Election 2020

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-23-2020, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You REALLY think Crusader Rabbit can beat Drumpface? Can he (She) beat the red states like Texas? Seriously??

Wow, that brings back memories about morning cartoons. Here's a shout out to Rags the Tiger. Another strange coincidence. Rags was born in the year of the water tiger.

Yep, I agree. Hillery needs to learn when to quit. Sheesh.

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2020, 08:27 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You REALLY think Crusader Rabbit can beat Drumpface? Can he (She) beat the red states like Texas? Seriously??

Wow, that brings back memories about morning cartoons. Here's a shout out to Rags the Tiger. Another strange coincidence. Rags was born in the year of the water tiger.

Yep, I agree. Hillery needs to learn when to quit. Sheesh.

Hillary has the crusader rabbit aspect too. But of course I mean Elizabeth Warren. The resemblance is truly striking, though people seem to have a hard time admitting it.

Hillary is not running for president this year. But that does not mean she can keep her mouth shut.

[pbrower2a]

Source for the statistics:

https://www.bw.edu/Assets/community-rese...-FINAL.pdf

(Would you vote for Donald Trump, the Republican?)

Ohio 39.4
Pennsylvania, 37.3
Michigan 33.9
Wisconsin 34.1

This is about as close as I could get to a definition of 'early support' as I saw in Nate Silver's essay (with analysis) of The Myth of 50%. Incumbents do not need to have 50% or so support early in campaign season, but they need to be within striking distance... which is about 43.5% so that they can get 50% of the share of the two-way vote in the November election.

A spirited and competent campaign is what one needs to go from the position in which one is in as a Governor or Senator, either administering or legislating, to getting elected. Doing the job is not as easy as campaigning, and reality typically cuts a bare win of 50% to about a 44% approval. (We see approval rates until the election year, and then we find such alternatives that may be more appropriate, such as results in match-ups.

Unless the Left side of the political spectrum splinters, Trump will be unable to win even 46% in Ohio based on the usual 6.5% gain for an incumbent with a spirited and competent campaign who makes no egregious errors. 6.5% is about what Obama got with a shrewd campaign effective at promoting optimism in 2012 without making many errors. Even if Trump could do as well from where he starts as did Obama -- he loses Ohio. 46% will not be enough for winning Ohio.

There is one big difference between Trump and Obama, though; Trump has been campaigning much of the time, so what more can he do? He is basically preaching to the choir at this point.

[David Horn]

(01-23-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

I wonder who the best surrogates for Sanders would be there.

At this point, it has to be someone not specifically tied to the coasts. If the squad was a bit less aggressive, they would be a good choice, but they are. In-your-face isn't a good model for the Midwest -- outside of places like Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis. Iowa is none of those.

Eric the Green Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You may need to get your thinking realigned a bit.  Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good guarantees the success of the bad -- truly bad, in this case.  I know you think a lot of Bernie, but no one in the Congress really likes the guy.  He'll be great at rallying the troops, much like DJT does on the other side, but it won't go anywhere.  I don't see even the most progressive members of Congress being that excited about his program.  

And what part of EW's record bother you?  Is it the GOP period, or something more recent?  If it's the former, then keep in mind the rule of converts: they're among the most committed.

One thing is clear. EW is not the candidate who can beat Trump. If you want the good rather than the perfect to win, then Sanders is the guy, not the gal Elizabeth (aka Crusader Rabbit). She just doesn't have it. Since she unloaded on Bernie with her whiny, bitchy remark "Did you call me a liar on national TV?" she has been falling in the polls. She revealed her weakness. For those who like Warren's policies that are not quite perfectly progressive, meaning she might have a better chance than Sanders the "perfect" progressive, consider the fact that Sanders has the candidate skills necessary to beat the Drump. He is an inspiring speaker who gets people behind him. He is strong and energetic, and very straightforward in his care for the people. He means what he says and says what he means. This is attractive to voters, while the wonky and pedantic Warren is not.

