Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Election 2020
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
David Brooks makes the super-accurate cartoon caricature of Elizabeth Warren as Crusader Rabbit complete.



Crusader Rabbit is said in this episode 1 to have campaigned for Santa Claus for president so that every day would be Christmas. Well, Bernie's critics would not hesitate to call him Santa Claus, and David clearly stated that Warren is now campaigning for Sanders! https://youtu.be/b-xxwQdjTSA
(02-23-2020, 12:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]David Brooks makes the super-accurate cartoon caricature of Elizabeth Warren as Crusader Rabbit complete.



Crusader Rabbit is said in this episode 1 to have campaigned for Santa Claus for president so that every day would be Christmas. Well, Bernie's critics would not hesitate to call him Santa Claus, and David clearly stated that Warren is now campaigning for Sanders! https://youtu.be/b-xxwQdjTSA

-- David Brock is a Correct the Record troll. F him
Big Grin Bernie rocked it. Big Grin
To win Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, Trump will need to win more than 90% of his 2016 voters in those states and hope that voter turnout is low.

[Image: Screenshot_20200223-075624.png]
It's good to see the Democrats do well in the latest polls against Trump in Virginia and Wisconsin.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...elections/
2020 United States presidential primary election results
Nevada
Updated at 5:47 PM PST
DEMOCRATIC

100% reporting
Votes displayed are county convention delegates. County convention delegates determine how many national pledged delegates each candidate will receive.

Candidate
Delegates
Percent
Count

Bernie Sanders
24 46.8% 6,788

Joe Biden
9 20.2% 2,927

Pete Buttigieg
3 14.3% 2,073

Elizabeth Warren
0 9.7% 1,406

Tom Steyer
0 4.7% 682

Amy Klobuchar
0 4.2% 603

Tulsi Gabbard
0 0.1% 4

Andrew Yang
0 0.1% 1

Deval Patrick
0 0% 0

John Delaney
0 0% 0

Michael Bennet
0 0% 0
Uncommitted
0 0.1% 7
(02-24-2020, 08:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]2020 United States presidential primary election results
Nevada
Updated at 5:47 PM PST
DEMOCRATIC

100% reporting
Votes displayed are county convention delegates. County convention delegates determine how many national pledged delegates each candidate will receive.

Candidate
Delegates
Percent
Count

Bernie Sanders
24 46.8% 6,788

Joe Biden
9 20.2% 2,927

Pete Buttigieg
3 14.3% 2,073

Elizabeth Warren
0 9.7% 1,406

Tom Steyer
0 4.7% 682

Amy Klobuchar
0 4.2% 603

Tulsi Gabbard
0 0.1% 4

Andrew Yang
0 0.1% 1

Deval Patrick
0 0% 0

John Delaney
0 0% 0

Michael Bennet
0 0% 0
Uncommitted
0 0.1% 7

Why should any of us care about a caucus/primary that involved roughly 14,500 Nevadans, out of a population of more than 3 Million … less than half a percent?  Yet we declare Bernie the new, and nearly unstoppable front runner on that basis.  Really?
Because the first 4 "retail politics" states vet the candidates better than the mass media states that follow, and provide the momentum from which candidates are nominated or not.

Also, there's the national polling average:

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders28.8
Biden17.4
Bloomberg14.8
Warren13.0
Buttigieg10.2
Klobuchar5.6
Steyer2.4
Gabbard1.8

Sanders +11.4

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/

Polls show him leading or tied for the lead in many super tuesday states, though mostly not by the Nevada margin.

Sanders is the front runner. Debate tonight; we'll see how he does as front runner with the lances out for him, and whether Bloomberg is any better than the worst debate performance since Dan Quayle.

Just to clarify, about 100,000 Nevada Democrats or Democratic voters voted IIRC. The 14,000 are the county convention delegates that were chosen, who choose the national convention delegates (probably automatically according to the results of the caucus).
(02-25-2020, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Because the first 4 "retail politics" states vet the candidates better than the mass media states that follow, and provide the momentum from which candidates are nominated or not.

