home

South Carolina Democrat Debate

Update: 6:55 pm MT: Bloomberg is doing better thant last time so far. There are so many cheers for him I wonder whether he paid to fly them all in. Example: Bernie complains that Bloomberg and Trump are billionaires. The crowed boos!

It's Bash Bernie night. Bloomberg claims no moderate Republicans will vote for Bernie. Bloombert

Elizabeth has a plan for education. Amy is doing better than Elizabeth and Pete B. [More...]

(My latest thought on Bloomberg: He is getting more dangerous because not only is he willing to spend hundres of millions on this campaign, he has big-time Hollywood celebrities supporting him, like Barbara Stresiand and Clint Eastwood. Streisand said his philanthropy is the reason. Who will be next?)

Original Post:

It's another debate, on CBS tonight, this time in South Carolina.

Joe Biden claims he will win South Carolina and the African American vote in the primary.

Bloomberg says he appointed over 100 African American officials in New York and that many of them of here tonight. Did he pay to fly them in?

Pete B. notes that there are 7 white people on stage talking about racial injustice and none of them have any experience.

Bloomberg says if he was Black, it would have been much harder to achieve his success.

Amy K. says we need more criminal justice reform. We need a second step act for the states. (How can the feds pass a law changing sentencing and parole laws of the states?)

Bloomberg has been training for this job since the ashes of 911.

Elizabeth Warren accuses Michael Bloomberg of telling a pregnant employee "Kill It". He erupts with "I never said that."

Bernie on Medicare for All refers to a new study in Lancet Medical Journal. He quotes some numbers. The article itself says:

...[A] universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations.

This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 173 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Joe Biden Wins South Carolina, Who Cares? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I did not know (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    that Bernie was against getting rid of the filibuster....

    Mayor Pete was right to say how can you have a revolution if you won't agree to a rule change?  Makes Bernie look like all rhetoric only....

    Won't matter much. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    Bloomberg gets the lowest rates for advertisements as he is a candidate. The PACs supporting the other candidates pay top dollar. The campaign finance laws really help the billionaire!

    Parent
    Well, in the old days, you could just ... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    have a fat cat behind the scenes helping funding you.

    For instance, Stewart R. Mott, heir to a big GM fortune, almost single-handedly bankrolled the campaigns of Eugene McCarthy in '68 and George McGovern in '72.

    Parent

    I am not sure (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    I like any of these candidates.  Well, I like Joe but.....he is Joe.

    And, on another topic, if I were in New York, I would vote for Bloomberg as Mayor.  And?

    I agree (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    The question is who can do it.  And it not an easy question.

    Parent
    I have never (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:06:33 PM EST
    ever been so flummoxed about who to vote for.

    Perhaps a factor of too many candidates--still.  I mean we have two billionaires still on stage.

    Parent

    Bloomberg's position on pot (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    seems way out of the mainstream dem's position.  He does not seem in favor of legalization, but is willing to let states do it on their own.  But he thinks it should be done slowly.

    It doesn't matter what he thinks (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    His answer reflects he knows that.

    Parent
    When Bloomberg was asked about (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:17:53 PM EST
    obesity and his ban on sugary drinks, why didn't he bring up Michelle Obama's healthy school lunches which was quite popular.


    Prediction Time! (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    My South Carolina Predictions.  Let's see if I redeem myself after my Nevada miss.

    Biden 42.5%

    Sanders 17.5%

    Steyer 12.75%

    Buttigieg 9%

    Warren 7%

    Klobuchar 4%

    Some of my models have Biden under 40 or over 50%. And I looked at Steyer coming in second. But I couldn't quite justify those things as my final predictions.

    My :eek: number for tonight is 11%. That's the chance of some kind high strangeness occurring.

    This is kind of looking like (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    A substantive debate.  Imagine that.

    Bernie skating (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    Elizabeth Warren running to be Bernie's VP.

    Talk about flattery and help.  

    I don't really think Sanders is skating (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:46:19 PM EST
    And the night is young.

    Parent
    Liz is relentlessly ruthless... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    tearing Bloomberg several new a$$es.  I love it.

    If she can't win, she is gonna make damn sure Bloomberg doesn't. And I would give her the medal of freedom for that accomplishment alone.

    Parent

    Need to be careful with comments like that (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:15:48 PM EST
    or Capt will call you a pub

    Parent
    Cap knows me better than that... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    even if we handicap and pick our horses quite differently.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:18:52 PM EST
    He is non denominational

    You are the Republican and you are not really fooling anyone who reads these comments.  

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    always pegged him as a right leaning Libertarian.

    Parent
    Much more accurate (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:24:55 PM EST
    but back in the day I was a volunteer for JFK.

    Parent
    My brother in law (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:27:07 PM EST
    Campaigned for Clinton all 5 governor runs.  Now he is a die hard Trumper.  

    I voted for Reagan

    So what

    Parent

    A libertarian (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    Is a Republican who won't admit it.

    Parent
    She (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    is so much better at it than Bernie.

    Parent
    Hating on billionaires (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    won't get it done....

    Parent
    Just one billionaire right now... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    and I think Liz and the rest of the gang are getting it done.

    The rest of his class will have to wait until November and beyond ;)

    Parent

    Oh my (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:41:22 PM EST
    I am not with you on the French Revolution pitchfork approach.

    There have been lots of such efforts. Not sure any of those have turned out well.

    Parent

    A failure to act meaningfully.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:48:44 PM EST
    might lead to a French Revolution...the goal is to avoid that. Like FDR did. Like Teddy did. In my view there are only two candidates up there proposing enough meaningful action.

    Parent
    If Trump wins (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:02:27 PM EST
    re-election, a pitchfork response might well occur.

    You guys might get your Bernie.  Better not fumble.

    Parent

    There is no certainty... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    only opportunity.

    Any one of them could fumble or score...I just think with two of them we could score a touchdown instead of a field goal or safety.

    Parent

    Did I hear right (none / 0) (#4)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    On gun control Biden said 150,000,000 pepole killed since Columbine; maybe so but not by guns.

    What's a couple of extra zeros (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    Among friends

    Parent
    Well I thought (none / 0) (#11)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:57:37 PM EST
    Biden was only one zero; are you saying he is two zeros.

    Parent
    Approximately 35,000 people ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:18:23 AM EST
    ... are killed annually by firearms in the United States, inclusive of all categories. Now, this number does fluctuate. The total number of deaths from firearms in 2018 was 39,221 whereas in 2014, it was 33,804.

    Roughly 40% of the death total can be classified as homicides, and 60% are suicides or accidents. Further, another 28,000 or so people are injured by firearms annually.

    This year thus far -- as of today, February 25 -- 6,043 people have perished from firearms violence in this country, and another 4,009 have been injured.

    So, I'd very roughly estimate that since 1999, which was the year of the Columbine shooting, the total number of deaths by firearms in the U.S. is somewhere in the range of 610,000. Of that total, about 244,000 would be homicides.

    Anyway, that should give you an idea of the numbers.

    Parent

    More to the point (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 09:07:47 AM EST
    just over 700 are killed by long guns.

    Most popular weapons are 9mm and .22 handguns; the huge majority being what use to be called Saturday Night Specials that are throwaways.