My concern with Sanders is not 2020. It's 2024. He can win. Can he govern?

[Marypoza]

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

-- lhlan represents neighboring state MN but.. maybe IA is different. l'm sure he has other surrogates, l just mentioned the ones off the top of my head. Earlier this week Bernie was leading in IA w/ 27% of the vote according 2 CNN, the same CNN who sent out that hit squad @ the last debate. So that's saying something if they admit he's winning. But these polls are fluid things. We'll just have 2 wait & see what happens 2/3

ps, don't listen 2 Hillhag's poison. According 2 Morning Consult Bernie is the most popular Senator in the country. His nickname is the Amendment King & he works very effectivelly with the other Senators 2 get legislation passed. Robert Reich can explain it better than me

In video tweeted by Sanders supporters from the political organization Our Revolution Contra Costa, Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor under then-president Bill Clinton, defended Sanders against critics who said he was ineffective in Congress. "I saw how effective Bernie actually was," Reich said. "He was tenacious." Reich said Sanders doesn’t have “a huge ego,” so he didn’t hold out for his name to be on every piece of legislation he advocated for. "But he did hold out for amendments and for changes that almost in every case, virtually in every case, helped working people and helped the poor," Reich said.

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2020, 07:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-23-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

I wonder who the best surrogates for Sanders would be there.

At this point, it has to be someone not specifically tied to the coasts.  If the squad was a bit less aggressive, they would be a good choice, but they are.  In-your-face isn't a good model for the Midwest -- outside of places like Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis.  Iowa is none of those.

Eric the Green Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You may need to get your thinking realigned a bit.  Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good guarantees the success of the bad -- truly bad, in this case.  I know you think a lot of Bernie, but no one in the Congress really likes the guy.  He'll be great at rallying the troops, much like DJT does on the other side, but it won't go anywhere.  I don't see even the most progressive members of Congress being that excited about his program.  

And what part of EW's record bother you?  Is it the GOP period, or something more recent?  If it's the former, then keep in mind the rule of converts: they're among the most committed.

One thing is clear. EW is not the candidate who can beat Trump. If you want the good rather than the perfect to win, then Sanders is the guy, not the gal Elizabeth (aka Crusader Rabbit). She just doesn't have it. Since she unloaded on Bernie with her whiny, bitchy remark "Did you call me a liar on national TV?" she has been falling in the polls. She revealed her weakness. For those who like Warren's policies that are not quite perfectly progressive, meaning she might have a better chance than Sanders the "perfect" progressive, consider the fact that Sanders has the candidate skills necessary to beat the Drump. He is an inspiring speaker who gets people behind him. He is strong and energetic, and very straightforward in his care for the people. He means what he says and says what he means. This is attractive to voters, while the wonky and pedantic Warren is not.

My concern with Sanders is not 2020.  It's 2024.  He can win.  Can he govern?

The issue there is, can we really afford 4 more years of Trump? Can we afford a right-wing supreme court? And 4 more years of pollution and climate change denial? We may get them anyway. He may be removed before his second term is up. But then, will congress and the senate be able to take over and restart progress in 2023, or will Pence and the Senate be able to stop it?

Sanders can govern a whole lot better than Trump can, that's for sure. And no-one can beat Trump in 2020 except Biden or Sanders. No-one, except maybe himself. And that's a long shot for 2020.

Maryposa made an excellent post. In fact, yes, Sanders can govern. He will fight for what he knows is right. But he knows clearly and has said that he would not be a dictator, or try to be. He does know how to work with others in the Senate. Hillary is wrong on that. As feisty as he can be as a fighter for justice, he is a gentleman, not an egotist. He genuinely cares, and this comes through.