Also, there's the national polling average:

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders28.8
Biden17.4
Bloomberg14.8
Warren13.0
Buttigieg10.2
Klobuchar5.6
Steyer2.4
Gabbard1.8

Sanders +11.4

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/

Polls show him leading or tied for the lead in many super tuesday states, though mostly not by the Nevada margin.

Sanders is the front runner. Debate tonight; we'll see how he does as front runner with the lances out for him, and whether Bloomberg is any better than the worst debate performance since Dan Quayle.

Just to clarify, about 100,000 Nevada Democrats or Democratic voters voted IIRC. The 14,000 are the county convention delegates that were chosen, who choose the national convention delegates (probably automatically according to the results of the caucus).

My bad on the 14,500, but the situation is still the same.  Large and diverse states have not really been in this … Nevada being somewhat the exception.  There needs to be a Pre-primary, perhaps, that sorts the pile down to no more than five candidates.  Then we start this process.  Ordinary people can't sort this pile, so they just don't.  That makes is a contest run by and for the committed, who are anything but representative.  

If Bernie wins the candidacy and the Presidency, then Progressivism is off to the races.  If he wins the candidacy and loses in the general, then Progressivism will take a hit -- worse if the loss is substantial, and probably long lasting to boot.  Any other result that keeps Trump in power is just bad all around, but, if so, 2024 should be the Progressive year in full.  I suspect they will win a scorched earth needing serious work.  Any other result that removes Trump will put everything on the back burner for a decade or two -- EW being the only possible exception.  I don't see her making it..
Civiqs data for all fifty states, with interpolation for DC and  intrapolation for ME-02 and NE-02. Not to be confused with other polling.  

https://civiqs.com/results/approve_presi...oomIn=true

[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=2;1;7]

Trump approval by state:

55% or higher
51-54%
50% or under, with Trump ahead

exact ties -- white

45-50% or under, Trump behind with 51% or lesser disapproval
disapproval 52-55%
disapproval 56% or higher
DC -- not shown in Civiqs data, but don't be stupid -- 90% red


If you are wondering about Maine -- Trump approval is at 37% statewide and disapproval is 60%, which would be impossible if ME-02 weren't significantly red. Nebraska is at 53% approval and 44% disapproval -- but NE-02 (Greater Omaha) is about 12% more D than Nebraska at-large, so I must color it at the least a pale shade of red. NE-01 (eastern Nebraska except for Greater Omaha, including Lincoln) is slightly more R-leaning than the state as a whole, but enough to put it in the darkest shade of blue. NE-03 (central and western Nebraska, including Grand Island and Scottsbluff,  is one of the most Republican-leaning congressional districts in America.  

..................

Unless really-strange things happen between now and November, Trump will win everything in which his approval is above 50%, and win anything where his approval is at or above 55% by double digits. The distinction in effect in states with approvals over 55% is moot because the difference between 55% and 70% in any chance of winning or losing or in the distribution of electoral votes is of no significance.

I see Ohio and Texas potentially contested in ways that Indiana and Colorado won't be. There are no ties, but any state in pink will also be contested based on polling data. I see an incumbent having a very difficult time winning any state in which his disapproval is above 50%, with 51% still within the range of possible winning but anything above that -- deep trouble. Any state which shows disapproval above 52% will take miracles to win. Disapproval at or above 55%? That is the zone of double-digit losses. The difference between getting 55% of the popular vote and 80% is nil in electoral votes (unless the state is Maine or Nebraska).

I notice that Civics now shows Nevada and Virginia spiraling out of reach for Trump. In Nevada, Republicans just don't have the votes to counteract those in Greater Las Vegas. Virginia may be fairly liberal on social issues and economics -- but arch-conservative on defense and foreign policy. On defense and foreign policy, Barack Obama was the arch-conservative and Donald Trump is about what the Nixon campaign said that George McGovern would be. This may be showing up in Georgia and North Carolina, both of which have a huge military presence.
It seems to me that none of the other candidates can hold a candle to Sanders anymore.

