US Presidential Election 2020

circadian

$5 billion website?!

Itssoeasy

I was listening to MSNBC last night and there was a hint that there was a delay but fell asleep and when I woke up it was like jesus Christ they had nearly four years to get this right and they did the political equivalent of a horse getting stuck in the stall.

everlast75

This - precisely this and nothing else.


https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1224541955503292418?s=20

Tchaikovsky

RobertKK wrote: »

True, Trump won Iowa last night, 97.1%.

When he was the only candidate on the ballot

Manic Moran

circadian wrote: »

$5 billion website?!

Although it required my checking it, due to my cynicism over the government contracting mechanisms (the process to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse probably costs more than the waste or fraud would cost), you will not be surprised to hear that this cost is wildly exaggerated.

It actually cost between $1.7bn and $2.1bn depending on which estimate you use, and it did not work upon launch. (Courtesy of Snopes)

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although it required my checking it, due to Trump never, ever citing any figure and getting it correct, you will not be surprised to hear that this cost is wildly exaggerated.

It actually cost between $1.7bn and $2.1bn depending on which estimate you use, and it did not work upon launch. (Courtesy of Snopes)

Fixed your post

FreeThePants

While we are waiting on the results of last night's clusterf***, one thing is clear: Joe Biden did very, very badly.

It looks to be between Sanders and Buttigieg, the latter of whom is a mayor in Iowa who has spent all his toem and money campaigning there (my guess is to gain momentum and possibly a vp pick since he's so much younger than the other three front runners). However Warrens team also think she is top 3 based on internal numbers, and Klobuchar has been making noise that suggests she might be confident about getting fourth.

Bidens whole campaign has been built on him being "electable", and someone to bring the party (and both parties) together. We know the latter is nonsense because the GOP won't work with anyone, no matter what. Then in terms of just the Dems, we have seen Biden being divisive and aggressive towards people supporting other candidates, telling them he doesn't care about their opinions and to "go vote for someone else then". If he loses big in Iowa it might be game over very quickly, since Sanders surely has new Hampshire sewn up. He only entered when he was sure it was going to be a free walk almost to the nomination, and already its on the cusp of going completely tits up.

LuckyLloyd

It’s Bernie, it was always Bernie. It’s time for the Democratic Party to get behind the candidate their activists want. Particularly when he can leverage Bloomberg’s infrastructure and funding.

Or they can **** around and let Trump appoint judges for another four years. Up to them.

sid waddell

FreeThePants wrote: »

While we are waiting on the results of last night's clusterf***, one thing is clear: Joe Biden did very, very badly.

It looks to be between Sanders and Buttigieg, the latter of whom is a mayor in Iowa who has spent all his toem and money campaigning there (my guess is to gain momentum and possibly a vp pick since he's so much younger than the other three front runners). However Warrens team also think she is top 3 based on internal numbers, and Klobuchar has been making noise that suggests she might be confident about getting fourth.

Bidens whole campaign has been built on him being "electable", and someone to bring the party (and both parties) together. We know the latter is nonsense because the GOP won't work with anyone, no matter what. Then in terms of just the Dems, we have seen Biden being divisive and aggressive towards people supporting other candidates, telling them he doesn't care about their opinions and to "go vote for someone else then". If he loses big in Iowa it might be game over very quickly, since Sanders surely has new Hampshire sewn up. He only entered when he was sure it was going to be a free walk almost to the nomination, and already its on the cusp of going completely tits up.

Biden has never been "electable". He has a whole closet full of skeletons and continually lied about his involvement in civil rights protests.

Buttigieg is a non-entity. He's what happens when somebody watches West Wing box sets and decides that's what politics is. His tweets are hilarious in their vapidity. He's an empty suit, stands for nothing and will poll disastrously with African-Americans. All that is precisely why the DNC love him.

I wonder will focus come back to Warren now as the challenger to Sanders because both Biden and Buttigieg are just so problematic in different ways.

Sanders and Warren are actually the two "electable" candidates.

x43r0

FreeThePants wrote: »

It looks to be between Sanders and Buttigieg, the latter of whom is a mayor in Iowa

Indiana

everlast75

sid waddell wrote: »

Biden has never been "electable". He has a whole closet full of skeletons and continually lied about his involvement in civil rights protests.

