes during the primary to be able to contend the nomination, and did not concede until the convention was almost over. This is also notable in that Carter was the incumbent President, and it's very rare (nowadays) that incumbents get contested so hotly.

[Gandalf]

The usual approach is to use the Convention as basically a show of unity to rally the party around whoever the nominee is. Actually fighting out the nomination on the convention floor could be messy and divisive- but given how many people are running this time, and the fact that the Dems don't have winner take all primaries (any candidate who gets over 15% in a state gets some delegates for that state), its quite possible.

My thinking was that it would be like a leadership spill in Australia's system. The delegates (not bound by state) work out who the nominees are. There's a round of secret votes. If there's no majority, the lowest scoring nominee is out, and they go again. Repeat until someone achieves majority. Night one is the vote. Subsequent nights lay out the platform for the election.

Such a process would also have the benefit of encouraging participation in the party itself.

[FireNexus]

I have to be completely honest. The fact that anyone believes that Pete Buttigieg thinking he should be President isn’t something more and much worse than the confidence of anyone who runs for President is infuriating to me.

Has nobody learned from President Dunning Krueger? Petey won’t be insulting allies on twitter or watching cable news all day, but one of his biggest claims to fame is a heartfelt admission that he did the only job which counts as relevant qualification so wrong that someone died.

Seriously, the fact that he has no relevant experience means that his ability to determine his fitness for office is deeply compromised. You should assume that, given how DK works, he is almost certainly wrong that he would be good at the job.

[Coop D'etat]

I have to be completely honest. The fact that anyone believes that Pete Buttigieg thinking he should be President isn’t something more and much worse than the confidence of anyone who runs for President is infuriating to me.

Has nobody learned from President Dunning Krueger? Petey won’t be insulting allies on twitter or watching cable news all day, but one of his biggest claims to fame is a heartfelt admission that he did the only job which counts as relevant qualification so wrong that someone died.

Seriously, the fact that he has no relevant experience means that his ability to determine his fitness for office is deeply compromised. You should assume that, given how DK works, he is almost certainly wrong that he would be good at the job.

Its hardly any more of a character flaw than the no name congress critters that threw their names into the ring in longshot hopes of winning and reasonable odds of gaining national exposure and name recognition. When you get down to it, even United States Senator isn't a particularly great job have experience for the Presidency, Senators don't run much of anything. If governing experience was a requirement, its Biden, Islee and Bullock who should be the ones setting the standard, not Warren, Saunders, etc.

It seems to me that Buttigieg's flaw to his opponents is having the audacity to be sufficiently good enough at this to be a threat to their personal darlings in the race.

As it stands, it doesn't seem to me like he's in a strong position to win the race anyway. It very much remains Biden's to lose right now despite the antipathy the internet left has for that prospect. Neither Saunders nor Warren look to have the juice topple him and the rest of the field has failed to catch the imagination and assumptions that Biden would spontaneously implode of his own accord have blatantly failed to materialize.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have to be completely honest. The fact that anyone believes that Pete Buttigieg thinking he should be President isn’t something more and much worse than the confidence of anyone who runs for President is infuriating to me.

Has nobody learned from President Dunning Krueger? Petey won’t be insulting allies on twitter or watching cable news all day, but one of his biggest claims to fame is a heartfelt admission that he did the only job which counts as relevant qualification so wrong that someone died.

Seriously, the fact that he has no relevant experience means that his ability to determine his fitness for office is deeply compromised. You should assume that, given how DK works, he is almost certainly wrong that he would be good at the job.

While I don't particularly like Buttigieg (his use of Right-wing talking points to attack Warren on health care is shameful), I must point out that the highest office Abraham Lincoln ever held before becoming President was one-term Congressman from a (at the time) frontier state.

Anyway, Kamala Harris is out, apparently for financial reasons. I'm surprised it happened so soon, and I'm also pissed that she's out while fucking Gabbard is still in the race. It makes me absolutely sick that a fucking Russian asset is on the stage, using Democratic Party time and money to spout Trumpist and Kremlin propaganda, making them appear more mainstream, more bipartisan. And any time a serious Democrat drops out while that scumbag remains in, it makes her appear more like a serious, mainstream candidate.

[Darth Yan]

I have to be completely honest. The fact that anyone believes that Pete Buttigieg thinking he should be President isn’t something more and much worse than the confidence of anyone who runs for President is infuriating to me.

Has nobody learned from President Dunning Krueger? Petey won’t be insulting allies on twitter or watching cable news all day, but one of his biggest claims to fame is a heartfelt admission that he did the only job which counts as relevant qualification so wrong that someone died.

Seriously, the fact that he has no relevant experience means that his ability to determine his fitness for office is deeply compromised. You should assume that, given how DK works, he is almost certainly wrong that he would be good at the job.