Biden can't rise above his meandering and stumbling style, thus worrying voters that he can't handle the trump. He is barely ahead in SC, and if he loses there he's done. He has a good record, and solid qualifications and abilities, but he's lost his youth and his mojo, and Bernie hasn't.

Warren can't rise above her fighting style. She can attack well, but can a pedantic crusader rabbit run a country?

Buttigieg, the smug metronomic mayor, is always reasonable but that doesn't mean he has a pulse. Nor qualifications.

Bloomberg can't buy the love of the voters because he has no personality.

Steyer is making a run in SC, but the rest of the country isn't buying his unfocused shouting.

Sanders is the only one with a narrative, said David Brooks. He knows why he's running, and the others just can't stop talking.


From The Guardian, the best review of the CBS debate:

Moderates just blew their best shot to stop Bernie Sanders

Richard Wolffe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...er-tuesday
@richardwolffedc
Tue 25 Feb 2020 23.36 ESTLast modified on Tue 25 Feb 2020 23.56 EST

The Democratic candidates seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. That benefited Sanders once again.

'Nothing I'm saying is radical': Sanders brushes off attacks in chaotic debate...

Who is the happy warrior?

Apparently not a single one of the seven Democratic candidates locked in a doom-laden downward spiral in the final debate before Super Tuesday.

The last Democrat to win the presidency printed posters with HOPE slapped all over them. Judging from Tuesday’s debate in South Carolina, most of the party’s leading voices are either breathless or hopeless.

Yes, the stakes are high, after three years of the presidential dumpster fire called Donald Trump. But the stakes sound even higher if your presidential campaign is also on fire, as it seemed to be for just about everyone on stage.

CBS News, the host of the verbal calamity that was Tuesday’s debate, helpfully placed the two least appealing candidates on the outer edges of the stage.

It was a very finely balanced contest between billionaire Mike Bloomberg and billionaire Tom Steyer as to who could win the title of the most bizarre combination of arrogance and incompetence.

In this live human experiment where we all watch wealthy old men burn their money in TV ads and political consultants, Bloomberg and Steyer could barely cough up their pre-digested punchlines.

Bloomberg came out hot for Bernie, turning a question about his favorite subject – the economy – into a convoluted attack about Russian support. It was typical of a candidate who is most often described as data-driven because he is so clearly not human-driven.

“Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States, and that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him,” said the former New York mayor.

“Oh, Mr Bloomberg,” said Sanders. Oh Mr Bloomberg. Somehow his consultants didn’t predict that Sanders would look into the camera, accuse the billionaire of cozying up to China’s dictator, and tell Putin to go away.

In contrast it often seemed like Tom Steyer walked on stage without speaking to a single consultant who could tell him the truth about his clunky concoction of a campaign.

Steyer has no conceivable rationale for running since his call for impeaching Trump was overtaken by, well, impeachment. So he began by agreeing with the Democratic frontrunner before making a plea to save the private sector.

“Bernie Sanders’ analysis is right. The difference is, I don’t like his solutions,” Steyer said. “I don’t believe that a government takeover of large parts of the economy makes any sense for working people or for families. I think what we need to do is to present an alternative that includes a vibrant, competitive private sector.”

Thank goodness there are courageous billionaires like Steyer who speak up for the private sector. If only he didn’t look perpetually terrified by the prospect of remembering his own talking points.

Tuesday’s debate was the last best chance for the Sanders-chasers to catch his tail, but they seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. It’s hard to stay focused when you’re fighting for your political life.

Joe Biden was standing next to Bernie Sanders in the center of the debate stage and the two old men did their best to sound like they were fighting over the last free seat on the subway.

“You know, when we talk about progressive, let’s talk about being progressive,” Biden began, before freestyling with English grammar to create a mosaic of half-thoughts, swipes and slights.

“Being progressive, he thought Barack Obama – he wanted a primary – he said we should primary Barack Obama, someone should, and, in fact, the president was weak and our administration was in fact not up to it. Look, folks, this is – let’s talk about progressive. Progressive is getting things done, and that’s what we got done. We got a lot done.”