Buttigieg is a non-entity. He's what happens when somebody watches West Wing box sets and decides that's what politics is. His tweets are hilarious in their vapidity. He's an empty suit, stands for nothing and will poll disastrously with African-Americans. All that is precisely why the DNC love him.

I wonder will focus come back to Warren now as the challenger to Sanders because both Biden and Buttigieg are just so problematic in different ways.

Sanders and Warren are actually the two "electable" candidates.

I'd say Warren is more electable than Sanders. If I had a vote, that's where mine would be going

Itssoeasy

sid waddell wrote: »

Biden has never been "electable". He has a whole closet full of skeletons and continually lied about his involvement in civil rights protests.

Buttigieg is a non-entity. He's what happens when somebody watches West Wing box sets and decides that's what politics is. His tweets are hilarious in their vapidity. He's an empty suit, stands for nothing and will poll disastrously with African-Americans. All that is precisely why the DNC love him.

I wonder will focus come back to Warren now as the challenger to Sanders because both Biden and Buttigieg are just so problematic in different ways.

Sanders and Warren are actually the two "electable" candidates.

If the democratic voters engage in a political purity test then they will not win in November. It's who should be the best placed to beat Trump in November. Biden and Buttigieg do have issues but compared the to the human mess in the White house, either of them(or in fact any of the Democratic candidates) should beat Trump in the competency stacks.

sid waddell

Itssoeasy wrote: »

If the democratic voters engage in a political purity test then they will not win in November. It's who should be the best placed to beat Trump in November. Biden and Buttigieg do have issues but compared the to the human mess in the White house, either of them(or in fact any of the Democratic candidates) should beat Trump in the competency stacks.

They are obviously much better than Trump but their problematic nature lies not just in their politics but in their electability. They will not motivate people to come out.

eire4

FreeThePants wrote: »

While we are waiting on the results of last night's clusterf***, one thing is clear: Joe Biden did very, very badly.

It looks to be between Sanders and Buttigieg, the latter of whom is a mayor in Iowa who has spent all his toem and money campaigning there (my guess is to gain momentum and possibly a vp pick since he's so much younger than the other three front runners). However Warrens team also think she is top 3 based on internal numbers, and Klobuchar has been making noise that suggests she might be confident about getting fourth.

Bidens whole campaign has been built on him being "electable", and someone to bring the party (and both parties) together. We know the latter is nonsense because the GOP won't work with anyone, no matter what. Then in terms of just the Dems, we have seen Biden being divisive and aggressive towards people supporting other candidates, telling them he doesn't care about their opinions and to "go vote for someone else then". If he loses big in Iowa it might be game over very quickly, since Sanders surely has new Hampshire sewn up. He only entered when he was sure it was going to be a free walk almost to the nomination, and already its on the cusp of going completely tits up.

Buttigieg is actually mayor of a town in Indiana South Bend. Think your right about Biden though when the results do come out I think Biden will be 4th or maybe even 5th which would be an utter disaster for him and the rest of the Corporate Democrats who wanted him anointed just like they did with Clinton last time out. The nonsense that Biden is the most "electable" is utterly risible coming from the same people who said the same about Clinton.

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

They are obviously much better than Trump but their problematic nature lies not just in their politics but in their electability. They will not motivate people to come out.

That is a very valid point. Top be fair as bad as Clinton was last time she still lost too because to put it mildly she did not motivate people to come out and vote for her. The level of hubris and arrogance in the Corporate run Democratic party knows no bounds though as they clearly want another Corporate Democrat who will not motivate turnout in Biden to be their nominee. The corporate Democrats message for years has been you have to vote for us because look at the alternative and how much worse that is. The whole lesser of 2 evils pitch. The only change they offer now is being more specific saying who can beat the current president but it is still the same pitch you have to vote for our guy because look at how bad the other guy is. This strategy has steadily seen them loose power at state and local level over large swaths of the US and seen election turnouts continue to be pathetic and embarrassing for a country that claims to be a democracy as over 40% over Americans just don't bother to vote any more given not just how corrupt and broken the system is but most importantly how neither of the 2 parties who hold a duopoly on power govern in a manner that is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

NSAman

everlast75 wrote: »

I'd say Warren is more electable than Sanders. If I had a vote, that's where mine would be going

Not so sure about that.