    The latest FBI statistics (2018) show 53% of the murders were committed by AA and 44% whites with all others making up the rest.  There were 9,468 murders, or a little over 25% or your total deaths.  I have seen other estimates saying around 350,000 murders by fire arms but they did not show their work.

    But the point is Biden made a huge gaff, even if you include every possible gun death he was more than a couple of magnitudes off.  The real question is should a gaff machine like Biden be running.

    Parent

    Joe Biden's long been known for his gaffes. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it because I both understand and agree with the basics of his core point, which is that an unconscionable number of Americans are falling victim to firearms violence in the United States.

    And given the statistical levels I cited in my earlier post (35,000 dead and 28,000 wounded annually), Biden's absolutely right. You know damned well that we wouldn't long accept such levels of casualties if they were being reported from a war overseas. So why are we so blithely accepting them when they happen on the streets of America?

    (As a means of rough comparison, 4,424 U.S. military personnel were killed and another 31,952 were wounded during the Iraq War between 2003 and 2011, according to the U.S. Dept. of Defense. And you can add another 245 Americans dead and 1,740 wounded to that total if you want to include mercenaries -- or "U.S. government-funded military contractors," as the Pentagon preferred to call them.)

    Or, if you would prefer to assess this problem in economic terms rather than in blood on the streets, the epidemic of firearms violence costs the U.S. economy at least $229 billion every year, which includes the $8.6 billion incurred as direct annual expenses emergency and ongoing medical care. That's approximately 1.4% of the annual U.S. gross domestic product.

    In short, this is absolutely insane. So forget Biden's gaffe, which is really nothing more than a big ol' red herring that's being offered up today by firearms proponents in an effort to deflect the public's attention from the actual problem of gun violence.

    And I'm going to ignore the racial components you cited, because that's "Ground Control to Major Tom" territory -- that is, matters of race are so above and beyond any sense of relevance in the public discussion over firearms violence that you're rhetorically adrift in orbit with the International Space Station.

    (Look, at the end of the day all blood runs red, and not black or white. A more relevant area of examination would be the rate of gun violence along the country's socio-economic strata, because that violence tends to impact economically-challenged communities in disproportionate numbers to the rest of society.)

    The bottom line here is that epidemic of gun violence itself is what needs to be addressed, not its debate semantics or racial demographics.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The first question anyone advocating gun control (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    should be asked about any law they advocate is would it pass 2A muster.  Even before Trump's massive judge appointments it was a problem with laws passing 2A rights.

    Say what you want about gun control but if half a dozen cities (all run by dems an with the majority of gun homicides in minority areas mostly to do with drug territory disputes) were eliminated from gun homicide stats the US would be similar to Western Europe.

    It was widely accepted that when the yearly death toll in Vietnam exceeded the yearly total of deaths from auto accidents that is when the public turned against the war; a figure that was around 50,000 deaths a year.

    Truth be told for the huge majority of Americans gun violence is something they do not experience personally.  I do agree economic status is a big factor.

    Parent

    It is a complete falsehood that guns somehow keep people safe, and there are more than ample statistics to undercut those who offer such an argument.

    In fact, if you live in a household where guns are present, you are about five times more likely to be a victim of gun violence, than are persons who reside in a firearms-free home. That's because you are far more likely to be shot by somebody you already know, than you are by some random stranger in the street or home break-in.

    Further, a 2008 study conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania (Reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099), which examined the evidence from 677 shootings in the city of Philadelphia over a two-year period, found that those people who carried guns were up to 4.5 times more likely to be shot and wounded or killed, than were unarmed citizens.

    When the same study examined looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, well, let's just say that you'd enjoy better odds choosing heads or tails when flipping a coin.

    In attempting to account for the increased injury and mortality rates, the authors surmised that perhaps a misguided sense of personal security and empowerment which many owners will claim that guns provide, perhaps leads these individuals people to take uncalculated and even foolish risks in certain situations, which they'd otherwise likely avoid were they unarmed. However, the researchers also noted that it's difficult if not impossible to ascertain the motive of gun-toting individuals who are now deceased.  

    So, in any event, statistics very strongly suggest that the ready presence and availability of guns in our society actually serves as a catalyst for violence, rather than as a deterrent to it.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    - Constitution of the United States, 2nd Amendment

    Now, in my considered opinion, the incessant and myopic legal focus by firearms proponents on the Second Amendment's second clause, which consciously disregards the first clause that  references a well-organized militia being necessary for the security of a free state, is likely an ideologically-based choice on their part.

    But speaking as someone who's long studied this issue from both its historic and its legal perspectives, I find it to no longer be a reasonable or rational choice, nor is it a very compelling one, given the continued carnage in our communities.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Do you have any legal argument (none / 0) (#112)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    to back this up.

    Now, in my considered opinion, the incessant and myopic legal focus by firearms proponents on the Second Amendment's second clause, which consciously disregards the first clause that  references a well-organized militia being necessary for the security of a free state, is likely an ideologically-based choice on their part.

    Courts have consistently held the 2A prohibits the government from infringing on a citizens right to bear arms.

    Parent

    Only if by "consistently" you mean (none / 0) (#113)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 10:42:43 PM EST
    since the Supreme Court's tendentious 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, by a 5-4 vote, authored by Justice Scalia. And even the Heller decision expressly allows extensive regulation of private possession of firearms, including flat bans on possession by classes of persons thought to be too dangerous.

    Parent
    Courts had consistently held (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 10:44:05 PM EST
    People had the right to own other people until they didn't.  

    And they had all kind of things like history and the Bible to back them up.

    Thing are true until they are not.  

    The unfettered right to own any kind of military style weapon is not forever.   Any more than the right to own people was.   And it won't take a constitutional amendment.  Just some common sense.

    Parent

    I missed (3.50 / 2) (#116)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 02:03:59 AM EST
    the amendment to the Constitution about the right to own slaves; which one was that.

    One reason there were few court cases about owning fire arms was no one considered the govt would impose any restrictions.

    Parent

    Mistaken in every respect, Ragebot (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    True, there was no "amendment" that authorized slavery. The constitutional protections for slavery (prior to the 13th Amendment) were written into several provisions of the original Constitution (prospective ban on importation; fugitive slave clause, etc.); no "amendment" was needed. On your second point, there have been various legal restrictions on the ownership of firearms since colonial times. Read the majority and dissenting opinions in Heller. As for what "no one" would have thought, see for example the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in Miller, upholding a virtual federal ban on sawed-off shotguns.

    Parent
    The cases you cit (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 08:10:51 PM EST
    mention firearms in "common" use are OK; those not in common use are not OK.

    I first shot a .22 when I was eight years old controlling pests on my uncle's farm.  Been around them all my life including in the military.  I have never seen a 'sawed off shotgun except in pictures.

    What seems silly to me is that while sawed off shotguns are banned ostensively due to barrel length you can still buy revolvers that will chamber a shotgun round.  While most shotguns, even with the barrel sawed off are restricted to two rounds the revolvers can hold six rounds.

    This is one of the biggest gripes I have with gun control laws; they seem to be written by folks who have no knowledge of firearms.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    "While most shotguns, even with the barrel sawed off are restricted to two rounds the revolvers can hold six rounds."