Its hardly any more of a character flaw than the no name congress critters that threw their names into the ring in longshot hopes of winning and reasonable odds of gaining national exposure and name recognition. When you get down to it, even United States Senator isn't a particularly great job have experience for the Presidency, Senators don't run much of anything. If governing experience was a requirement, its Biden, Islee and Bullock who should be the ones setting the standard, not Warren, Saunders, etc.

It seems to me that Buttigieg's flaw to his opponents is having the audacity to be sufficiently good enough at this to be a threat to their personal darlings in the race.

As it stands, it doesn't seem to me like he's in a strong position to win the race anyway. It very much remains Biden's to lose right now despite the antipathy the internet left has for that prospect. Neither Saunders nor Warren look to have the juice topple him and the rest of the field has failed to catch the imagination and assumptions that Biden would spontaneously implode of his own accord have blatantly failed to materialize.

He's preparing to lose the primaries in Iowa. Biden's fucked

[Coop D'etat]

I have to be completely honest. The fact that anyone believes that Pete Buttigieg thinking he should be President isn’t something more and much worse than the confidence of anyone who runs for President is infuriating to me.

Has nobody learned from President Dunning Krueger? Petey won’t be insulting allies on twitter or watching cable news all day, but one of his biggest claims to fame is a heartfelt admission that he did the only job which counts as relevant qualification so wrong that someone died.

Seriously, the fact that he has no relevant experience means that his ability to determine his fitness for office is deeply compromised. You should assume that, given how DK works, he is almost certainly wrong that he would be good at the job.

Its hardly any more of a character flaw than the no name congress critters that threw their names into the ring in longshot hopes of winning and reasonable odds of gaining national exposure and name recognition. When you get down to it, even United States Senator isn't a particularly great job have experience for the Presidency, Senators don't run much of anything. If governing experience was a requirement, its Biden, Islee and Bullock who should be the ones setting the standard, not Warren, Saunders, etc.

It seems to me that Buttigieg's flaw to his opponents is having the audacity to be sufficiently good enough at this to be a threat to their personal darlings in the race.

As it stands, it doesn't seem to me like he's in a strong position to win the race anyway. It very much remains Biden's to lose right now despite the antipathy the internet left has for that prospect. Neither Saunders nor Warren look to have the juice topple him and the rest of the field has failed to catch the imagination and assumptions that Biden would spontaneously implode of his own accord have blatantly failed to materialize.

He's preparing to lose the primaries in Iowa. Biden's fucked

The polling front runner can easily survive not being in first in Iowa, particularly when he's projected to clean up in South Carolina soon after. Paricularly if he loses to Buttigieg, who isn't strong elsewhere.

Which goes to my broader point, people keep writing off Biden to fail and its just plain not happening so far. It pretty much amounts to wishful thinking at this point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Be funny if we see a situation where Buttigieg wins Iowa, Warren wins New Hampshire, Bernie wins Nevada, and Biden wins SC, and we go into Super Tuesday with no one having a clear lead.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who Harris's withdrawl helps overall:

https://businessinsider.com/kamala-harr ... ts-2019-12

Sen. Kamala Harris of California dropped out of the Democratic race, and as the most popular candidate by far to exit the race to date, this may have enormous consequences for the remaining candidates.

Though Harris' top-line numbers have been modest — the junior senator from the most populous state in the union is polling at about 5%, according to Morning Consult — she still has amassed a sizeable following.

Insider has been polling the 2020 primary since December 2018, focusing not on which single candidate a person would vote for if the election were held today but, rather, which of the candidates are seen as satisfactory to portions of the electorate. This lets us observe the overlaps and the trends in people vying for the same voters. You can download all polls down to the respondent-level data here.

Harris' exit will have more fallout than merely where the 5% of people who'd vote for her today will go. Here's who stands to gain.

Harris' supporters love Elizabeth Warren
We looked specifically at the seven polls we've conducted since the final week of September.

Of 2,981 respondents who said they were registered to vote and would likely participate in the Democratic primary, 67% were familiar with Harris, and of those, 41% would have been satisfied in the event she became the nominee. That's 829 respondents, and their preferences stand out compared with a typical Democrat.

A full 77% of respondents who said they'd be happy with a Harris win were also happy with an Elizabeth Warren win. That's 13 percentage points higher than Warren's performance overall. Warren has arguably been eating into Harris' base all autumn.

Among the other two candidates at the head of the pack, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, 64% of Harris fans in the polls were satisfied with a Biden nomination (10 percentage points higher than the former vice president's performance overall) and 58% were happy with Sanders (just 3 percentage points higher than his performance overall).