Warren is damaged goods to a lot of Dems here. The Indian Background crap she pulled, a lot of people do not trust her. (saying this as someone who lives close to Iowa..lol)

Bernie is not liked by Democrat HQ (so to speak), personally I think he is one of the few who could go all the way, but HQ don't want him... Hilly certainly doesn't like him... He is also damaged goods after last Election and aligning himself with AOC might be too far left for many.

Of the two, Bernie comes across better. But he doesn't have the woman identity political breasts for HQ.....

The fact that the Dems still haven't got the results is just a joke for the party at this stage. Talking to a few people here this morning, they (and they are democrats) think its a riggin'...;)

FreeThePants

Good spot on the Buttigieg correction re Iowa/Idaho. I had not read or heard which it was in some time, must ha e got myself confused when I heard how concentrated I to Iowa his campaign was.

Water John

Interesting that Buttigeig part owns the co that designed the malfunctioning app.
The State Chair refused to divulge various details to the DNC.
I am not too big on conspiracy theories but no comfortable with what has gone on. It is intended to release voting numbers, as Sanders had insisted on it, following 2016.

eire4

NSAman wrote: »

Not so sure about that.

Warren is damaged goods to a lot of Dems here. The Indian Background crap she pulled, a lot of people do not trust her. (saying this as someone who lives close to Iowa..lol)

Bernie is not liked by Democrat HQ (so to speak), personally I think he is one of the few who could go all the way, but HQ don't want him... Hilly certainly doesn't like him... He is also damaged goods after last Election and aligning himself with AOC might be too far left for many.

Of the two, Bernie comes across better. But he doesn't have the woman identity political breasts for HQ.....

The fact that the Dems still haven't got the results is just a joke for the party at this stage. Talking to a few people here this morning, they (and they are democrats) think its a riggin'...;)

I am going to disagree in the sense that nobody really knows who is more "electable". What is a fact is that the hubris and arrogance of the corporate democrats gave them Clinton last time and we know how that ended. Now the corporate democrats wanted to foist Biden on the electorate. More of the same in terms of the lesser of two evils pitch from the corporate democrats. What they have shown no interest in is in actually pushing a candidate who will work in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans like Warren or Sanders. The idea that the Indian background thing is so big that it would knock out Warren I just do not buy that. Totally agree with you about Sanders and the Corporate Democrat HQ. In fact I would say they despise him and will do anything to stop him. As for him being damaged goods cannot agree there. The Democrats IMHO need to go back towards an FDR like mindset to governance and Sanders and Warren are the closest they have to that. However as long as the Corporate Democrats control that party they will continue to do everything in their power to stop anybody getting into power who will govern in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans. The US system is so corrupted and broken I doubt Sanders has a chance as even the party who's nomination he is trying to get hate him and want to stop him. Having said that the idea he is to far to the left for the US electorate well maybe but then again maybe not as nobody really knows as the Democratic party abandoned governing in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans a long time ago. Maybe if they actually got behind the kinds of policies Sanders and Warren advocate they might actually attract some of that over 40% of Americans who do not vote to show up and vote because one things is for sure continuing along the status quo of pushing corporate Democrats on the US electorate is sure to achieve one thing and that is the total corruption and broken nature of the US government will continue and government will continue to be for the rich and by the rich in the US to the direct exclusion of the vast majority of Americans best interests a la the dictates of Friedman whom they all seem so in love with over there.

First primary and already the conspiracy theories are flying.. Sanders' team had photos of results that didn't match what the DNC app was receiving. The app was developed by senior Clinton campaign aides. Buttgieg being involved with it through family or something. Him prematurely tweeting "Tonight, Iowa chose a new path.".

I've no idea if any of it's true. It's just an impressive farce on day one.

eire4

FreeThePants wrote: »

Good spot on the Buttigieg correction re Iowa/Idaho. I had not read or heard which it was in some time, must ha e got myself confused when I heard how concentrated I to Iowa his campaign was.

Totally understandable. We have all done stuff like that before.

The news that Buttigieg is part owner of the company of the app that failed yesterday that really is disturbing news I have to say if true in terms of the integrity of this process.

briany

I've heard it said that the top brass of the Democrats would prefer 4 more years of Trump to Sanders. Sanders' supporters have their work cut out.