    It seems that like, never having seen a sawed off shotgun (I have), you've never seen a pump action shotgun, a bolt-action shotgun or a semi-auto shotgun. All of which allow way more than two rounds.

    And yes, I do know a thing or two about firearms.

    Also, just fyi, Ruby Ridge happened, in part, because of the supposed sale of sawed off shotguns.

    Parent

    Most shotguns (none / 0) (#171)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    are limited to three to five rounds; in great part due to hunting regulations imposing that limit. I am not sure if you are using the new math or not but even a five round capacity is still not as great as the six rounds revolvers than can chamber a shotgun round have. Even in something like three gun shotguns with greater capacity are not all that popular due to the extra weight needed for bigger capacity.

    Pump shotguns store the rounds end to end under the barrel which also limits how much of the barrel can be cut off.

    But my point is why would anyone go to the trouble to saw the end of the barrel(s) of a shotgun when they could buy something like this off the rack.

    Parent

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    Bond Arms of Granbury, TX makes a derringer that will fire a .410 shotgun shell.

    Parent
    My shotguns have a removable rod (none / 0) (#181)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 03:42:01 PM EST
    that when in place restricts them to two rounds, I believe.

    Parent
    Maybe 3 rounds. I forget. (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    Not a good analogy, Howdy (none / 0) (#146)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    Yes, the Supreme Court (wrongly) interpreted the Constitution in Dred Scott to exclude from the rights of Americans under the Constitution anyone held in slavery and descended from an African, and in other cases to recognize and protect the institution of slavery itself. But that changed not because the Supreme Court overturned its own interpretation but because the Constitution was later amended (13th and especially the 14th Amendments), following the Civil War, to reject that result. But there are a million good examples that prove your point. Two obvious ones: does the 14th Amendment prohibit racially segregated schools? Does the 14th Amendment grant equal protection of the laws to women?

    Parent
    by yourself, intentionally, than you are by some random stranger in the street or home break-in.

    Nearly 2/3 of of annual gun deaths in the United States are suicides.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    far I just see a shout fest. Warren got the last word before commercial that was "above the fray" but her attacks on Bloomberg are getting stale.

    Bernie was himself trying to yell at both sides of the stage. Biden was at times feisty but not consistent Mayor Pete was smooth but empty as usual.
    Bloomberg is doing much better. Amy and Tom, who cares.

    Tom is funny (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    I'm rich!  I liberal!  I'm under 70!  What's the problem?

    Parent
    Poor Tom... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    in a better dimension he would be the billionaire contender.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    can we vote for Hillary again?  

    What happened to Booker and Kamala?


    Parent

    Biden (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:58:51 PM EST
    sucked up all the early oxygen for one thing.

    Parent
    Mayor Pete (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    with some seasoning could be really good.

    He is doing best imo.

    I think Pete (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:49:24 PM EST
    Might be President some day.  I hope I live to see it.

    Parent
    Warren attacks Bloomberg again (none / 0) (#14)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:01:06 PM EST
    about the red lining thing.  She seems to be doing it at every chance.

    Garret asks Bloomberg about it and he offers some lackluster answer (mispronouncing red lining as red lighting) and changes the topic to how everyone is going over time and how he got the Republican state senate to vote for gay marriage.

    Worth noting (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:05:43 PM EST
    The Republican is really happy Warren attack's Bloomberg.

    Again.

    Parent

    Why do you keep making the same mistakes (none / 0) (#20)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:08:34 PM EST
    I am not happy about anything related to politics.  I am a registered D since in the South the dems have ruled the local elections everywhere I have lived, even if they are conservative dems.

    Parent
    Steyer comes out for reparations (none / 0) (#16)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:03:46 PM EST
    From every poll I have seen that is not a winner in the general but popular with dems voting in the primary.

    specifically (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:06:42 PM EST
    helps in SC, where he has been polling in the mid teens for a while.

    Parent
    I have to say (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:14:40 PM EST
    Bloomberg is talking about stuff like the House and Senate and the Corona virus and other stuff besides MFA and college debt.  Not that there's anything wrong with them but I think they have been discussed.

    Bloomberg is getting better (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:18:20 PM EST
    at shifting away from the question to what he wants to talk about.  Still not sure he does it as well as the others on the state.

    So far in both breaks I have seen there has been a Bloomberg ad.

    Parent

    They (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:23:05 PM EST
    Are actually talking about international affairs.  Wow.

    Well, my (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:26:18 PM EST
    2 cents are that Warren and Bernie are doing terrible. Bernie because he can't do anything but yell and wave his hands and then again and again he lies about his record on guns. Warren because she's making the fatal mistake of not going after Bernie. Warren at this point looks like she just needs to pack it up. Amy totally destroyed Bernie's MFA plan and frankly I thought Pete really has done the best at this debate. I'm glad also to hear candidates talking about down ticket which is important.

    And Joe is Joe.

    Warren has (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    Thrown some passive aggressive shade at Sanders.

    I guess it's a personal thing I just find her incredibly annoying.  
    Doubt I'm alone in that.

    You are right Amy has been good.  Without being screechy.

    Parent

    I liked (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    Amy's comment on the deer stand. I have tons of family that do the deer stand thing. People I follow on twitter didn't know what she was talking about.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    "Uncle Dick in the deer stand" was a good sound bite.  

    I guess.  I remembered it.

    Parent

    For (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:30:25 PM EST
    the hundredth time, it is not Warren's job to attack Bernie. There are four hungry centrists on stage who should be hounding him while she feasts on Bloomberg.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:34:24 PM EST
    The bobble heads love to talk about how Bloomberg was a gift to Warren.

    I think Warren might be just as much of a gift for Bloomberg.

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    it's still fun to watch.

    Parent
    It absolutely is (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    This is what they should have been doing for months

    Parent
    Pete (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    got under Sander's skin with the 60's revolutionary slap. Bernie started talking over Pete and the moderators cut Pete off, I wanted to see that continue.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    if the centrists should be attempting to take Bloomberg down and that is who they are competing with for votes why is Warren going after him?

    I thought everybody was supposed to focus on the front runner. And everybody is focused on Bernie except Warren. I don't get it. People are starting to think she's running interference for Bernie or running to be his VP. And going after Bloomberg doesn't seem to be helping her and thirdly Bernie is a bully and Trump is a bully. If you can't stand up to Bernie then maybe you shouldn't be the one we send out to face Trump.

    Parent

    Bloomberg says Xi is not a dictator (none / 0) (#43)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    Biden hits him hard about that; and I expect others will.  Warren piles on saying Bloomberg does lots of business with China and he refuses to release his taxes.  Then Steyer says he has released his taxes; it no big deal.  Sanders says he is amazed that Bloomberg says Xi is not a dictator.  

    Bloomberg is taking hits from all sides.

    Bloomie (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:52:36 PM EST
    Is in China's pocket, he is a China apologist. Tons of stuff there if they feel like going there

    Parent
    The resident Tr*mp fanboy is concerned (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:15:03 PM EST
    about Bloomberg being in China's pocket but is not concerned that Tr*mp and his family have all the chintzy crap that they sell manufactured there. Or that the first daughter got trademarks approved by China just before her father was to restart talks on trade.

    Parent
    Bernie (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    should love him then.