But it's possible that if the Democrats win in 2020, they could lose in 2024. There are signs of this (the new moon before election favors the challenger). If a Democrat wins in 2020, it will be because (s)he was able to beat both of the two main indicators on my system. That has not happened ever, except in one very-maverick and transformational year: 1892, year of the Neptune-Pluto conjunction; the year one civilization ended and another began. Pretty rough stuff for an incumbent. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire both fell to it, and within a year of its exact date. The Tang Dynasty fell to it, and so did Richard II, and Bismarck too. So it was a big deal, and nothing like it will happen in 2024.

But Democrats could win in 2024 if their candidate's horoscope score is much higher than the Republican's. Or perhaps a 3rd Party will emerge and win. Democrats should once again be advised to choose Mitch Landrieu or Terry McAuliffe as strong candidates if Sanders bows out after 1 term, and not anyone running this year. The 2020 field is a weak one on all sides.

Trump is himself a big anomaly. He could defy the system that predicts that he might win, and perhaps the Lichtman Keys too, because he is the worst president ever, the most unfit and the most unqualified. And this anomaly might affect 2024 too. The fact is, Republicans have no other candidate with a good score on the horizon-- except maybe Tom Cotton, the young senator from Arkansas (15-9); but a strong-scoring Democratic candidate like Landrieu could still beat him too. That's unless you want to count Darth Vader himself (Steve Bannon, 10-5).

[ResidentArtist]

There's one wild card in the mix there for the Republican candidates. If Kanye West (stay with me) decides to run in 2024 as he's said he would, that might also make some waves in that primary, provided that the trend towards non-politicians continues and he also has sway over evangelical voters. West as a presidential candidate might sound silly but then again, so would have President Trump in 2012, and he does seem committed to it after publicly floating the idea since 2015.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: ps, don't listen 2 Hillhag's poison. According 2 Morning Consult Bernie is the most popular Senator in the country. His nickname is the  Amendment King & he works very effectivelly with the other Senators 2 get legislation passed. Robert Reich can explain it better than me...

I've heard negative comments from too many Senators of all stripes to think that Bernie can play well with others. Note: they all respect his consistency and verve. They just don't connect with him.

[Marypoza]

(01-24-2020, 07:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 04:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: ps, don't listen 2 Hillhag's poison. According 2 Morning Consult Bernie is the most popular Senator in the country. His nickname is the  Amendment King & he works very effectivelly with the other Senators 2 get legislation passed. Robert Reich can explain it better than me...

I've heard negative comments from too many Senators to all stripes to think that Bernie can play well with others.  Note: they all respect his consistency and verve.  They just don't connect with him.

--well there's this from The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...aHfj-8FSQ8

[Marypoza]

(01-23-2020, 03:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You REALLY think Crusader Rabbit can beat Drumpface? Can he (She) beat the red states like Texas? Seriously??





Refer back to this post at the bottom of the last page: http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid48911

-- her campaign is already on life support

[Marypoza]

[quote pid='48963' dateline='1579902965']
David Horn

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

Eric--I wonder who the best surrogates for Sanders would be there.

David--At this point, it has to be someone not specifically tied to the coasts.  If the squad was a bit less aggressive, they would be a good choice, but they are.  In-your-face isn't a good model for the Midwest -- outside of places like Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis.  Iowa is none of those.

-- do the surrogates have 2 be politicians? Danny De Vito comes 2 mind. Do they like Taxi reruns in IA?  :
I still prefer female surrogates 2 put that sexism bs 2 rest. How about Susan Sarandon? Or mebbe Janet from Rocky Horror- is 2 much 4 lA
[quote pid='48946' dateline='1579869232']

Quote: David---And what part of EW's record bother you?  Is it the GOP period, or something more recent?  If it's the former, then keep in mind the rule of converts: they're among the most committed.