Looking at the other contenders, just one other candidate is worth remarking on: 46% of Harris fans in the polls liked Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, 12 percentage points higher than his performance overall. The two senators have a substantial overlap, and both have struggled to break into the top tier. For a candidate that's been struggling to capitalize on broad popularity, this could be Booker's best opportunity to seize a portion of the voter pool.

California is ridiculously important in the Democratic primary
California moved their primary up to Super Tuesday, making an important day in the primaries into a free-for-all where 35% of delegates to the Democratic National Convention are doled out in a single day.

California accounts for 10.8% of all the delegates that will decide the presidential nominee. It couldn't be any more important, and excellent performers in that state will not only reap a heaping pile of delegates to take to Wisconsin but also get slingshotted through the remainder of the primaries.

Super Tuesday, and California in particular, will be the last stand of many campaigns. And Harris is now a free agent.

Harris reaches constituencies that others may need desperately
We can also drill down on demographic crosstabs in Insider's polling to find out groups that Harris outperformed among. For other candidates courting endorsements, Harris is now arguably one of the top targets on the market based on a couple of key factors.

The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary is very consequential, and Harris polled particularly well among Democrats from New England (up 8.8 percentage points compared with her national performance).

She also did well among Democrats from the Pacific census region (up 5 percentage points), which naturally contains California.
Harris did disproportionately well among women, polling 8 percentage points better among women than among men. Women make up the majority of the Democratic electorate, and a number of candidates would love to shore up their numbers among women.

All this is to say that Harris' work in the 2020 presidential election is likely far from over. Though she struggled to lock supporters down — only about 4% of her supporters who responded in the polls liked her and her alone — she nevertheless was satisfactory to 41% of the Democratic electorate in the polls that was familiar with her.

In exiting, Harris went from the fifth or sixth most wanted contender to the No. 1-desired campaign surrogate and endorsement.

Long story short, this is a good night for Warren (who has been losing ground), and might help keep Cory Booker afloat just a little longer. Harris will likely be a hotly-sought-after endorsement.

Edit: For those still keeping count, there are currently fifteen people running for the Democratic nomination, although only four (at best) have much hope of winning. I've got Biden, Bernie, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Williamson, Yang, Gabbard, Bloomberg, Steyer, Patrick, Bennett (I think he's still in), but I'll be damned if I could tell you who the other three are.

Oh yeah, Klobuchar.

[Elheru Aran]

It's about time some Senators drop out so they can get to work in the Senate with a likely impeachment trial looming. Not that they'll necessarily make a difference with McConnell and the Republican majority, but nonetheless their profile has just been increased somewhat on a nationwide stage, so in theory they can push a little harder.

[Elfdart]

Anyway, Kamala Harris is out, apparently for financial reasons. I'm surprised it happened so soon, and I'm also pissed that she's out while fucking Gabbard is still in the race. It makes me absolutely sick that a fucking Russian asset [citation needed] is on the stage, using Democratic Party time and money to spout Trumpist and Kremlin propaganda, making them appear more mainstream, more bipartisan. And any time a serious Democrat drops out while that scumbag remains in, it makes her appear more like a serious, mainstream candidate.

If Gabbard really is a "fucking Russian asset" -meaning she's a paid agent for Russia- then why hasn't anyone notified the FBI, whose job it is to root out spies? Why hasn't anyone notified her superiors in the Army, since last time I checked, a member of the armed forces who is a paid agent of a foreign government could face court-martial? Why hasn't anyone filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee, since it's against the law as well as House rules to be in the hire of a foreign power while serving in Congress? Surely if Tulsi Gabbard is really a foreign agent, someone would have taken action against her, yet so far...

Crickets.

Until someone files a formal, credible complaint with law enforcement, the military or Congress, referring to Tusli Gabbard as a Russian "asset" is nothing more than fucktarded slander.

Kamala Harris is gone. She should thank her lucky stars this isn't feudal Japan. What with being financially staked by billionaires, being given tons of free publicity for her role in the Kavanaugh hearings AND overwhelmingly favorable media coverage, the fact that she went from being one of the front-runners to being an also-ran after Tulsi Gabbard dropped the elbow from the top rope on her would have been grounds for seppuku. I mean, Harris' only answer was to call Gabbard a Russian spy.


MSDNC even tried to tee up a chip-shot for Harris at Gabbard's expense by asking Tusli an idiotic question about Hillary, then asking Harris for a response. Needless to say, this backfired. Not only did Harris trot out the same McCarthyistic bullshit that got her nowhere the previous six weeks, but it reminded everyone that MSDNC is playing favorites and that Kamala Harris' campaign was the last refuge for Hillary Clinton's most pathetic holdouts -like those caves in the Philippines where a few hapless Japanese soldiers lurked for decades after the war ended.