The only debaters who got anything done on stage on Tuesday were Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. But they both struggled to make the case for their own campaigns as well as they destroyed the case for their rivals.

Warren said she agreed with Sanders “on a lot of things” but would just do a better job because she worked harder than he did. “Getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard,” she said, “and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen.”

It’s not exactly a killer argument at this late stage of the primaries, but Warren is clearly capable of crafting one of those. Once she turned to Bloomberg, Warren displayed the kind of search-and-destroy debating skills that turns businessmen into Big Gulps.

After pointing out all of his donations to Trump allies in Congress, including South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham, Warren said, “I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has. The core of the Democratic party will never trust him. He has not earned their trust. I will. And the fact that he cannot earn the trust of core of the Democratic party means he is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage.”

There was a time, briefly, when the moderates – Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg – ganged up on the massive spending plans that Sanders has placed at the heart of his campaign. “A bunch of broken promises that sound good on bumper stickers,” said Klobuchar.

But that was after she talked about working with Sanders to bring down drug prices and promoted her own “more affordable, nonprofit public option”. Given the choice between Sanders and Sanders-lite, Democratic voters might just go for the option that fits on a bumper sticker.

Mayor Pete made a solid, regular case for just about every solid, regular subject. If this were a contest in sounding reasonable, then Buttigieg would run away with the contest. But the metronomic mayor regulates his beat a little too precisely to have a true pulse.

“If you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump. Folks at home, from South Carolina to South Bend, are trying to figure out what any of this means for us,” he explained with a turn of phrase that was delivered just like it was written for him. All folksy and southy.

Yes, he admitted, there was a progressive majority. “But, also, there’s a majority of the American people who I think right now just want to be able to turn on the TV, see their president, and actually feel their blood pressure go down a little bit, instead of up through the roof.”

It takes a peculiar love of reason to think you can campaign against passion by pushing for lower blood pressure. Don’t get too excited now.

As Bernie Sanders glided past the punches and counterpunches, Joe Biden stood center stage lamenting the state of the debate.

“I guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should,” said the former vice-president, sounding like he was just about getting a hang of this debate thing on the teevee.

“Why am I stopping?” he asked mid-sentence, a little later, as his time ran out. “Nobody else stops.”

How true. Nobody in this race is stopping even though Sanders has already passed them by.

At least Bernie knows why he’s running. Most of the rest of them are like Joe Biden: they just think it’s their turn to talk.

Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist
(02-26-2020, 01:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me that none of the other candidates can hold a candle to Sanders anymore.

Biden can't rise above his meandering and stumbling style, thus worrying voters that he can't handle the trump. He is barely ahead in SC, and if he loses there he's done. He has a good record, and solid qualifications and abilities, but he's lost his youth and his mojo, and Bernie hasn't.

Warren can't rise above her fighting style. She can attack well, but can a pedantic crusader rabbit run a country?

Buttigieg, the smug metronomic mayor, is always reasonable but that doesn't mean he has a pulse. Nor qualifications.

Bloomberg can't buy the love of the voters because he has no personality.

Steyer is making a run in SC, but the rest of the country isn't buying his unfocused shouting.

Sanders is the only one with a narrative, said David Brooks. He knows why he's running, and the others just can't stop talking.


From The Guardian, the best review of the CBS debate:

Moderates just blew their best shot to stop Bernie Sanders

Richard Wolffe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...er-tuesday
@richardwolffedc
Tue 25 Feb 2020 23.36 ESTLast modified on Tue 25 Feb 2020 23.56 EST

The Democratic candidates seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. That benefited Sanders once again.

'Nothing I'm saying is radical': Sanders brushes off attacks in chaotic debate...

Who is the happy warrior?

Apparently not a single one of the seven Democratic candidates locked in a doom-laden downward spiral in the final debate before Super Tuesday.

The last Democrat to win the presidency printed posters with HOPE slapped all over them. Judging from Tuesday’s debate in South Carolina, most of the party’s leading voices are either breathless or hopeless.