    Parent
    I'm liking this (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:37:17 PM EST
    They are actually debating.  Yeah, that sometimes requires shouting

    I hate the shouting. It is one of the reasons (none / 0) (#53)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    I did not watch all the previous debates, except for the last one.
    Of everyone on stage, I have the hardest time listening to Biden. I find him incoherent, at times.

    Parent
    He kind of (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:00:38 PM EST
    make me cringe sometimes with his speech problem. And then sometimes like tonight I felt sorry for him when he seemed to be struggling with getting words out. It also seems like once he gets rolling he is fine but at the start is when he seems to have problems.

    Parent
    It (none / 0) (#64)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:14:43 PM EST
    seems like he is so boring that I stop listening.

    He had a couple of moments when he showed real confidence and it might be enough at least for do or die SC.

    I think Bernie floundered just a bit and tried to yell his way out of attacks but I'm prejudiced.

    Parent

    It is weird (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 08:56:09 PM EST
    That Super Tuesday is one week from today.   Finding it hard to get my heard around that.

    It will be Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:07:11 PM EST
    The moderates cannibalized their vote, and Elizabeth Warren is throwing kisses at Bernie.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    I don't think so

    From the post

    My latest thought on Bloomberg: He is getting more dangerous

    No body ever listens to me.

    Parent

    True ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    Cap saw the Trump thing going all the way before anyone else.

    Parent
    Same as before (none / 0) (#62)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    Bloomberg took a few hits but was unimpressive, a little better than last time but no real breakout.

    Sanders won by not losing.

    Debate was a nothing burger.  No real change in the contest.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    I think Biden saved himself.  For now.  He was definitely sinking.

    He will win and Sanders will not.  That will change things.

    Parent

    Biden did look better (none / 0) (#67)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    but he has always been favored to win SC and the race has been getting closer over time.  Biden needs a statement win to even stay in the game.  If Sanders even makes it closer than double digits it will be viewed as a loss for Biden.

    Parent
    Did you listen to the crowd (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    in SC? Nobody got worse responses than Bernie. I remember in 2016 it was all about how Bernie was going to win SC or make it close and he got blown out by 50 points granted there were only 2 candidates. Expect Bernie to tank in SC. In your state of Florida he's probably going to walk away with zero delegates.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:59:33 PM EST
    I agree. Biden saved himself and Bernie tanked. It probably did nothing to change anybody else's numbers in the state. Maybe Pete and Amy may improve a little. Bernie may not even reach viability with that debate performance. And Bloomberg isn't even on the ballot in SC.

    Parent
    The price of a ticket... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:48:39 PM EST
    could explain some of the yays and boos that seemed odd. 17 hundy to start.

    Everybody (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 09:57:34 PM EST
    got the same number of tickets. And no, the boos for Bernie had nothing to do with the cost of the tickets and everything to do with the fact that Bernie will destroy everything democrats have been working on in SC. There is a reason nobody has endorsed him. Even Bloomberg does better in SC than Bernie.

    Parent
    Your posts are embarassing at times (none / 0) (#75)
    by ragebot on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    Current RCP has a nine point 30% for Biden and 21% for Sanders and Steyer at 11%.  Bloomberg is not on the ballot and not being polled.

    I get that mainstream dems are concerned that Sanders looks like a weak candidate with real problems with down ballot issues.  But he is currently the leader and polls indicate he will widen that lead after SC.  He is also polling well in CA and TX and seems sure to come out with a big lead after Super Tuesday.  

    I still think the debate was basically a wash.  Biden claiming that 150,000,000 people were killed since Columbine was the mandatory Biden gaff; not to mention today he said at an event today he was running for the Senate.  At some point excuses just don't cut it.

    Parent

    You don't (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 06:00:03 AM EST
    realize that polling is fleeting and there's been an oppo dump and Bernie has spent the last week torching his campaign do you? You're the one that is embarrassing yourself. SC is also not a caucus but a primary and primaries are not Bernie's strength.

    Parent
    So no (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 06:03:40 AM EST
    mention of all the gaffes and the oppo dump that has been unloaded on Bernie this week just Biden's gaffe? No mention about Bernie praising not only Castro's regime in Cuba but communist China? No mention of his creepy writings that everybody is talking about? No mention of the fact that Bernie came off looking like a complete idiot in a 60 minutes interview but Biden put too many zeros in a number for gun violence. Dude you really need to keep up.

    Parent
    I had a long post about Cuba (none / 0) (#80)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    As for Sanders other issues nothing you mentioned above is new stuff.  You keep mentioning the oppo dump but so far it seems like a nothing burger.

    What was new in this oppo dump, please be specific?

    As for keeping up what are your take away from this?

    A top adviser said Bernie Sanders would reject an offer from Mike Bloomberg to spend heavily on his behalf in the general election if Sanders wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

    If that is not a major split in the dems I don't know what is.

    Parent

    Bloomberg Could Concentrate on Congress (none / 0) (#81)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    It is interesting speculation what a second Trump term with a Democratic House and Senate would be like.  My guess is that he will play ball with them to avoid impeachment - tax hikes, more liberal judges, etc.  Whatever Nancy and Chuck come up with, he'll sign.

    Parent
    Current polls show (none / 0) (#82)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    pubs keeping the Senate and a possible narrowing of the dems majority in the House.

    Given last night's discussion of eliminating filibuster by the dems the pubs may do the same thing.

    Maybe more to the point a quick review of posts here shows lots of dems are worried about the down ballot effect if Sanders wins the nomination.

    I doubt Trump has any worries about another impeachment given what happened the last time around.  Getting 67 votes in the Senate is a tall order.

    My guess is Trump wins, pubs hold the Senate, and Trump continues to remake the Federal Courts.

    Parent

    Who boos literacy? (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    The aristocrats of Charlestown, that's who.

    Parent
    Bernie's comment re literacy reminded me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    And, Hitler liked dogs. If I said that and got (none / 0) (#91)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    booed, would you ask, "Who boos dogs?".

    The same can be said for Britain and the british empire. Sure, they had railways, post offices, etc., built in the colonies but the natives of those countries (I am including myself), might have a thing or two to say if you highlighted the former while ignoring the high cost the people in those countries paid for those 'benefits'.

    No one is booing literacy. I am no expert on Cuba or the cuban people but from what I have read, people were booing because the literacy program was in effect an indoctrination program.

    Parent

    If you said... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    Hitler was terrible but it was cool how much he love his dog...then yeah, I would think you were getting booed for dog-love. If you said imperial colonization was a terrible sin but the railroads were cool, then yes I would say you were getting booed for liking railroads.

    They may not have intended to boo literacy, but that's what they did with their Pavlovian response to all things Cuba.  Dare I say they were "indoctrinated" to respond that way?

    Ronald Reagan was a terrible president, but his signature on amnesty for 3 million undocumented residents was pretty f*ckin' cool.  This sh&t ain't that hard!

    Parent

    Sorry, Kdog. You and I are not going to see eye (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    to eye on this one. For me, it comes too close to Tr*mp's "fine people on both sides".
    If someone told me a pedophile was not all bad because he loves his mother, I would boo. I guess, I am "indoctrinated" to respond that way.

    This sh&t ain't that hard!