Eric-- One thing is clear. EW is not the candidate who can beat Trump. If you want the good rather than the perfect to win, then Sanders is the guy, not the gal Elizabeth (aka Crusader Rabbit). She just doesn't have it. Since she unloaded on Bernie with her whiny, bitchy remark "Did you call me a liar on national TV?" she has been falling in the polls. She revealed her weakness. For those who like Warren's policies that are not quite perfectly progressive, meaning she might have a better chance than Sanders the "perfect" progressive, consider the fact that Sanders has the candidate skills necessary to beat the Drump. He is an inspiring speaker who gets people behind him. He is strong and energetic, and very straightforward in his care for the people. He means what he says and says what he means. This is attractive to voters, while the wonky and pedantic Warren is not.

[/quote]
-- thanx Eric. I've had red flags about EWW (luv that) ever since she appeared on the scene some 10-12 years ago but could never put my feelings in words. U did just that

Eric--Sanders can govern a whole lot better than Trump can, that's for sure. 

--that ain't saying much but yeah

Eric--Maryposa made an excellent post.

-- thanx Eric :

Eric-- in fact, yes, Sanders can govern. He will fight for what he knows is right. But he knows clearly and has said that he would not be a dictator, or try to be. He does know how to work with others in the Senate. Hillary is wrong on that. As feisty as he can be as a fighter for justice, he is a gentleman, not an egotist. He genuinely cares, and this comes through.

-- yup

Eric-- but Democrats could win in 2024 if their candidate's horoscope score is much higher than the Republican's. Or perhaps a 3rd Party will emerge and win. 

-- that is possible. It is a 4T. The repugs emerged during the Civil War 4T. The 1 u say this 4T most resembles
[/quote]

[Eric the Green]

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

Democratic Presidential Nomination Jan 26
Biden29.1
Sanders22.7
Warren14.4
Bloomberg7.8
Buttigieg7.0
Yang4.3
Klobuchar3.6
Steyer2.1
Gabbard1.1
Bennet0.9
Delaney0.4
Patrick0.3

Biden +6.4

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2020, 05:55 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: There's one wild card in the mix there for the Republican candidates. If Kanye West (stay with me) decides to run in 2024 as he's said he would, that might also make some waves in that primary, provided that the trend towards non-politicians continues and he also has sway over evangelical voters. West as a presidential candidate might sound silly but then again, so would have President Trump in 2012, and he does seem committed to it after publicly floating the idea since 2015.

Kanye West horoscope score is 13-11.

Needless to say I would never even consider voting for him, or any other rap artist. And Kanye is pro-Trump.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-24-2020, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The issue there is, can we really afford 4 more years of Trump? Can we afford a right-wing supreme court? And 4 more years of pollution and climate change denial? We may get them anyway. He may be removed before his second term is up. But then, will congress and the senate be able to take over and restart progress in 2023, or will Pence and the Senate be able to stop it?

Sanders can govern a whole lot better than Trump can, that's for sure. And no-one can beat Trump in 2020 except Biden or Sanders. No-one, except maybe himself. And that's a long shot for 2020.

Maryposa made an excellent post. In fact, yes, Sanders can govern. He will fight for what he knows is right. But he knows clearly and has said that he would not be a dictator, or try to be. He does know how to work with others in the Senate. Hillary is wrong on that. As feisty as he can be as a fighter for justice, he is a gentleman, not an egotist. He genuinely cares, and this comes through.

But it's possible that if the Democrats win in 2020, they could lose in 2024. There are signs of this (the new moon before election favors the challenger). If a Democrat wins in 2020, it will be because (s)he was able to beat both of the two main indicators on my system. That has not happened ever, except in one very-maverick and transformational year: 1892, year of the Neptune-Pluto conjunction; the year one civilization ended and another began. Pretty rough stuff for an incumbent. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire both fell to it, and within a year of its exact date. The Tang Dynasty fell to it, and so did Richard II, and Bismarck too. So it was a big deal, and nothing like it will happen in 2024.