Yes, the stakes are high, after three years of the presidential dumpster fire called Donald Trump. But the stakes sound even higher if your presidential campaign is also on fire, as it seemed to be for just about everyone on stage.

CBS News, the host of the verbal calamity that was Tuesday’s debate, helpfully placed the two least appealing candidates on the outer edges of the stage.

It was a very finely balanced contest between billionaire Mike Bloomberg and billionaire Tom Steyer as to who could win the title of the most bizarre combination of arrogance and incompetence.

In this live human experiment where we all watch wealthy old men burn their money in TV ads and political consultants, Bloomberg and Steyer could barely cough up their pre-digested punchlines.

Bloomberg came out hot for Bernie, turning a question about his favorite subject – the economy – into a convoluted attack about Russian support. It was typical of a candidate who is most often described as data-driven because he is so clearly not human-driven.

“Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be president of the United States, and that’s why Russia is helping you get elected, so you will lose to him,” said the former New York mayor.

“Oh, Mr Bloomberg,” said Sanders. Oh Mr Bloomberg. Somehow his consultants didn’t predict that Sanders would look into the camera, accuse the billionaire of cozying up to China’s dictator, and tell Putin to go away.

In contrast it often seemed like Tom Steyer walked on stage without speaking to a single consultant who could tell him the truth about his clunky concoction of a campaign.

Steyer has no conceivable rationale for running since his call for impeaching Trump was overtaken by, well, impeachment. So he began by agreeing with the Democratic frontrunner before making a plea to save the private sector.

“Bernie Sanders’ analysis is right. The difference is, I don’t like his solutions,” Steyer said. “I don’t believe that a government takeover of large parts of the economy makes any sense for working people or for families. I think what we need to do is to present an alternative that includes a vibrant, competitive private sector.”

Thank goodness there are courageous billionaires like Steyer who speak up for the private sector. If only he didn’t look perpetually terrified by the prospect of remembering his own talking points.

Tuesday’s debate was the last best chance for the Sanders-chasers to catch his tail, but they seemed torn between attacking the Vermont senator and attacking each other. It’s hard to stay focused when you’re fighting for your political life.

Joe Biden was standing next to Bernie Sanders in the center of the debate stage and the two old men did their best to sound like they were fighting over the last free seat on the subway.

“You know, when we talk about progressive, let’s talk about being progressive,” Biden began, before freestyling with English grammar to create a mosaic of half-thoughts, swipes and slights.

“Being progressive, he thought Barack Obama – he wanted a primary – he said we should primary Barack Obama, someone should, and, in fact, the president was weak and our administration was in fact not up to it. Look, folks, this is – let’s talk about progressive. Progressive is getting things done, and that’s what we got done. We got a lot done.”

The only debaters who got anything done on stage on Tuesday were Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. But they both struggled to make the case for their own campaigns as well as they destroyed the case for their rivals.

Warren said she agreed with Sanders “on a lot of things” but would just do a better job because she worked harder than he did. “Getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard,” she said, “and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen.”

It’s not exactly a killer argument at this late stage of the primaries, but Warren is clearly capable of crafting one of those. Once she turned to Bloomberg, Warren displayed the kind of search-and-destroy debating skills that turns businessmen into Big Gulps.

After pointing out all of his donations to Trump allies in Congress, including South Carolina’s own Lindsey Graham, Warren said, “I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has. The core of the Democratic party will never trust him. He has not earned their trust. I will. And the fact that he cannot earn the trust of core of the Democratic party means he is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage.”

There was a time, briefly, when the moderates – Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg – ganged up on the massive spending plans that Sanders has placed at the heart of his campaign. “A bunch of broken promises that sound good on bumper stickers,” said Klobuchar.

But that was after she talked about working with Sanders to bring down drug prices and promoted her own “more affordable, nonprofit public option”. Given the choice between Sanders and Sanders-lite, Democratic voters might just go for the option that fits on a bumper sticker.

Mayor Pete made a solid, regular case for just about every solid, regular subject. If this were a contest in sounding reasonable, then Buttigieg would run away with the contest. But the metronomic mayor regulates his beat a little too precisely to have a true pulse.

