4T is Speeding Along Now

[Warren Dew]

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

What do you think Democrats have against Super Tuesday?  If Sanders has a large plurality of delegates going into Super Tuesday, but Bloomberg is polling ahead of him in actual Super Tuesday states, what happens then?

[David Horn]

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: Sanders could lose the GE, in which case the grey champion is likely an older Xer the way Obama was and is elected in 2024 running heavily off Sanders’ platform. 2022 would be equivalent to 1930 in terms of Dems gains in the midterms with 2024 being 1932.

Except it won't. The Trumpists are making a full-court press on all government institutions (their so-called Deep State). They want it gone, and they're focusing hard on the parts that might interfere with the Trump post-Presidency. In short, they want to change everything for a few decades … at least until they're dead. If there is a second Trump term, they won't hesitate to deep-six anything that might tie them to misdeeds (Trump already holds one-on-one meetings with autocrats that are not documented in any way). These are abuses that are hard to identify and harder to fix. It's a slash-and-burn strategy that is more typical among autocrats than democrats.

There may be no 2024 in the normal meaning of the term.

[pbrower2a]

Trump is so unpopular that he must cheat to win. Nothing says that he won't. He has done so much wrong that if defeated he will need to find another country.

Think of Ferdinand Marcos. Yes, it is that bad. Count on intimidation (Trump or prison, vote Trump if you want to keep your job -- your employer will know), dirty tricks, an onslaught of propaganda (Trump or treason)...

Crisis Eras are times of fear unless the leadership (yes, I know what FDR said -- All we need to fear... is Fear itself!) is capable of imparting courage upon people who have much to dread.

Here is my snippet of an inaugural speech for the incoming Democratic President:

We are a strong People. We have met difficulty with courage and achievement in the past, and we may need to do so again. We may face hardships, yet if we treat those with dedication and integrity we shall prevail. A nation that can settle the frontier, abolish slavery, get children out of the workplace and into school, recognize the rights of women and minorities, defeat Hitler and Tojo at the same time, turn a Depression into prosperity, contain Communism, and land men on the Moon can achieve anything. We have no excuse for failure.

[Snowflake1996]

(02-09-2020, 02:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

What do you think Democrats have against Super Tuesday?  If Sanders has a large plurality of delegates going into Super Tuesday, but Bloomberg is polling ahead of him in actual Super Tuesday states, what happens then?

I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

[David Horn]

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote:

(02-09-2020, 02:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

What do you think Democrats have against Super Tuesday?  If Sanders has a large plurality of delegates going into Super Tuesday, but Bloomberg is polling ahead of him in actual Super Tuesday states, what happens then?

I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

I wouldn't bet on that.  I think Sanders does well on Super Tuesday regarless, but a Mike Bloomberg can easily emerge if there is no other alternative in the so-called moderate lane.  I'm doubtful that Biden can recover, Buttigieg is still too young, and that leaves Amy Klobuchar or a true dark horse.

[Warren Dew]

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

Bloomberg won't be in the same position as Biden, though.  Biden will have contested several states and not won them, making him a clear loser.  Bloomberg will have skipped those states, so he won't really have "lost" them.

This is really the first time we've had a Presidential candidate capable of funding an external coefficient of diffusion from advertising comparable to the internal coefficient from "earned" media.  If excessive advertising was capable of electing a Republican Senator in Massachusetts - which I got to see first hand - I think it can do it for the Presidency, given Bloomberg's money.

The only question is whether Bloomberg is willing to spend what it takes, which I think will be around $9 billion.  I suspect he has a more modest goal of just earning enough delegates to prevent Sanders or Warren from getting the nomination, since their wealth tax proposals could theoretically tax away some of his wealth.  Then he can use his delegates to throw the nomination to Biden or Klobuchar or Kerry or someone.

[beechnut79]

(02-10-2020, 09:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote:

(02-09-2020, 02:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 09:09 PM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: We’ll see in a few weeks if the first premise comes true. Biden appears to be the only serious alternative to Sanders (Buttigieg falls off a cliff once you get to NV/SC due to paltry minority support, Bloomberg is a wild card but I can’t seriously imagine Dems falling in line for him since he’s banking on Super Tuesday) and Biden’s campaign is currently in panic mode and running out of cash. I’d say Sanders is a solid favorite so far but we’ll see what happens in a few weeks times. After the first four contests are decided (IA/MH/NV/SC), we’ll know who the nominee will be (or worse yet if we’re heading towards a contested convention).