Tulsi drew a little of Mayo Pete's blood by pointing out truthfully that he did in fact suggest sending US troops to Mexico. It would be hilarious if she kneecapped him like she did Harris.

[The Romulan Republic]

Anyway, Kamala Harris is out, apparently for financial reasons. I'm surprised it happened so soon, and I'm also pissed that she's out while fucking Gabbard is still in the race. It makes me absolutely sick that a fucking Russian asset [citation needed] is on the stage, using Democratic Party time and money to spout Trumpist and Kremlin propaganda, making them appear more mainstream, more bipartisan. And any time a serious Democrat drops out while that scumbag remains in, it makes her appear more like a serious, mainstream candidate.

If Gabbard really is a "fucking Russian asset" -meaning she's a paid agent for Russia- then why hasn't anyone notified the FBI, whose job it is to root out spies?

You and I both know that "asset" has multiple meanings, and that there is a colloquial one that does not require her to knowingly be on Russia's payroll. You ignore this, attempting to dictate the definition of what I am saying you can (falsely, more on that in a moment) accuse me of "slander".

Truth be told, though, I don't much care whether she is knowingly taking Russian money or simply a complete and utter tool. Either way, she is serving the interests of Neo-Fascism, and doing so knowingly. That's what matters.

Why hasn't anyone notified her superiors in the Army, since last time I checked, a member of the armed forces who is a paid agent of a foreign government could face court-martial? Why hasn't anyone filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee, since it's against the law as well as House rules to be in the hire of a foreign power while serving in Congress? Surely if Tulsi Gabbard is really a foreign agent, someone would have taken action against her, yet so far...

Crickets.

Until someone files a formal, credible complaint with law enforcement, the military or Congress, referring to Tusli Gabbard as a Russian "asset" is nothing more than fucktarded slander.

In point of fact, its not "slander", because a) defamation in print is called "libel", and b) its not defamation because I am using "asset" in the colloquial sense, and c) its not defamation for the same reason Gabbard suggesting that Clinton is rigging the primary (in 2019!) isn't- public figures are not protected from unproven statements under US defamation law (at least until Fuhrer Trump succeeds in changing those laws).

In fact, the only person committing defamation here is YOU, by falsely accusing me of slander.

Kamala Harris is gone. She should thank her lucky stars this isn't feudal Japan. What with being financially staked by billionaires, being given tons of free publicity for her role in the Kavanaugh hearings AND overwhelmingly favorable media coverage, the fact that she went from being one of the front-runners to being an also-ran after Tulsi Gabbard dropped the elbow from the top rope on her would have been grounds for seppuku. I mean, Harris' only answer was to call Gabbard a Russian spy.

Spare me your sick death fantasies about candidates you don't like.

Giving Tulsi Gabbard the credit for Harris's dropping out is simply delusional- nearly as delusional as Gabbard's claim that the primary was a race between her and Hillary Clinton (implying that every single other candidate, including Bernie Sanders, is a Hillary operative).

MSDNC even tried to tee up a chip-shot for Harris at Gabbard's expense by asking Tusli an idiotic question about Hillary, then asking Harris for a response. Needless to say, this backfired.

Blah blah, "fake news media rigged primary", blah blah blah.

Not only did Harris trot out the same McCarthyistic bullshit that got her nowhere the previous six weeks, but it reminded everyone that MSDNC is playing favorites and that Kamala Harris' campaign was the last refuge for Hillary Clinton's most pathetic holdouts -like those caves in the Philippines where a few hapless Japanese soldiers lurked for decades after the war ended.

Oh, right, I forgot that anyone who criticizes Dear Leader Putin or his apologists is a "McCarthyist". A nice little libel to stamp on anyone who's view isn't "West bad, Putin anti-West, therefore Putin good."

Tulsi drew a little of Mayo Pete's blood by pointing out truthfully that he did in fact suggest sending US troops to Mexico. It would be hilarious if she kneecapped him like she did Harris.

Yeah, keep cheerleading for the a homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic conspiracy theorist and apologist for war crimes. Gabbard is effectively a Trumper, she's blatantly there for the sole purpose of disrupting the primary and splitting the Democratic vote as much as possible going into the general, and by cheerleading for her, you are simply proving that, like so many faux Leftists these days, you have no real ideology, but care only about spiting a nebulously-defined "Democratic establishment", even if it means crawling into bed with literal fascists and war criminals.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just have zero patience left for "Leftists" who think that the biggest priority is attacking Democrats, and are ready to carry water for fascists to do it. Tulsi Gabbard is almost everything I loath in modern politics. As in, I honest to God might think about staying home on election day if she were somehow the nominee. Not because she's "anti-establishment" or "too far Left" (she's not a real Leftist at all)- I'd vote for Bernie or (if she were running in my district) AOC in a heartbeat. But because she is an unprincipled bigot, conspiracy theorist, and panderer to Trumpism, a darling of Fox and RT, who is blatantly trying to undermine the Democratic Party against Trump, and I will not be fooled into thinking that she's on my side just because she says a few anti-intervention and anti-Hillary buzzwords.