    Does this apply to Bloomberg's support for gun control and addressing climate change? I haven't noticed any nuance in your comments re Bloomberg.

    You were cheering Warren hammering away at Bloomberg and his money, did you also cheer this.

    Bloomberg's campaign said the billionaire planned to provide financial backing to whichever candidate wins the Democratic primary race...
    "I think everyone else has said they want the help, including Elizabeth Warren," he continued. "If Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, we will do everything we can to help her. Sanders is the one candidate who said he didn't want the help."


    Parent

    Sure it applies to Bloomberg... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    He can and does do some great things with his money. Running for president is not one of them.

    Parent
    I can understand opposition to Bloomberg (none / 0) (#103)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    based on his actions as mayor of NYC but I don't see why his wealth should disqualify him. I know I am in the minority on this but the way I see it is if a person is as rich as he is, he should spend his own d@mn money and not ask the general population for donations.

    Until there is campaign finance reform, the only way I see to somewhat level the playing field is that each democratic candidate can only raise up to a given amount. So, no matter if comes from donors or the candidates bank account, there is an upper limit.

    The general would be a whole different ball game.

    Parent

    Let me ask you this (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 05:13:40 PM EST
    Bernie is a millionaire. What good has he done with his money? As far as I can see all he has done is reward his family and buy houses for himself.

    Parent
    How did he make his money? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    Serving the public for decades and writing a bestseller. How Bloomberg make his? Grifting and running a tout service for grifters.

    Despite the smears, we are not communists. Bernie earned every penny in my opinion, can't say the same for the billionaire. Or any billionaire.

    Perspectice time...if you have a billion dollars and spend a million dollars, you still have about a billion dollars. If you save 100k a year, it would take 10,000 years to save a billion dollars. If you make 1 dollar every second, you would be a millionaire in  12 days, but it would take over 30 years to become a billionaire.

    Billionaires should not exist...not because they are bad people, but because any economic system where billionaires exist while up to 60% live check to check is too f#cked up to even contemplate much less be considered acceptable.

    Parent

    That's f'ing nuts (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 10:53:03 PM EST
    Seriously I'm not sure what nuttier.  That you would say that or that Peter would give you a five for saying it..

    Who the f'ck are you to get to decide how much money is all people can make?  Just this much and no more.  What the f'ck else do you get to decide?  Since you run things now.

    Bloomberg earned his money my inventing something called The Bloomberg terminal.

    He did not begin life rich.  He is a genuine success story that everyone dreams about.  

    Jesus.  

    I'm just wondering how you allow people to become millionaires but not billionaires.  What is a it?  Like a cap?

    Parent

    It's an opinion.... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 06:05:55 AM EST
    not a decision...we the people are supposed to decide via the ballot box electing executives and representation.

    The same way we decided the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent at one time, and now it's 37. Corporate tax rate was once 52 percent, and now it's 21 percent. The same way New Yorkers once decided city college be tuition free, and now you gotta pay.

    Why is taxing wealth, speculation,corporate entitites and very high incomes more...and lower incomes a little less perhaps....to fund true universal healthcare and dental, free public college, pre-k childcare, and a ubi such a crazy idea to everybody? Even under the most aggresive proposed plan, the "success story" still has over 50 billion dollars. Maybe poor Tom Steyer gets knocked down to 900 million and change.

    This ain't that radical...it ain't Marx. It's FDR...saving capitalism from itself.

    Parent

    I'm all for taxing (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 07:09:01 AM EST
    The 1% more.  Lots more.  That's not what you said.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    But I stand by my basic premise...billionaires should not exist and the fact they do says it all about how we have failed as a society in regards to economics and wealth distribution.

    All we can do now is try and and fix it. I believe we have the resources, technology, and wealth to make America the greatest society civilization the world has ever seen. We just have to, ya know, actually want that. I'm afraid most people don't.

    Parent

    kdog, Bloomberg (none / 0) (#159)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 03:57:55 PM EST
    is trying to soften you up. WSJ  (of course) is reporting that Bloomberg is floating the idea of Andrew Yang as his vice presidential running mate.  My preference would be for Steyer---Mike/Tom. $2020 billion

    Parent
    I saw that.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 06:01:57 AM EST
    That would be strange bedfellows...Bloomberg does realize the freedom dividend is not a type of stock market wager, doesn't he?

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 06:27:21 AM EST
    remember why free college in NYC failed?

    If Bernie is into "saving capitalism" it would be a good idea for him to quit praising communist dictators and implying that communist dictators do a great job of lifting people out of poverty.

    Parent

    I said (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 06:23:06 AM EST
    what good has he done with his money and you can't answer that because he hasn't done anything good with his money.

    You have a whacked out definition of what a grifter is. A grifter is someone that helps no one but themselves. Bernie is the definition of a grifter who takes 27 bucks from schmucks and then uses their 27 bucks to buy his own book.

    Parent

    Dude (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    you know nothing about Charleston obviously by your statement. The so called "aristocrats" of which I know a few and there are not that many are Trumpers. The people that dislike Bernie are the rank and file voters. Joe Cunningham who flipped the seat in 2018 came out against Bernie. He knows his district a lot better than you do.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 10:04:53 PM EST
    I mentioned someone I know in the open who went.  I did not ask how much but it was not free.  Or cheap I would guess.

    He was in the Obama administration.  Deputy assistant under secretary of something or other.  To do with kids probably.  He is a pediatrician

    They are Biden.   Shrug.

    Parent

    An interesting (none / 0) (#73)
    by NoSides on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 10:30:35 PM EST
    and sometimes exciting, and hopeful, interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    I wish she, and people like her, were in positions of power.

    Some of what she says, I think is brilliant.
    All of it is heartfelt.

    <interview>

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#74)
    by NoSides on Tue Feb 25, 2020 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    I posted this by mistake here.
    It should be in the Tuesday open thread.

    Parent
    The debate was (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    CBS chaos by incompetence or design. But, in any event, it was informative and revelatory---giving an indication of how the candidates can perform under such conditions.  Joe Biden's attempt to adhere to the guidelines no doubt ingratiated him to Southern expectations of a polite exterior. Although, for me, awaiting completion of his responses was painful. Never-the-less, Biden did well enough to save himself in South Carolina. His endorsement by Rep. Clyburn should solidify his lead.

    Pete Buttigieg was the best debater, always thoughtful, informed and measured. However, it likely does not matter, since the media is wont to erase him.

    Michael Bloomberg (he wants us to call him Mike, but I do not feel that I know him that well) did better than last time around, but, likely, reached a debating plateau. Without the distraction of these missing skills, we are left with his positions. It may be to his advantage to revert to
    his initial debating skills, freshened by more references to the zinger, "naked cowboy".

    Steyer is likeable, sort of like a neighbor. You could borrow a cup of cash, if needed.  Klobucher did not have knives out for Pete this time, focusing on why we can't have nice things.

    Elizabeth Warren took after Bloomberg, once again, landing a punch on him and two punches back on her. Not sure why she did not challenge Bernie,who is  more of a primary competitor.  It may be as simple as Bloomberg epitomizes wrongs studied and reported in the body of her life's academic work.