What do you think Democrats have against Super Tuesday?  If Sanders has a large plurality of delegates going into Super Tuesday, but Bloomberg is polling ahead of him in actual Super Tuesday states, what happens then?

I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

I wouldn't bet on that.  I think Sanders does well on Super Tuesday regarless, but a Mike Bloomberg can easily emerge if there is no other alternative in the so-called moderate lane.  I'm doubtful that Biden can recover, Buttigieg is still too young, and that leaves Amy Klobuchar or a true dark horse.

Just as Jimmy Carter was a dark horse in 1976?

[David Horn]

(02-10-2020, 11:29 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 09:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

I wouldn't bet on that.  I think Sanders does well on Super Tuesday regarless, but a Mike Bloomberg can easily emerge if there is no other alternative in the so-called moderate lane.  I'm doubtful that Biden can recover, Buttigieg is still too young, and that leaves Amy Klobuchar or a true dark horse.

Just as Jimmy Carter was a dark horse in 1976?

To be honest, I can't see one except Michael Bennet, and I can't see him after NH. The lily-white front loading of the primary season has already deep-sixed all the candidates of color, except for Andrew Yang, so diverse states won' be able to balance the books.

[Snowflake1996]

(02-10-2020, 10:53 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

Bloomberg won't be in the same position as Biden, though.  Biden will have contested several states and not won them, making him a clear loser.  Bloomberg will have skipped those states, so he won't really have "lost" them.

This is really the first time we've had a Presidential candidate capable of funding an external coefficient of diffusion from advertising comparable to the internal coefficient from "earned" media.  If excessive advertising was capable of electing a Republican Senator in Massachusetts - which I got to see first hand - I think it can do it for the Presidency, given Bloomberg's money.

The only question is whether Bloomberg is willing to spend what it takes, which I think will be around $9 billion.  I suspect he has a more modest goal of just earning enough delegates to prevent Sanders or Warren from getting the nomination, since their wealth tax proposals could theoretically tax away some of his wealth.  Then he can use his delegates to throw the nomination to Biden or Klobuchar or Kerry or someone.

I think he has a lot of soft support in these Super Tuesday states since he’s the only Democratic Party candidate currently focused on flooding the airwaves of these states. As the field narrows down to 2-3 serious candidates I think they’ll flood their own ads in these states and Bloomberg’s support will go down. He has the softest support according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

[Eric the Green]

(02-10-2020, 03:00 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:29 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 09:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

I wouldn't bet on that.  I think Sanders does well on Super Tuesday regarless, but a Mike Bloomberg can easily emerge if there is no other alternative in the so-called moderate lane.  I'm doubtful that Biden can recover, Buttigieg is still too young, and that leaves Amy Klobuchar or a true dark horse.

Just as Jimmy Carter was a dark horse in 1976?

To be honest, I can't see one except Michael Bennet, and I can't see him after NH.  The lily-white front loading of the primary season has already deep-sixed all the candidates of color, except for Andrew Yang, so diverse states won' be able to balance the books.

It just shows that diversity can't come into an election just because we might want it. Non-white candidates will never be successful just because they are not white. Or non-male either for that matter. Non-white/female candidates have to be good candidates to be successful, just like the white male ones. Or better yet, even better than the white male ones. Obama was. Harris and Booker were never going to be successful candidates. Patrick lost his footing in the race because of a late start.

A dark horse has to be someone with outstanding ability as a candidate, like Polk (the original dark horse, score 22-2) or Obama (19-2), but who somehow hasn't caught fire yet. There are no such candidates running. Only if Mitch Landrieu suddenly jumped in could a dark horse emerge at this point. Even then, it's probably way, way too late in our system as it stands today. Of the three now below the radar, but still running, Bennet is the least-likely dark horse.

[Eric the Green]

(02-09-2020, 05:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Trump is so unpopular that he must cheat to win. Nothing says that he won't. He has done so much wrong that if defeated he will need to find another country.

Think of Ferdinand Marcos. Yes, it is that bad. Count on intimidation (Trump or prison, vote Trump if you want to keep your job -- your employer will know), dirty tricks, an onslaught of propaganda (Trump or treason)...

Crisis Eras are times of fear unless the leadership (yes, I know what FDR said -- All we need to fear... is Fear itself!) is capable of imparting courage upon people who have much to dread.