But Democrats could win in 2024 if their candidate's horoscope score is much higher than the Republican's. Or perhaps a 3rd Party will emerge and win. Democrats should once again be advised to choose Mitch Landrieu or Terry McAuliffe as strong candidates if Sanders bows out after 1 term, and not anyone running this year. The 2020 field is a weak one on all sides.

Trump is himself a big anomaly. He could defy the system that predicts that he might win, and perhaps the Lichtman Keys too, because he is the worst president ever, the most unfit and the most unqualified. And this anomaly might affect 2024 too. The fact is, Republicans have no other candidate with a good score on the horizon-- except maybe Tom Cotton, the young senator from Arkansas (15-9); but a strong-scoring Democratic candidate like Landrieu could still beat him too. That's unless you want to count Darth Vader himself (Steve Bannon, 10-5).

I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to win as the progressive system begins to crumble. Landrieu might have a chance to win if he switches parties by then.

[David Horn]

(01-27-2020, 01:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to win as the progressive system begins to crumble. Landrieu might have a chance to win  if he switches parties by then.

Frankly, I don't see any crumbling in progress -- the exact opposite, in fact. Today's youth, and tomorrow's totally dominant voting block, is far to the left of their elders. More to the point, they are likely to stay there, because the system in place has screwed them continuously. On the other hand, the conservatives and Trumpists are mostly gray-hairs. Do the math.

[Marypoza]

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

-- David you'll have 2 scroll down a bit in this intercept article but apparently AOC did just fine surrogating a Bernie event in lA. The place was jammed packed. Maybe they do like the Squad in lA

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/26/bern...NRsAP8WR3M

[David Horn]

(01-27-2020, 12:10 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

-- David you'll have 2 scroll down a bit in this intercept article but apparently AOC did just fine surrogating a Bernie event in lA. The place was jammed packed. Maybe they do like the Squad in lA

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/26/bern...NRsAP8WR3M

My take on surrogacy: Michael Moore is a great fit for Iowa.  Unlike the squad, he's a white boy in a white state and he comes across as a blue-collar guy who made it on his own.  Of the squad, AOC is the most dynamic in front of an audience, so she's probably a net plus.  Beyond that, the appeal is probably niche.  I noticed that Ames was listed in particular, and that's big college town.

Iowa is a fluky state, though.  You can have great support and lose big.  It's all ground game: will your supporters come out in bad weather to stand around a school gym for 2 or three hours?  Until the event, it's nearly impossible to know.  Just ask President Howard Dean.

[pbrower2a]

(01-27-2020, 01:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-24-2020, 04:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The issue there is, can we really afford 4 more years of Trump? Can we afford a right-wing supreme court? And 4 more years of pollution and climate change denial? We may get them anyway. He may be removed before his second term is up. But then, will congress and the senate be able to take over and restart progress in 2023, or will Pence and the Senate be able to stop it?

Sanders can govern a whole lot better than Trump can, that's for sure. And no-one can beat Trump in 2020 except Biden or Sanders. No-one, except maybe himself. And that's a long shot for 2020.

Maryposa made an excellent post. In fact, yes, Sanders can govern. He will fight for what he knows is right. But he knows clearly and has said that he would not be a dictator, or try to be. He does know how to work with others in the Senate. Hillary is wrong on that. As feisty as he can be as a fighter for justice, he is a gentleman, not an egotist. He genuinely cares, and this comes through.

But it's possible that if the Democrats win in 2020, they could lose in 2024. There are signs of this (the new moon before election favors the challenger). If a Democrat wins in 2020, it will be because (s)he was able to beat both of the two main indicators on my system. That has not happened ever, except in one very-maverick and transformational year: 1892, year of the Neptune-Pluto conjunction; the year one civilization ended and another began. Pretty rough stuff for an incumbent. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire both fell to it, and within a year of its exact date. The Tang Dynasty fell to it, and so did Richard II, and Bismarck too. So it was a big deal, and nothing like it will happen in 2024.