“If you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic, exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump. Folks at home, from South Carolina to South Bend, are trying to figure out what any of this means for us,” he explained with a turn of phrase that was delivered just like it was written for him. All folksy and southy.

Yes, he admitted, there was a progressive majority. “But, also, there’s a majority of the American people who I think right now just want to be able to turn on the TV, see their president, and actually feel their blood pressure go down a little bit, instead of up through the roof.”

It takes a peculiar love of reason to think you can campaign against passion by pushing for lower blood pressure. Don’t get too excited now.

As Bernie Sanders glided past the punches and counterpunches, Joe Biden stood center stage lamenting the state of the debate.

“I guess the only way you do this is jump in and speak twice as long as you should,” said the former vice-president, sounding like he was just about getting a hang of this debate thing on the teevee.

“Why am I stopping?” he asked mid-sentence, a little later, as his time ran out. “Nobody else stops.”

How true. Nobody in this race is stopping even though Sanders has already passed them by.

At least Bernie knows why he’s running. Most of the rest of them are like Joe Biden: they just think it’s their turn to talk.

Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist

-- Bernie rocked it last nite. No matter what they threw @ him he took their lemons & made lemonade
Democratic Presidential Nomination Feb 26, 2020 real clear politics national averages:
Sanders29.2
Biden18.0
Bloomberg14.4
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.0
Klobuchar5.4
Gabbard2.4
Steyer2.2

Sanders +11.2

Biden's firewall seems to be holding for now. Everywhere else, Sanders is still rising.

Wednesday, February 26

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 31, Sanders 23, Steyer 20, Warren 8, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 2 Biden +8

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Clemson Biden 35, Sanders 13, Steyer 17, Warren 8, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 2 Biden +18

California Democratic Primary KQED/NPR Sanders 36, Biden 10, Warren 18, Bloomberg 5, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 2 Sanders +18

Virginia Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 28, Bloomberg 17, Biden 19, Buttigieg 12, Warren 17, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 1 Sanders +9

Colorado Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 34, Warren 20, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 14, Biden 10, Klobuchar 6, Gabbard 1 Sanders +14

Washington Democratic Primary Elway Poll Sanders 21, Biden 10, Bloomberg 15, Warren 11, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 11, Steyer 0 Sanders +6

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Sanders 30, Biden 20, Bloomberg 11, Warren 16, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 4, Steyer 1 Sanders +10
(02-26-2020, 05:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination Feb 26, 2020 real clear politics national averages:
Sanders29.2
Biden18.0
Bloomberg14.4
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.0
Klobuchar5.4
Gabbard2.4
Steyer2.2

Sanders +11.2

Biden's firewall seems to be holding for now. Everywhere else, Sanders is still rising.

Wednesday, February 26

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 31, Sanders 23, Steyer 20, Warren 8, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 2 Biden +8

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Clemson Biden 35, Sanders 13, Steyer 17, Warren 8, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 2 Biden +18

California Democratic Primary KQED/NPR Sanders 36, Biden 10, Warren 18, Bloomberg 5, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 2 Sanders +18

Virginia Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 28, Bloomberg 17, Biden 19, Buttigieg 12, Warren 17, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 1 Sanders +9

Colorado Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 34, Warren 20, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 14, Biden 10, Klobuchar 6, Gabbard 1 Sanders +14

Washington Democratic Primary Elway Poll Sanders 21, Biden 10, Bloomberg 15, Warren 11, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 11, Steyer 0 Sanders +6

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Sanders 30, Biden 20, Bloomberg 11, Warren 16, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 4, Steyer 1 Sanders +10

-- Eric do u take $ on this stuff? Just asking
(02-26-2020, 06:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-26-2020, 05:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination Feb 26, 2020 real clear politics national averages:
Sanders29.2
Biden18.0
Bloomberg14.4
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.0
Klobuchar5.4
Gabbard2.4
Steyer2.2

Sanders +11.2

Biden's firewall seems to be holding for now. Everywhere else, Sanders is still rising.