    Bernie knew he would be confronted and challenged in a way he has, in large measure, escaped before being the front runner. It was disappointing and worrying, therefore, that he proceeded unchanged. Consistent to a fault. Laying low, taking advantage of the moderator's call of the wild. This should have been the best of Bernie.  It was not.


    Bernie (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    is a terrible candidate. I'm guessing that some of Bloomberg's psychologists are working on Bernie too. He doesn't like being challenged either. It makes him an even angrier old man.

    Morning Joe was running the tape of Bernie in his underwear in the Soviet Union. This is something you cannot unsee so watching is not for the faint of heart.

    Parent

    You know who else (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    Was a terrible candidate?  Trump.  The similarities of style are starting to be weird.  Anyone thinking weird video or saying some crazy thing is going to disqualify you is fighting the last war.
    It doesn't matter anymore.  New rule.   If your guy does it it's ok.
    Understand, AFAIAC if this works for Bernie I'm totally on board.  And it might.  
    If something sinks Bernie it will be his policies.  I think.  Not his past.  

    Which is odd.  That in this post policy, personality driven world he might be sunk by policies.
    No body cares he had his shirt off in Russia.  They care because he has a bunch of really unpopular ideas.

    I don't think it's very smart to think just because it worked for Trump it will work for Bernie.   That's also fighting the last war.

    After the last four years I think most people want competent management of government.  More than anything.


    Parent

    Also at play, perhaps,... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    is the more the establishment politics and media people hate on somebody, the more Joe and Jane Six-Pack seem to like them.  The people have lost faith in our institutions...political and media institutions are at or near the top of those lists.  Along with banking/finance and criminal justice.  

    Parent
    Not arguing for a candidate (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    Just wondering what will end up driving this election.  Will it be anger and aggrievement like the last election, plenty of reasons to think it will be, or will it be exhaustion with drama?

    I don't know.

    Just going on how exhausted I am and I love this stuff.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    that people have lost faith in our institutions and it's also why I think Bernie is the worst candidate for us to put forward because he basically wants to blow everything up. We have had 4 years of that and I along with a lot of other people are probably exhausted by all this nonsense.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    agree up to a point, but there is always the IOKIYAR factor. Democrats will be held to a higher standard by the political pundit class, you can bet the farm on that.

    Parent
    Totally (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    get what you're saying. Personally I think voters make a correction in the following election and are going to want a return to normalcy instead of Trump or a lefty version of Trump. Bernie against Trump becomes the devil you know vs. the devil you don't. He doesn't offer much. I personally think people are sick of the drama and boring looks incredibly appealing. If they want 4 more years of "excitement" and Nuremberg rallies they are going to vote for Trump.

    There is a reason why Putin is supporting both Bernie and Trump.

    Parent

    This whole thing (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    With Sanders saying, again, he won't take Bloomberg's money is just such a typical BS Bernie con.

    Bloomberg can and will spend his money in the election however he wants.  Sanders has no say in it.  If fact if he did that might be a legal problem

    So, Sanders gets to act like the working class hero knowing he will get the money anyway.

    Political Wire (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 03:41:31 PM EST
    Democrats to Be Briefed on Power of Superdelegates

    February 26, 2020 at 1:32 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 139 Comments

    "House Democrats will be briefed Thursday by the Democratic National Committee on the power of superdelegates -- who could play a decisive role if the presidential primary enters a contested convention with no clear nominee in July," Politico reports.

    "Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her caucus about the upcoming briefing on Wednesday as lawmakers returned to the Capitol for their first gathering after a nearly two-week recess."

    FiveThiryEight currently forecasts a 44% chance of a contested convention.



    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 03:45:05 PM EST
    FWIW it's worth is saying it's possible that Bernie comes in 3rd being beaten by Steyer in SC. If that happens it completely changes Super Tuesday and any predictions about who the front runner is.

    Parent
    I haven't seen anyone on cable news ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    mention that Bernie did about the same with Hispanics in Nevada in '16.  Actually a bit better.  But he couldn't duplicate it anywhere.

    In fact, if you remember, most people assumed the Nevada entrance polls must have been wrong, given his poor performance with the group in other states.

    Parent

    He couldn't pull (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    his own numbers from 2016. If Biden had run in 2016 I imagine that he and Bernie would basically be splitting the 43% Bernie got.

    Parent
    Bernie looked like ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    he needed a lozenge or a bromo.

    People (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 06:27:58 PM EST
    have found the way to defeat Bernie. Just get under his skin and he will start screaming and turning red. Bloomberg seems to have this figured out. BTW interesting ad Bloomberg put out today showing Bernie sponsored over 300 bills in 30 years but only passed a couple.

    Parent
    Biden lives (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 26, 2020 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    Or so says the most recent South Carolina poll.

    The Bloomberg effect is hard to gauge.  You would think he would take from Biden.  

    But maybe he makes Joe look better by comparison--Joe is not a billionaire former Republican with all kinds of GOP positions and statements in the past.

    If you are (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 06:31:36 AM EST
    talking about the Clemson poll, it was the most accurate in 2016. Bernie may not even end up being viable in SC.

    I think Warren helped Biden by going after Bloomberg plus Biden did a decent job at the debate.

    Parent

    It was curious (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    the Berners were ecstatic that Warren was going after Bloomberg, and were very unhappy he entered the race.  Did they not see that Bloomberg was the biggest treat to Joe?

    Just goes to show that the Berners are often so blinded by ideology (here, their hatred of billionaires) that they lose focus on reality and make all kinds of tactical and strategic mistakes.

    And this is the mindset that can govern, or even effect change in the real world?  

    Parent

    It appears that Warren is willing to go (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    after Bernie, just not directly, face to face. She saves that for Bloomberg.
    Warren: Bernie Sanders Was Against Plurality Of Voters Deciding Nominee in 2016

    I believe, if she had done this all along, expose Bernie for the hypocrite that he is, she would have been running away with the nomination. Aaargh!

    Parent

    Anyone see Warren on Colbert's show (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 12:18:47 PM EST
    last night, from a South Carolina diner? She was so human, so sharp, and so funny. A winner.

    Parent
    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    Both Elizabeth and Stephen were having a lot of fun.  The viewers, too.  I continue to believe Senator Warren would be the FDR of this century.  Does not look like she will be given the chance.  But it is not over until it is over

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    If Warren had been working on taking down Bernie the entire time she probably would be running away with it.

    Parent
    YEah, (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    I never could figure out why the Bernie supporters were so upset about Bloomberg entering the race. I can now see why they are and it's because Bloomberg is the only one doing the massive oppo dumps on Bernie.

    Parent
    What happens to Bloomberg ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 07:17:10 AM EST
    if Biden wins handily in SC?

    Let's say his victory is declared within the first hour, and 2 and 3 are distantly behind him.

    Nate Silver (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    What The Race Looks Like If Biden Wins -- Or Doesn't Win -- South Carolina

    "a big Biden win (by 10 percentage points or more), a modest Biden win (by less than 10 points) and a Sanders win (no margin specified). As of Wednesday afternoon, the chance of these outcomes happening according to the model was 41 percent (big Biden win), 33 percent (small Biden win) and 23 percent (Sanders win), respectively."

    The bottom line: A big Biden win would reorder the race, but the other scenarios look pretty good for Sanders.