But Democrats could win in 2024 if their candidate's horoscope score is much higher than the Republican's. Or perhaps a 3rd Party will emerge and win. Democrats should once again be advised to choose Mitch Landrieu or Terry McAuliffe as strong candidates if Sanders boggestsggws out after 1 term, and not anyone running this year. The 2020 field is a weak one on all sides.

Trump is himself a big anomaly. He could defy the system that predicts that he might win, and perhaps the Lichtman Keys too, because he is the worst president ever, the most unfit and the most unqualified. And this anomaly might affect 2024 too. The fact is, Republicans have no other candidate with a good score on the horizon-- except maybe Tom Cotton, the young senator from Arkansas (15-9); but a strong-scoring Democratic candidate like Landrieu could still beat him too. That's unless you want to count Darth Vader himself (Steve Bannon, 10-5).

I think it's going to be hard for any Democrat to win as the progressive system begins to crumble. Landrieu might have a chance to win  if he switches parties by then.

This article suggests that the Trump Presidency is doomed for reasons other than his character and conduct, and that Barack Obama is a strong portent of what follows:

 https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

Trump is the end of the line for the profits-first ideology of Ronald Reagan. 

Here is the thread:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid49018

It isn't the progressive system that is crumbling. Trump incompetence, callowness, and corruption apparently figure less in this model than do demographic change, the generational cycle, and the exhaustion of an ideological agenda. Such tendencies ensured that even Jimmy Carter, one of the smartest and most upright of Presidents, could not counteract the trend. Paradoxically, someone much like Carter in personality and character as well as ideology could take the role of a Transformer who reshapes American politics as President as did Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. Reagan was apparently right for his time, but his time is over.

[Marypoza]

(01-27-2020, 12:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 12:10 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-22-2020, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 07:43 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-17-2020, 06:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If Bernie wanted to win, he wouldn't take lying down Pelosi's transparent ploy to ensure that Biden is the only top candidate able to campaign in Iowa.

-- Bernie has surrogates. I saw a tweet from lhlan sating  *we* (presumably the Squad) will be stumping in IA 4 him. Nina & Pramila will also be in IA. Personally l think it's a blessing in disguise- all these strong women stumping 4 him should hopefully put this sexism bs 2 rest. if it does come up they can say, "lf Bernie were sexist l wouldn't be standing here right now. Next!"

& Bernie himself is supposed 2b chartering a jet 2 take him 2 events in IA when the impeachment farce is not in session.

If the squad is out in Iowa, you can assume he loses.  The squad can be a positive force in more urban areas, but Iowa is not that … even in the cities.

-- David you'll have 2 scroll down a bit in this intercept article but apparently AOC did just fine surrogating a Bernie event in lA. The place was jammed packed. Maybe they do like the Squad in lA

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/26/bern...NRsAP8WR3M

My take on surrogacy: Michael Moore is a great fit for Iowa.  Unlike the squad, he's a white boy in a white state and he comes across as a blue-collar guy who made it on his own.  Of the squad, AOC is the most dynamic in front of an audience, so she's probably a net plus.  Beyond that, the appeal is probably niche.  I noticed that Ames was listed in particular, and that's big college town.  

Iowa is a fluky state, though.  You can have great support and lose big.  It's all ground game: will your supporters come out in bad weather to stand around a school gym for 2 or three hours?  Until the event, it's nearly impossible to know.  Just ask President Howard Dean.

-- I agree with u MM would be a gr8 Bernie surrogate in lA. Don't know if he's doing any of Bernie's events however. The article also said an IA Congressman was hosting the event so that probably helped as well.  in the end you're correct- ppl gotta go out on a cold winter's nite & caucus, & if you'll remember 2/3 was the day the music died in lA

[Eric the Green]

I agree Michael Moore is a good surrogate, although I'm sure he needs more. I heard Moore was indeed acting as one in Iowa already.