I made the mistake of thinking well of Gabbard once, when all I knew about her was her basic resume and the fact that she supported Bernie. Then I found out she cozzied up to Trump and liked shitting on immigrants and refugees and Muslims. When I learned that, I had a choice: to stand by my principles, or to be like the Republicans and make excuses for a vile person because they were on "my team". I made my choice. I don't regret it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

TRR, are you trolling, or just being dishonest?

We already had a long discussion about your use of the phrase "Russian asset" (I don't recall at this point if it was in this thread or in a different N&P thread), so it's not like you don't know what you are doing. You are KNOWINGLY using a phrase ("Russian asset") that has a very specific technical definition (of which you are obviously aware based on the previous discussion), appealing to the vagaries of words having multiple meanings to avoid taking any responsibility for it. It doesn't matter that "asset" has a more colloquial definition; by using it in this context, you are INTENTIONALLY introducing ambiguity, rather than being clear about what you are actually stating. This is seriously one of the most basic dishonest debating tactics there is.

It was one thing when it happened the first time. There you have the benefit of the doubt in not realizing the technical definition of the phrase. But at this point you know about that, which means you are being intentionally dishonest. If you weren't being dishonest, you would have learned from the previous discussion and employed a different phrase that avoids the ambiguity (which isn't difficult to do, there are dozens of synonyms you could use for the colloquial definition that do not share such explicit technical meanings). Either you are re-using the Russian asset phrase SPECIFICALLY to troll the people who called you out on it last time, OR you are being intentionally dishonest by using a phrase you KNOW has multiple definitions.

This just simply isn't the way an honest person engages in a discussion in good faith, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR, are you trolling, or just being dishonest?

We already had a long discussion about your use of the phrase "Russian asset" (I don't recall at this point if it was in this thread or in a different N&P thread), so it's not like you don't know what you are doing. You are KNOWINGLY using a phrase ("Russian asset") that has a very specific technical definition (of which you are obviously aware based on the previous discussion), appealing to the vagaries of words having multiple meanings to avoid taking any responsibility for it. It doesn't matter that "asset" has a more colloquial definition; by using it in this context, you are INTENTIONALLY introducing ambiguity, rather than being clear about what you are actually stating. This is seriously one of the most basic dishonest debating tactics there is.

It was one thing when it happened the first time. There you have the benefit of the doubt in not realizing the technical definition of the phrase. But at this point you know about that, which means you are being intentionally dishonest. If you weren't being dishonest, you would have learned from the previous discussion and employed a different phrase that avoids the ambiguity (which isn't difficult to do, there are dozens of synonyms you could use for the colloquial definition that do not share such explicit technical meanings). Either you are re-using the Russian asset phrase SPECIFICALLY to troll the people who called you out on it last time, OR you are being intentionally dishonest by using a phrase you KNOW has multiple definitions.

This just simply isn't the way an honest person engages in a discussion in good faith, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Using a phrase that has multiple meanings, while making it clear which of those meanings you are using, is dishonest/trolling? Okay, I guess this board will have to ban anyone who uses a synonym now, too.

If a phrase has multiple meanings, you cannot simply ignore which one I am using and then accuse me of dishonesty and trolling. I made it very damn clear in my last post what I meant, and you are simply ignoring that so you can ASSIGN me the meaning and motive that allows you to accuse me of dishonesty.

I'll also note that you completely disregarded every point I made about how Gabbard's conduct is deplorable and destructive regardless, and about how Elfdart is engaging in blatant dishonesty toward me. THAT is dishonest debating.

But yeah, keep defending a xenophobic crypto-Trumpist piece of shit because she says the right buzzwords or because I happen to be the one criticizing her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Leaving aside the Gabbard bullshit, here's a summary of where the polls currently stand for the races:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ay-states/

You’ve heard how South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is coming on strong in Iowa. You’ve heard how New Hampshire is a free-for-all. And you’ve heard about former Vice President Joe Biden’s firewall in Nevada and especially South Carolina.

But the Democratic primary won’t end after those four states, especially if no clear winner emerges from them. That means the 16 states and territories1 that vote on March 3 — Super Tuesday — could be critical to Democrats’ selection of a nominee; together they are estimated to be worth more than a third of Democrats’ pledged delegates.