    Parent
    I'm consistently underwhelmed ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    by the way Nate Silver, and his team, uses numbers when it comes to politics.

    My predictive abilities generally outpace his.  And I just have my little brain, some data, and a calculator.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    Forrest for the trees.  The numbers are a part.

    Parent
    After Nevada, Silver was ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    predicting Sanders would win SC with 36% of the vote.

    That was never going to happen.

    Parent

    According to the Latest Poll, the Emerson (none / 0) (#160)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Vice President Joe Biden at 41%, Senator Bernie Sanders at 25%, and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Businessman Tom Steyer tied at 11% each. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are at 6% and 5% respectively, with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard at 2%. Data was collected on February 26 and 27, 2020, n=550, +/-4.1%.

    Link

    Parent

    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 07:42:13 AM EST
    and his billion dollar bulldozer will not be effected by any outcome in SC.

    IMO only a super flop on super Tuesday will make him reconsider and maybe not even then.

    Parent

    It's an interesting question (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 07:44:59 AM EST
    If Bloomberg exits the race he would literally have the do it the next day for it to matter on ST.  That's a big decision on very little data.

    Also not everyone (me) is convinced Biden can do it just because he woke up in a debate and won a State he was always expected to win.

    Add to that many states like CA  have been voting for a long time.

    Complicated decision.  I will be amazed and impressed if he gets out.  Not necessarily happy with a prospective Biden. The very last person running, including Bloomberg, I would want as the nominee.

    Parent

    No one is dropping out ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    before Super Tuesday.

    However, I bet if Bloomberg wins no states Super Tuesday and is only viable in a few -- and Biden wins a number of states -- he will drop out and create a Super PAC to support Biden.

    But if it's a mixed bag with Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg all winning states, and all have a significant chunk of delegates, they'll all stay in.

    Parent

    My point exactly tho (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    After ST it could be to late.  Could be.

    Parent
    I don't think it ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    will be too late.

    We live in a different time.  People have more up to date information.  And can change their votes in reaction to this information.

    Parent

    Thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    With a mixed bag it would make sense for them to stay in and gather as many non Sanders delegates as possible.

    Parent
    Yup! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:07:24 AM EST
    P Wire (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    Be Wary of South Carolina Polls

    February 27, 2020 at 2:27 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 1 Comment

    First Read urges some caution about South Carolina polling, noting it often under-rates the candidate with support from older black voters.

    In 2008, the final poll margin showed Barack Obama up by 12 points, while the actual margin was Obama ahead by 29 points.
    In 2016, the final poll had Hillary Clinton up by 28 points, while the actual margin was Clinton ahead by 48 points.
    If that holds this year, Joe Biden could win by a much larger margin than current polls show.



    Parent
    P Wire (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Stopping Sanders

    February 27, 2020 at 7:25 am EST By Taegan Goddard 295 Comments

    New York Times: "Dozens of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders's candidacy, but are also willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national convention in July if they get the chance. Since Mr. Sanders's victory in Nevada's caucuses on Saturday, The Times has interviewed 93 party officials -- all of them superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention -- and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but fell short of a majority."

    "Such a situation may result in a brokered convention, a messy political battle the likes of which Democrats have not seen since 1952, when the nominee was Adlai Stevenson."



    One important effect of (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    A Bloomberg exit would be there would be I expect far less resistance to the convention picking Biden.

    Doesn't mean I think he will get out.

    But it's weird I have always thought Bloomberg probably doesn't really want to be President.  Who would?

    Parent

    No one, other than Koch, ever liked ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:21:10 AM EST
    being mayor of NY ... until Bloomberg.

    Parent
    What about Fiorello (none / 0) (#144)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    La Guardia?

    Parent
    I almost said him ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    although he's way before my time, from what I know about him, it seems like he relished the job.

    Parent
    Mayor LaGuardia loved his job so much ... (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 05:13:36 PM EST
    ... that they made an award-winning Broadway musical about it, "Fiorello!" It actually tied with Rodgers and Hammerstein's "The Sound of Music" for the 1960 Tony Award as the season's Best Musical. And Tom Bosley, who is probably much better known to a lot of us as Howard Cunningham in ABC's 1970s-era sitcom "Happy Days," won the Tony as Best Featured Actor in the title role. "Fiorello!" is also one of the very few stage musicals to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

    Parent
    I always loved that story ... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 08:07:10 PM EST
    about how during a newspaper strike, he went on the radio and read kids the comics.

    Parent
    It's supposed to rain buckets here (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    On super Tuesday

    Where I live a significant number of people can be cut off and unable to leave their homes because of low water bridge crossings.   Never lasts more than a few hours but still.

    Haven't checked but if it's pouring here it will probably be pouring a lot of places.

    Jus sayin


    There are (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    three big ones like this

    and several smaller ones.  None trap me but at least half the population here is trapped by one or more of them.

    Parent

    Monmouth University - SC Poll (none / 0) (#142)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    Among South Carolina voters who are likely to participate in the Democratic primary on Saturday, support currently stands at 36% for Biden, 16% for Sanders, and 15% for Steyer. Candidates who currently fall below the statewide delegate viability threshold include Elizabeth Warren (8%), Pete Buttigieg (6%), Amy Klobuchar (4%), and Tulsi Gabbard (1%). Another 15% of likely primary voters remain undecided and do not lean toward any candidate at this time. In Monmouth's October poll, 33% supported Biden, 16% Warren, and 12% Sanders. It should be noted that interviews for the current poll were conducted after the Nevada caucuses, wrapping up right before Tuesday night's debate.
    Link  Could these numbers change much due to the debate?

    I (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    doubt the debates did much, maybe a slight bump for Biden if anything. Clyburn's endorsement probably is more of a boost. I think Biden runs away with it.

    Parent
    Is this true? PA guys? (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    Only Sanders Beats Trump In Pennsylvania

    February 27, 2020 at 2:05 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 105 Comments

    A new Muhlenberg College poll in Pennsylvania shows President Trump and the leading Democrats in a tight race for the state's twenty electoral votes.

    Bernie Sanders is the only one who actually leads Trump in a general election match up, 49% to 46%.

    However, Trump ties Biden, 47% to 47%, and Warren, 47% to 47%. He holds slim leads over Amy Klobuchar, 45% to 44%, Pete Buttigieg, 46% to 45%, and Mike Bloomberg, 48% to 45%.



    I certainly hope not (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    But I have to admit, Muhlenberg is one of our best, unbiased local polls.

    Parent
    Agree with Peter (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jmacWA on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    I certainly hope not... I just got confirmation from the county that I have officially changed my registration to D (from I).  I will most definitely vote against Sanders in the PA primary, who I will vote for in the primary depends on the state of the race here.

    Howdy, if you have not seen it, the Guardian has been doing pieces on Northampton county (center of the state bordering NJ) tracing their Trumpiness.  I haven't seen one for a while but there have probably been a dozen since tRump was elected.

    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    a big fan of the hypothetical matchup questions, I suspect more than a few Bernie bros gamed the results by refusing to support any other candidate and unfortunately some of them really mean it.

    Parent
    Biden is like PA's unofficial Senator ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 08:28:04 AM EST
    he'll win there.

    The others?  They will struggle.