Here is my snippet of an inaugural speech for the incoming Democratic President:

We are a strong People. We have met difficulty with courage and achievement in the past, and we may need to do so again. We may face hardships, yet if we treat those with dedication and integrity we shall prevail. A nation that can settle the frontier, abolish slavery, get children out of the workplace and into school, recognize the rights of women and minorities, defeat Hitler and Tojo at the same time,  turn a Depression into prosperity, contain Communism, and land men on the Moon can achieve anything. We have no excuse for failure.

Trump will cheat. But his cheating last time consisted partly on fake news items on facebook, through his encouraging or colluding with the Russians or with that British outfit. In other words, Trump's cheating may not work if the people aren't fooled. Trump is a talented deceiver, and he has deceived many, many folks. On the other hand, voter suppression will work regardless of deception. The good news there is that the Democrats have recaptured the state administrations of those 3 rust-belt states the Trump flipped in 2016, so suppression will be harder to bring off.

That speech sounds like what Biden is saying. I wouldn't write him off just yet, but he needs to show the warmth and vitality that he used to show, and that shows in his horoscope. He needs to bring all of who he is back to the trail. And fast. I don't know that he's doing it. But if he does, he can still win South Carolina and maybe come in second in Nevada.

I don't think Bloomberg is a good substitute for Biden. Neither is Pete, and certainly not Amy. But they are sucking off his support right now.

[beechnut79]

(02-11-2020, 12:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 03:00 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 11:29 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 09:24 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

I wouldn't bet on that.  I think Sanders does well on Super Tuesday regarless, but a Mike Bloomberg can easily emerge if there is no other alternative in the so-called moderate lane.  I'm doubtful that Biden can recover, Buttigieg is still too young, and that leaves Amy Klobuchar or a true dark horse.

Just as Jimmy Carter was a dark horse in 1976?

To be honest, I can't see one except Michael Bennet, and I can't see him after NH.  The lily-white front loading of the primary season has already deep-sixed all the candidates of color, except for Andrew Yang, so diverse states won' be able to balance the books.

It just shows that diversity can't come into an election just because we might want it. Non-white candidates will never be successful just because they are not white. Or non-male either for that matter. Non-white/female candidates have to be good candidates to be successful, just like the white male ones. Or better yet, even better than the white male ones. Obama was. Harris and Booker were never going to be successful candidates. Patrick lost his footing in the race because of a late start.

A dark horse has to be someone with outstanding ability as a candidate, like Polk (the original dark horse, score 22-2) or Obama (19-2), but who somehow hasn't caught fire yet. There are no such candidates running. Only if Mitch Landrieu suddenly jumped in could a dark horse emerge at this point. Even then, it's probably way, way too late in our system as it stands today. Of the three now below the radar, but still running, Bennet is the least-likely dark horse.

Another classic example of a dark horse is Lori Lightfoot, who was just a casual mention in a crowded field for the Chicago mayor’s race and eventually triumphed over many better known candidates to become the city’s third African-American, second female and first openly gay mayor in the city’s history.

[Snowflake1996]

(02-10-2020, 10:53 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-10-2020, 05:24 AM)Snowflake1996 Wrote: I don’t believe that Democrats would rally behind someone going into Super Tuesday who not only failed to win any state prior but didn’t even come close to winning any.

His poll numbers will drop once the first four contests are decided and he will underperform considerably when Super Tuesday comes.

Bloomberg won't be in the same position as Biden, though.  Biden will have contested several states and not won them, making him a clear loser.  Bloomberg will have skipped those states, so he won't really have "lost" them.

This is really the first time we've had a Presidential candidate capable of funding an external coefficient of diffusion from advertising comparable to the internal coefficient from "earned" media.  If excessive advertising was capable of electing a Republican Senator in Massachusetts - which I got to see first hand - I think it can do it for the Presidency, given Bloomberg's money.

The only question is whether Bloomberg is willing to spend what it takes, which I think will be around $9 billion.  I suspect he has a more modest goal of just earning enough delegates to prevent Sanders or Warren from getting the nomination, since their wealth tax proposals could theoretically tax away some of his wealth.  Then he can use his delegates to throw the nomination to Biden or Klobuchar or Kerry or someone.

I’ve seen enough with tonight’s democratic debate. Bloomberg is the worst political candidate I’ve seen since Jeb Bush wandered his weak ass onto a debate stage.

[Warren Dew]

Yeah, he might have been better off staying away from the debate. His presence sure made it more interesting, though!