Personally, I think Sanders probably could command a lot of support in the Democratic voter base, but statistics seem to show again and again that his policies appeal more to younger people, and younger people just don't vote in numbers. So Sanders has the compound problem of battling the insiders of his own party, and whipping his support into shape. Pretty much where he was in 2016 except that the Democratic Party's 'chosen one' this time around makes Hillary look like a rock star by comparison.

I'm not entirely sure the Dems wouldn't just run Hillary again, like they have her swan into the convention on a palanquin, and her campaign slogan will be "3rd time's a charm!".

Red for Danger

If its not a fair fight, and the eventual winner gets there with dirty tricks, not a hope of getting thier supporters out in the general, any underhand behaviour is just handing it to trump

sid waddell

I didn't and still don't buy into the narrative that Sanders had the primaries or the process "rigged" against him in 2016 (I think Clinton won fair and square) but something definitely feels off here.

The caucus system itself is obviously a farce and needs to be abolished in favour of actual paper ballots (which are needed everywhere in the US), but in previous years it has still produced results fairly quickly.

Even if Sanders was to still be announced as the winner, the focus has been taken off his victory and the narrative is one of farce.

Sanders was always going to come up a bit short in 2016 so the corporate Democrats didn't have to do anything to deny him the nomination.

This time, he's in with a live chance, and the corporate Democrats are petrified. I honestly think there are some of them who would rather Trump won again than for Sanders to win. It's reminiscent of the centrist campaign to take down Jeremy Corbyn when he was elected Labour leader.

Buttigieg to me represents the very epitome of that ideology. A bright, shiny, focus group-designed wrapper on an empty shell. A blancmange.

His tweets declaring victory actually remind of me of yer man Juan Guaido in Venezuela who declared himself president and who Buttigieg publicly endorsed.

Whatever happens, I think this will motivate people to come out for Sanders even more in the forthcoming primaries.

eagle eye

Sanders hasn't a hope of getting enough people to the polls to elect him if he gets the nomination.
If you can't see that then there is no point having a discussion with you.
I keep saying it, the race for the next President is pretty much over. Trump is getting another four years. Just accept it and move on. Democrats could easily have taken him down by getting somebody in the 40-55 age bracket who has a centrist approach and can unite the party.
What they've got now and what I've been saying for months is a mess with old guys, an old woman and a gay guy who have no hope of being elected.
Beto was awful but he'd stand a better chance of beating Trump than any of what's left.

peddlelies

Trump at 50% in latest gallup poll, if Sanders gets the nod which is the way things are going I think Trump will get reelected, majority of Americans have a negative view on Socialism and Trump will hammer Sanders as a communist, he called him that on a Hannity interview the other day. Cortez and her ilk are hugely unpopular too and are mainstays at his rallies.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/04/politics/donald-trump-gallup-poll/index.html

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

I didn't and still don't buy into the narrative that Sanders had the primaries or the process "rigged" against him in 2016 (I think Clinton won fair and square) but something definitely feels off here.

The caucus system itself is obviously a farce and needs to be abolished in favour of actual paper ballots (which are needed everywhere in the US), but in previous years it has still produced results fairly quickly.

Even if Sanders was to still be announced as the winner, the focus has been taken off his victory and the narrative is one of farce.

Sanders was always going to come up a bit short in 2016 so the corporate Democrats didn't have to do anything to deny him the nomination.

This time, he's in with a live chance, and the corporate Democrats are petrified. I honestly think there are some of them who would rather Trump won again than for Sanders to win. It's reminiscent of the centrist campaign to take down Jeremy Corbyn when he was elected Labour leader.

Buttigieg to me represents the very epitome of that ideology. A bright, shiny, focus group-designed wrapper on an empty shell. A blancmange.

His tweets declaring victory actually remind of me of yer man Juan Guaido in Venezuela who declared himself president and who Buttigieg publicly endorsed.

Whatever happens, I think this will motivate people to come out for Sanders even more in the forthcoming primaries.