Despite these places’ importance, though, there’s been relatively little coverage of which candidates might have an advantage there. Of course, plenty will probably change between now and Super Tuesday. In addition to the normal fluctuations in the horse race, the results in the first four states will likely winnow the field, too. But I still think it’s worthwhile checking in on the polling in some important March states to see what the race looks like now.2
Appropriately given its outsized number of delegates, California has been one of the most frequently polled states over the past two months:

Anyone’s race in California
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 21-27 UC Berkeley 14% 22% 24% 12%
Nov. 20-22 SurveyUSA 28 13 18 8
Nov. 3-12 PPIC 24 23 17 7
Nov. 1-13 Capitol Weekly 18 27 21 14
Oct. 15-18 Change Research 19 28 24 9
Oct. 15-16 SurveyUSA 33 18 17 4
Oct. 1-15 Capitol Weekly 21 35 15 6
Average 22 24 19 9
SOURCE: POLLS

And the polls there have shown some stark disagreements: Some have given Biden a solid lead, while others find a decisive edge for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and the most recent found Sen. Bernie Sanders in a virtual tie for first. A simple polling average shows Warren at 24 percent, Biden at 22 percent and Sanders at 19 percent. If those are their final percentages in California, the state’s huge trove of 416 delegates (the most of any one primary or caucus) would be split three ways. But, again, it’s still early.

Notably, Buttigieg is only averaging 9 percent in California, which is another reason to believe, at least at this stage, that he might have trouble building on potential strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. And it’s not in the table, but home-state Sen. Kamala Harris averaged 8 percent across these seven polls before she dropped out, so whoever picks up her support in the Golden State could alter the shape of the race, too.

Texas has the second-biggest delegate haul (228) of both Super Tuesday and the entire primary calendar, but unlike California, signs point to a front-runner: Biden (although, with only two polls conducted in the state in the last two months, we don’t have the clearest picture of the race there).

Biden is ahead in Texas
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 5-14 UT Tyler 28% 19% 18% 8%
Oct. 18-27 YouGov 23 18 12 6
Average 26 19 15 7
SOURCE: POLLS

After all, only the most recent poll — from the University of Texas at Tyler — was conducted after former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a native son of Texas, exited the race. And he got 14 percent in that YouGov poll, so a fair number of voters may still be up for grabs in the Lone Star State.

Continuing down the line, the third-most important Super Tuesday state in terms of delegates is North Carolina with 110.

Biden is strong in North Carolina, too
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 10-13 Fox News 37% 15% 14% 6%
Nov. 1-7 High Point 33 13 18 4
Oct. 13-26 Siena/NYT Upshot 29 15 13 1
Oct. 2-9 East Carolina 29 17 19 4
Oct. 4-6 PPP 39 22 6 9
Average 33 16 14 5
SOURCE: POLLS

We’ve gotten several polls in the Tar Heel State in the last two months, with all five indicating that Biden has a healthy lead. This should come as no surprise in a state that, like South Carolina, has a large base of black voters. In 2016, the Democratic primary electorate was 38 percent nonwhite.

But beyond those three delegate-rich states, we don’t have a lot of recent Super Tuesday polling. In Virginia (99 delegates), the most recent poll was conducted almost three months ago. And while it showed Biden with a comfortable lead, demographically the state is also fertile ground for Warren or Buttigieg, given that college-educated whites constituted almost half of its 2016 Democratic primary electorate. Indeed, Massachusetts, Super Tuesday’s fifth-biggest prize with 91 delegates, has an even higher share of college-educated white voters, and Warren led there by 15 points in the most recent poll from mid-October. But of course, Massachusetts is also Warren’s home state, which could be a factor here as well. That said, she also took 25 percent and first place in the most recent poll of Minnesota (75 delegates), in which home-state Sen. Amy Klobuchar also received a respectable 15 percent.

Beyond that, Super Tuesday is a black box. There hasn’t been a survey of Colorado (67 delegates) since August. Tennessee (64 delegates), Alabama (52 delegates) and Oklahoma (37 delegates) haven’t been polled since July, although demographically the first two at least should be good fits for Biden. Meanwhile, Arkansas (31 delegates) and Utah (29 delegates) haven’t seen any polls.

October did bring us two surveys of Maine, but they disagreed as to whether Biden or Warren was leading, but considering only 24 delegates are at stake, it probably won’t be what makes or breaks Super Tuesday for a candidate. Same with Vermont (16 delegates), Democrats Abroad (13 delegates) and American Samoa (six delegates), where there are also zero polls — although we can probably be pretty confident that Sanders will win his home state. (He has a 65 percent approval rating there and won 86 percent there in the 2016 primary.)