    Parent

    I voted early today (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Thu Feb 27, 2020 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    For the first time at my new address.  I had changed my registration a few months ago but somehow it hadn't been updated in the local system yet.  Luckily they made a phone call and fixed the problem in like 5 min.  Glad I didn't wait until election day where there might be a line or less helpful people.

    Apparently some Bernie or Bust types want to primary Warren, in a state where our current left wing Senator is being primaried from the right.  One of these days they might figure out that most states are not Vermont, but today is not that day.

    Hold up.... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 06:04:13 AM EST
    Primary Elizabeth Warren? Our Warren?

    Forget about Vermont, that makes zero sense anywhere. Idiots.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 05:34:28 AM EST
    neither is WV and they were sure there was some great desire for a Bernie candidate there.

    You know, there are a lot of better ways to change things than running against an incumbent.

    Parent

    Just about everybody (none / 0) (#167)
    by NoSides on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 06:33:28 AM EST
    is dumping on Bernie.

    The right is calling him a commie, and the left is calling him a hypocrite and worse.

    The article cited above from Lancet looks good to me - and Sanders has not backed away from his stance about Medicare for All. I think that is important.

    "...[A] universal system, such as that proposed in the Medicare for All Act, has the potential to transform the availability and efficiency of American health-care services. Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations.

    This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo."

    This article contradicts all those who say that we can't afford a single-payer universal healthcare system - and I wish that the other candidates would stop regurgitating that Republican meme.

    Site Violator (none / 0) (#168)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 07:55:57 AM EST


    Is anybody on facebook (none / 0) (#172)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    My feed has two Bloomberg ads with the title "free stuff".  One is for a package of matches with "Fire Trump" on the top of the box while the other is for a "Bloomberg Bandana".  In both cases if you click on the link it goes to a page where if you provide an email address and a street address along with your name you get the item mailed to you.

    No facebook... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    But they had the Today Show on all the tubes at the dentist today...every commercial break had a Bloomberg ad. I found it more offensive than the dentist bill, which was plenty offensive!

    Thank goodness for Netflix at home...a shelter from the "buy me love" assault.

    Parent

    My gen-Z kids turned me on to Reddit. (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 03:48:26 PM EST
    I, and they, have Sanders ads on Reddit constantly.

    They are both strong Sanders supporters.

    Parent

    Reddit... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    is wall to wall Bernie. Can't help but notice it. Also to the point of annoyance, and I say that as as a supporter.

    And we got almost 7 more months...uggh.

    Parent

    In my Philadelphia suburb, we already have (none / 0) (#175)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    a Bloomberg storefront, although the PA primary is in May. Local Dems are picking up the free t-shirts, and then wearing them around after adding a red diagonal slash symbol with a fat magic marker over MB's face.

    Parent
    Love it... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    Also lovin' the stories of his mercenary army of social media influencers sending out their contractually obligated pro-Bloomberg messages and turning right around to tell their contacts "just paying bills, please vote for somebody else." Maybe there is hope for this country yet!

    On the brightside...this guy is so loathesome it will feel like a relief no matter who else wins. Even f:ckin' Biden.

    Parent

    It made (none / 0) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    me laugh. At least Bloomberg is paying Americans to do it unlike Bernie and Trump who are getting it free from the Russians.

    Maybe after 2016 people will wise up to the propaganda spread on social media.

    Parent

    So, it isn't propaganda (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    if you pay for it with your own money?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    just pointing out at least Bloomberg is paying Americans to do it instead of letting Russia do it for them like Bernie and Trump. Besides how good exactly can these American "influencers" be if they lasted all of a few weeks before they were found out? Certainly not up to par with Russian intelligence agencies it would seem.

    Parent
    So you're saying... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 08:19:41 AM EST
    Putin is a better propoganda manager than Bloomberg? I thought Mike "gets it done"?

    Of the three it is Sanders who is on record against unethical and dishonest meddling, be it foreign or domestic.

    Parent

    That is what (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    Sanders says only after he was found out to be keeping Russian support for his campaign secret in 2020. He said nothing in 2016 when they were supporting his campaign and probably the only reason he even said anything this time is because it hit the papers and then he blamed Jeff Bezos not the Russians for the problem.

    Parent
    You've got Russia on the brain (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    Sanders has support in Australia, the Netherlands, Ireland, and South Africa as well..

    And, from what I hear, America.

    Meanwhile, Netanyahu inteferes directly and I'm sure covertly, in our elections and we never hear a peep about it. Why do you suppose that is?

    Parent

    If you're fine (none / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    with someone who jails members of the press and jails people because they are gay interfering in our elections just say so.

    You're deflecting. Nobody said supporters from other countries. Are their intelligence services attempting to help Sanders? As far as I have read Russian Intelligence is the only one helping and their candidates are again Trump and Sanders.

    I find nothing on Netanyahu interfering in our election from googling but a lot of bogus claims from conservatives that Obama interfered in Israeli elections.

    Parent

    I think you need (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    to add an addition onto your echo chamber.

    What message was Netanyahu sending when he traveled here in 2015 to address a predominantly Republican Congress in an attempt to undermine Obama's and the Democrat's support for the Iran deal?

    In 2016, Facebook traced a political disinformation campaign targetting Latin American and African countries to Archimedes Group located outside of Tel Aviv..

    And how about the Chinese? When Bloomberg publicly insists that their unelected president-for-life "isn't a dictator" it never occurs to them to lift a finger in return for all the friendly publicity? Lets get real, shall we?

    Parent

    To undermine (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    the Iran deal but that had nothing to do with interfering in elections. It was about interfering with diplomacy and foreign policy. It's a real stretch to say that was interfering with an election.

    Bloomberg can answer for himself about his statements. To me that is nothing about China interfering and everything about Bloomberg making a stupid statement.

    You keep deflecting. Now you're talking about Israel accused of interfering in other countries elections and they were using Kremlin tactics. Why keep making excuses for the Kremlin?

    Parent

    "Deflecting" ie, not limiting (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    the discussion to the narrow track you'd prefer to keep it on. Sorry about that.

    So Netanyahu wasn't trying to sway public opinion in the U.S when he came here to very publicly address one party and to undermine the work of the other party. Ok, If you say so.

    Parent

    April 28 (none / 0) (#188)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    Please don't want til May Peter.


    Parent
    I was close .... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    Can I get partial credit?

    Parent
    I assumed May as well. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 29, 2020 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    Until my wife wanted to change her registration from independent to Democrat to vote in the primary. That's when I noticed the earlier date. And then realized that we will be on the road, returning from the Catskills on April 28. We should be home before the polls close. But methinks we should request mail ballots and not take any chances.

    Parent
    Bloomberg clearly has good advance people ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    because at everyone of his rallies, he has perfectly localized jokes and references.

    But I wonder, does his GOTV teams have the same level of localized information?

    If he's going to win even one state on Super Tuesday, he needs to out GOTV the other candidates.

    I (none / 0) (#185)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    suspect he will flood the zone in one small state on Tuesday, Tenn, Arkansas and Alabama perhaps. Not much attention given them and virtually` zero polling.

    I am pretty sure his GOTV effort will be mainly phone driven, I have seen him in action before.

    Parent

    Well, phones won't ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 28, 2020 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    get it done.

    Parent