Wednesday, February 26

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 31, Sanders 23, Steyer 20, Warren 8, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 2 Biden +8

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Clemson Biden 35, Sanders 13, Steyer 17, Warren 8, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 2 Biden +18

California Democratic Primary KQED/NPR Sanders 36, Biden 10, Warren 18, Bloomberg 5, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 2 Sanders +18

Virginia Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 28, Bloomberg 17, Biden 19, Buttigieg 12, Warren 17, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 1 Sanders +9

Colorado Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 34, Warren 20, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 14, Biden 10, Klobuchar 6, Gabbard 1 Sanders +14

Washington Democratic Primary Elway Poll Sanders 21, Biden 10, Bloomberg 15, Warren 11, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 11, Steyer 0 Sanders +6

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Sanders 30, Biden 20, Bloomberg 11, Warren 16, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 4, Steyer 1 Sanders +10

-- Eric do u take $ on this stuff? Just asking

I'm selling my book, and getting a few speaking fees; that's all. Not much $.
http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html

I do like to see the fact that my horoscope scores are panning out. Except for the two long shots with positive scores who have survived while almost all other candidates who have dropped out had negative scores or scores lower than theirs, right now the candidates line up pretty much according to their score.
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders 29.2 score 14-7
Biden 18.0 14-7
Bloomberg 14.4 7-5
Warren 12.4 8-7
Buttigieg 10.0 7-8
Klobuchar 5.4 7-7
Gabbard 2.4 11-6
Steyer 2.2 11-7

Sanders +11.2

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/
(02-27-2020, 02:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-26-2020, 06:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-26-2020, 05:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination Feb 26, 2020 real clear politics national averages:
Sanders29.2
Biden18.0
Bloomberg14.4
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.0
Klobuchar5.4
Gabbard2.4
Steyer2.2

Sanders +11.2

Biden's firewall seems to be holding for now. Everywhere else, Sanders is still rising.

Wednesday, February 26

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 31, Sanders 23, Steyer 20, Warren 8, Buttigieg 6, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 2 Biden +8

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Clemson Biden 35, Sanders 13, Steyer 17, Warren 8, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 2 Biden +18

California Democratic Primary KQED/NPR Sanders 36, Biden 10, Warren 18, Bloomberg 5, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 3, Gabbard 2 Sanders +18

Virginia Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 28, Bloomberg 17, Biden 19, Buttigieg 12, Warren 17, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 1 Sanders +9

Colorado Democratic Primary Data for Progress (D) Sanders 34, Warren 20, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 14, Biden 10, Klobuchar 6, Gabbard 1 Sanders +14

Washington Democratic Primary Elway Poll Sanders 21, Biden 10, Bloomberg 15, Warren 11, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 11, Steyer 0 Sanders +6

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Sanders 30, Biden 20, Bloomberg 11, Warren 16, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 4, Gabbard 4, Steyer 1 Sanders +10

-- Eric do u take $ on this stuff? Just asking

I'm selling my book, and getting a few speaking fees; that's all. Not much $.
http://philosopherswheel.com/hna.html

I do like to see the fact that my horoscope scores are panning out. Except for the two long shots with positive scores who have survived while almost all other candidates who have dropped out had negative scores or scores lower than theirs, right now the candidates line up pretty much according to their score.
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders 29.2 score 14-7
Biden 18.0 14-7
Bloomberg 14.4 7-5
Warren 12.4 8-7
Buttigieg 10.0 7-8
Klobuchar 5.4 7-7
Gabbard 2.4 11-6
Steyer 2.2 11-7

Sanders +11.2

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/

-- l was just asking bcuz your posts look like bookie spreads
(02-27-2020, 02:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]-- l was just asking bcuz your posts look like bookie spreads

It's similar to odds making. I am giving the odds on who is most likely to win. Others can bet on them if they wish. Sanders is leading the bet making for the nomination now by a wide margin; I've seen the stat.
In the MSNBC Rachel Maddow show, they had a guest on who had been responsible for various infectious disease outbreaks under the Obama administration, including SARS and an Ebola outbreak.  He made one interesting statement, to the effect that anyone who believed and acted upon the information the administration was currently putting out deserved what happened to them.  