One thing on the 2016 Democratic primary Donna Brazile the former DNC chair who took over after Clinton Lackey Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign even admitted that the primary was rigged to favour Clinton over Sanders.

sid waddell

eire4 wrote: »

One thing on the 2016 Democratic primary Donna Brazile the former DNC chair who took over after Clinton Lackey Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign even admitted that the primary was rigged to favour Clinton over Sanders.

And then promptly walked back her statement.

The question is: what is "rigging"?

Obviously the Democratic party establishment wanted Clinton to win and not Sanders. Corporate donors favoured her in a big way over Sanders. But the world and its mother knew that and that perception did not help Clinton, it actually helped Sanders. And in every primary pretty much in history, be it Democratic or Republican, the "party" has had a favoured candidate, so it was no different to any other primary in that regard. In every election in history, some parties and candidates have been more favoured by the press than others.

That's not to say that any of this stuff is desirable or "fair" as we would know it, but it's political reality, politics usually is not "fair", and it doesn't mean the primary is rigged. The actual votes were certainly not falsified or tampered with. Clinton was around three million ahead of Sanders in the popular vote and won the nomination legitimately.

What's going on in Iowa now though does feel off. It could be down to pure incompetence, but I have my doubts because this time the DNC are genuinely ****ting it that Sanders will win and the crazy talk about parachuting Clinton or Bloomberg in after the primaries is proof of that.

Ironically, either way, I do again think that this will benefit Sanders going forward. He's going to win New Hampshire so will have momentum going into South Carolina and Nevada and we'll see what happens after that.

To me, if nobody wins a majority, the candidate who wins a plurality of the delegates in the primaries must be the candidate in November. Anything else would be a self-inflicted disaster for the Democrats.

eire4

sid waddell wrote: »

And then promptly walked back her statement.

The question is: what is "rigging"?

Obviously the Democratic party establishment wanted Clinton to win and not Sanders. Corporate donors favoured her in a big way over Sanders. But the world and its mother knew that and that perception did not help Clinton, it actually helped Sanders. And in every primary pretty much in history, be it Democratic or Republican, the "party" has had a favoured candidate, so it was no different to any other primary in that regard. In every election in history, some parties and candidates have been more favoured by the press than others.

That's not to say that any of this stuff is desirable or "fair" as we would know it, but it's political reality, politics usually is not "fair", and it doesn't mean the primary is rigged. The actual votes were certainly not falsified or tampered with. Clinton was around three million ahead of Sanders in the popular vote and won the nomination legitimately.

What's going on in Iowa now though does feel off. It could be down to pure incompetence, but I have my doubts because this time the DNC are genuinely ****ting it that Sanders will win and the crazy talk about parachuting Clinton or Bloomberg in after the primaries is proof of that.

Ironically, either way, I do again think that this will benefit Sanders going forward. He's going to win New Hampshire so will have momentum going into South Carolina and Nevada and we'll see what happens after that.

To me, if nobody wins a majority, the candidate who wins a plurality of the delegates in the primaries must be the candidate in November. Anything else would be a self-inflicted disaster for the Democrats.

Yes she did after she took a lot heat from Clinton people and then promptly published her book where she detailed how the Clinton campaign took control of the DNC in exchange for fundraising which they needed badly needed due to debt issues and the Clinton campaign in turn then took effective control of the DNC.
I would disagree about your perception argument as well. Right from the off almost all the special delegates were counted for Clinton so even before Iowa last time Clinton was shown on TV every time as having this massive delegate lead toward the nomination making it almost impossible to catch up. That hardly encouraged people who were not out and out Sanders supporters but who did not want Clinton to show up and vote for him as what was the point he had no chance and that was before a vote was cast in Iowa and every step of the way once voting did start. Yet he still made it a very competitive race.


Regardless of what happened before it is clear that the corporate Democrats do despise Sanders and will stop at nothing to block him so certainly what is happening now looks very shady as from what I am seeing the corporate Democrats favoured candidate Biden is maybe going to come in a paltry 5th and Sanders might win Iowa. A nightmare scenario for the corporate Democrats.

briany

How much thinly-veiled, and open, anti-semitism would Sanders have to face if he did win the Democratic nomination? My guess is quite a bit considering that a portion of Trump's base are openly racist and bigoted. I'm not necessarily saying it's a large portion, but they're out there and they're vocal. Right wing news outlets would be looking at ways to dog-whistle the fact.