In summary, it looks like Biden and to a lesser extent Warren would start out with the advantage on Super Tuesday. Biden leads in two of the three biggest states (Texas and North Carolina), plus probably multiple Southern states (Tennessee, Alabama, maybe Virginia and Arkansas). Warren likely leads in two mid-size states (Massachusetts and Minnesota) but also figures to amass a significant delegate haul from California, which currently looks like a jump ball. And while we can only say with confidence that Sanders is favored to win one state, he definitely has a chance to pick up plenty of delegates by finishing a respectable second or third in many other places.

The further out you go on the calendar, there’s even more good news for Biden. One week after Super Tuesday, Michigan (125 delegates) will be the big prize, and Biden leads in an average of the three polls taken there in the last two months3:

Biden has a small lead in Michigan
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Oct. 31-Nov. 3 Emerson 34% 19% 28% 8%
Oct. 13-25 Siena/NYT Upshot 30 21 17 3
Sept. 23-Oct. 15 Kaiser Family Foundation 19 25 15 7
Average 28 22 20 6
SOURCE: POLLS

Beyond that, Biden is also ahead — for now — in Florida (219 delegates), Illinois (155 delegates), Ohio (136 delegates) and Arizona (67 delegates) for the March 17 primaries:

Biden is poised to dominate the March 17 primaries
Polling in Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Arizona for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

Florida
DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Oct. 13-26 Siena/NYT Upshot 27% 19% 13% 5%
Average 27 19 13 5
Illinois
DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 22-25 Victory Research 23% 17% 15% 16%
Average 23 17 15 16
Ohio
DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Oct. 1-7 Climate Nexus 32% 21% 13% 5%
Sept. 29-Oct. 2 Emerson 29 21 27 5
Average 31 21 20 5
Arizona
DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Oct. 31-Nov. 8 OH Predictive Insights 29% 18% 16% 9%
Oct. 25-28 Emerson 28 21 21 12
Oct. 13-25 Siena/NYT Upshot 24 15 16 5
Average 27 18 18 9
SOURCE: POLLS

Then, on March 24, Georgia (105 delegates) will vote, and Biden currently has a commanding lead there, too:

Biden has a large lead in Georgia
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 15-18 SurveyUSA 36% 14% 17% 7%
Nov. 4-10 Climate Nexus 31 14 14 4
Average 34 14 16 6
SOURCE: POLLS

As for the states that will vote in April or later, most of them have seen no recent polling — and arguably, this is pretty justifiable, since the race is so unpredictable that deep into the calendar. It’s quite possible Biden or another candidate will have sewn up the nomination by this point anyway. But if not, look for a few states to be the differentiators. For example, Wisconsin (77 delegates) is set to vote on April 7, and recent polls show a very unsettled race there:

A nail-biter in Wisconsin
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Nov. 13-17 Marquette 30% 15% 17% 13%
Oct. 13-26 Siena/NYT Upshot 23 25 20 5
Oct. 13-17 Marquette 31 24 17 7
Sept. 23-Oct. 15 Kaiser Family Foundation 17 22 10 6
Sept. 29-Oct. 2 Change Research 11 34 25 6
Sept. 29-Oct. 2 Fox News 28 22 17 7
Average 23 24 18 7
SOURCE: POLLS

The last big delegate haul of the primary will be on April 28, when New York (224 delegates) and Pennsylvania (153 delegates) go to the polls, and if trends hold steady, this day could be a shot in the arm for Biden: He had a 10-point lead over Warren in New York per a Siena College poll from mid-November, and he has an 11-point lead over her in an average of Pennsylvania polls conducted entirely or in part since Oct. 1:

Biden ahead in Pennsylvania
Polling for the four leading Democratic presidential candidates, in public polls conducted since Oct. 1

DATES POLLSTER BIDEN WARREN SANDERS BUTTIGIEG
Oct. 21-27 Franklin & Marshall 30% 18% 12% 8%
Oct. 13-25 Siena/NYT Upshot 28 16 14 4
Sept. 23-Oct. 15 Kaiser Family Foundation 27 18 14 3
Sept. 30-Oct. 6 Susquehanna 17 9 6 8
Average 26 15 12 6
SOURCE: POLLS

Of course, by this point in the race, I’d be surprised if there are more than two candidates left standing, so there may be a chance for, say, Warren to consolidate anti-Biden support and win these states, too. Like a real-life choose-your-own-adventure book, the primary could still unfold along hundreds of paths. But it’s also important to remember there are several massive states still to vote after Iowa (41 delegates), New Hampshire (24 delegates), Nevada (36 delegates) and South Carolina (54 delegates) — and right now, Biden has far more delegates waiting for him in those states than any candidate is likely to amass in February.

Summary: Biden looks to have the edge overall, though its by no means assured. State by state:

Iowa: Buttigieg leading.

New Hampshire: Up for grabs.

Nevada: Biden lead.

South Carolina: Big Biden lead.