Normally I would reject such a statement, but with what Trump has been saying lately, I can see where he is coming from.

One can see where if the federal government is not going to act, how the states are going to have to.  Many states where they have bought into the red world view might not.  One can see where if the federal government is not going to release thoughtful science based information, and is forbidding the CDC and similar organizations from breaking with the White House line, some other non-government group is going to have to take their place.

This is going to effect the election.  Communist governments in particular and autocratic dictators in general have ruled by media monopoly for years.  What they wish was true, or that which it is convenient for them to have the people to believe is true, is fed to the government controlled media.  Trump and Fox is using a similar style, an ability to warp his controlled base, to create his own warped universe.

On this one, this attempt to control truth against a contradiction of science looks to extend this to a large and fatal level.  It calls in question the entire style, the idea of creating an alternate world view through a client media.  I could easily see this creating a big time issue in the general election.  As much as the impeachment and the deep state witnesses, the new virus gives a glimpse into how much harm a fact free or biased political world view can do.

I am also seeing any winning Democratic candidate creating a team to undo everything Trump has done.  Normally I would look for some degree of stability, a sense that the deep state will stabilize the course, the feeling that the outgoing administration while they have a difference in approach, sincerely attempt to help the people.  I don’t feel like that this time.  I want to fill every position Trump has left vacant.  I want to replace every political position that can be normally filled by the president.  I want to review and reverse every executive order.  Any winning opposition candidate in 2020 has got to hit the ground running with this, in an overriding preemptive way.

Another case Maddow emphasized was the case in California in which they cannot trace back how the victim got the virus.  We can guess, or at least Maddow did.  The administration pulled the US citizens from a cruise ship which was known to be infected.  They brought everybody - infected or not - back on the same plane against CDC advice.  The brought in federal employees to enter the quarantine zone who did not have protective gear or training in quarantine procedures.  They let these people mingle among the California community, then return to their home offices where they live today without testing or quarantine.  Much of this was over the CDC’s objection.

Was there an intent to deliberately spread the infection?

But the unknown case in California was in the same county as one of the two Air Force bases where the federals flew people who had the virus, and where they let unprotected people enter the quarantine zone then move freely into the community.  Is there any wonder to find the community infected?

This is certainly a case against fact free government, with ignoring science when it is expedient to do so.  If Trump does not get hammered on it, the Democrats will be missing an opportunity.
I agree; I think this could be Trump's Katrina, with possible worse results. I am a bit shocked that they brought all those people back on the same plane. If that and the other things are true, it is a major blunder. And it shows the danger of having an administration that looks after the needs of its president rather than the needs of the country.

This coupled with the declaration Trump made at Davos that he will seeks major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security if he is re-elected, should be played up big time. If he's the nominee, Sanders will have to play every card to counter the socialist card played against him.
(02-27-2020, 11:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I agree; I think this could be Trump's Katrina, with possible worse results. I am a bit shocked that they brought all those people back on the same plane. If that and the other things are true, it is a major blunder. And it shows the danger of having an administration that looks after the needs of its president rather than the needs of the country.

This coupled with the declaration Trump made at Davos that he will seeks major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security if he is re-elected, should be played up big time. If he's the nominee, Sanders will have to play every card to counter the socialist card played against him.

You know, we haven’t been using a few S&H type words lately: catalyst and trigger event.  A catalyst would be an event or issue that illustrates or brings to the fore the new values.  The trigger would be the last such event, the one that makes the forces backing the new values essentially dominant and inevitable.  We are well through the crisis period, yet the trigger has not happened.  No regeneracy has brought the new values into general acceptance.

The impeachment of Trump, the new virus, and the election of 2020 just might be such events.

The bad president representing the old values gone wrong is another theme that may have occurred lately.

Too soon to call, but I do recall thinking and declaring a pending catalyst on hearing Katrina would hit very near New Orleans as a major storm.  Now gives a similar feeling.