Super Tuesday:

California: Close. Depending on the poll, it could be a strong Biden lead, strong Warren lead, or close race with Sanders.

Texas: Biden leads.

NC: Biden leads.

Virginia: Biden leads, but could be an opening for Warren or Buttigieg.

Massachusetts: Warren lead, naturally.

Minnesota: Warren doing well, but Klobuchar isn't doing badly either, though I suspect she'll be out of the running by then.

Colorado, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Utah, Maine, Vermont, Democrats Abroad, American Samoa: Insufficient information, though Maine looks to be either Biden or Warren and Vermont is presumed Sanders.

Of course, the outcome of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and SC might change Super Tuesday somewhat due to momentum/electability. Past that, its probably too early to say, in my opinion.

Edit: Honestly, it looks like the overall picture hasn't changed much: Biden is still favored, Warren is the next strongest, though a Buttigieg upset in Iowa or a Sanders win in California might shake things up.

[His Divine Shadow]

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1 ... 3877547014

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/ ... 9906950144
The new Real Clear Politics poll shows 57% of Americans support a Medicare for All program "that will eliminate all private health insurance companies." That's a jump of 2 points since May.

New poll: https://realclearpolitics.com/docs/EWTN_Topline.pdf

May poll: https://realclearpolitics.com/docs/RCOR ... thcare.pdf

[FaxModem1]

So, when saying Biden leads, we should be saying Biden leads by a hair, and if enough effort is made, he loses his lead.

[His Divine Shadow]

Biden probably has a lot of lead in his brain.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, when saying Biden leads, we should be saying Biden leads by a hair, and if enough effort is made, he loses his lead.

A lot of Biden's support is him coasting on name recognition and people thinking he's electable (because he looks like a traditional President, ie he's an old straight Christian Centrist white man, though nobody wants to say it that bluntly).

If he does finish last of the big four in Iowa and New Hampshire, as polling has recently suggested he might, expect to see a good chunk of that support evaporate as he loses his image of being a safe bet.

Its still well within the realm of plausibility that any of the big four (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg) could take it (though Buttigieg has the longest odds in my opinion, as early strength in Iowa and New Hampshire will peter out if he can't start doing WAY better with the black vote).

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump campaign releases video of Trump as Thanos, saying "I am inevitable", before snapping his fingers, followed by various Democratic leaders disappearing (more Republican murder fantasies about their political opponents/incitement of violence):

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2019/de ... rvel-video

Donald Trump is a genocidal warlord hell bent on destroying half of existence in the universe. That’s not a criticism from the unhinged leftwing media, it’s apparently how the president and his team see him.

Shortly after the House brought two articles of impeachment against the president for his efforts seeking foreign interference to bolster his own political interests, the official Trump War Room re-election campaign Twitter account posted a video to social media that superimposed his face over that of the villainous Marvel comic book character Thanos.

In the scene from the movie Avengers: Endgame, Thanos snaps his fingers, attempting to destroy the diverse array of heroes from throughout the universe who’ve teamed up to defeat him. I am inevitable Trump/Thanos says.


Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022)
(@TrumpWarRoom)
House Democrats can push their sham impeachment all they want.

President Trump's re-election is 𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲. pic.twitter.com/O7o02S26nS

December 10, 2019
“House Democrats can push their sham impeachment all they want,” the team tweeted. “President Trump’s re-election is inevitable.”

The video then cuts to footage of Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler who magically vanish much like in the movie. Not the movie in question, mind you, the previous one, but these low-effort trolling operations from Trump’s social media team tend not to be heavy on consistency or logic.

Marvel Universe timeline discrepancies aside, the choice of this moment from the film was a strange one, as it’s seconds before Thanos realizes he’s about to be defeated.

Among the chorus of critics to point out the many other flaws at work in the analogy here was Jim Starlin, the artist who created the character of Thanos in the 1970s.

“After my initial feeling of being violated, seeing that pompous dang fool using my creation to stroke his infantile ego, it finally struck me that the leader of my country and the free world actually enjoys comparing himself to a mass murderer,” Starlin posted to Instagram.

“How sick is that? These are sad and strange times we are going through. Fortunately all things, even national nightmares, eventually come to an end.”

Previous efforts to insert Trump into iconic pop culture moments have had similarly muddled messaging. A clip using scenes from the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises was taken down after a copyright claim from Warner Bros.


Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)
pic.twitter.com/iSFAokoIP7

January 6, 2019

In a post in January of this year he evoked themes from Game of Thrones to suggest his wall along the southern border is coming soon. In that series the wall is destroyed.

Jim Starlin's response was pretty much perfect.

[His Divine Shadow]

Nah the perfect response is Bernie as Iron Man wiping ThanoTrumpos from existence.