Octopus Overlords

Sure, I just don't discount a little donkey advisor on his shoulder whispering in his ear.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:34 am

I feel like people still tend to attribute powers to the "Democratic Establishment" that far exceed what they are actually capable of.

Not power, influence. The timing of the withdrawals has me wondering if there weren't some discussions behind the scenes of, "At this point you can't win, but if you drop before Super Tuesday instead of after, you may be able to help Biden overcome Sanders, while if you wait, it could sink him."

Politics in our political system? I'm shocked!

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am That factored in, this is a real mess. I'm still pretty certain that Joe is going to face massive problems and the Democrats are walking into the same trap they did with Hillary. The GOP has laid the groundwork to dirty him up. Another overhanging issue is that Joe has no cash on hand. I'll assume that improves but his campaign will have to scale up quickly while fighting against a better funded foe. There are a ton of risks here.

If the party is walking into a mess with Joe, and doing so willingly, it's because they've done at least a rudimentary analysis and concluded it's easier to deal with Joe's gaffes and Burisma than it is dealing with Bernie's label as a socialist and his taking aim at the moderates within the party. They have to consider the down-ticket races as well, which Joe is less likely to have an adverse impact on barring something significantly disastrous.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:45 am Klobuchar is the one who needs to be pushed firmly out of the race.

I suspect that'll be right after Super Tuesday as I think she's staying in to deny Bernie delegates, especially in Minnesota. I think the moderates (save for Bloomberg) got together and coordinated what they needed to do to prevent Bernie winning. I'd love to say it's because they're doing it for the Democratic Party/country, but in reality both Pete and Amy face substantially diminished roles and power if Bernie takes control of the party.

Dogstar wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:05 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am That factored in, this is a real mess. I'm still pretty certain that Joe is going to face massive problems and the Democrats are walking into the same trap they did with Hillary. The GOP has laid the groundwork to dirty him up. Another overhanging issue is that Joe has no cash on hand. I'll assume that improves but his campaign will have to scale up quickly while fighting against a better funded foe. There are a ton of risks here.

If the party is walking into a mess with Joe, and doing so willingly, it's because they've done at least a rudimentary analysis and concluded it's easier to deal with Joe's gaffes and Burisma than it is dealing with Bernie's label as a socialist and his taking aim at the moderates within the party. They have to consider the down-ticket races as well, which Joe is less likely to have an adverse impact on barring something significantly disastrous.

Totally. I just think as an organization they keep getting into these cut off your own foot moments because they don't have a strategy that works for them. To El Guapo's point the "DNC" isn't as autocratic an organization as the GOP and has less power. This is limiting but you have to imagine they should be able to put together a strategy that goes beyond 'talk about healthcare' because it worked last time. It really feels like they are constantly bumbling in the face of focused opposition. They should have cleared Biden out for someone stronger before they got into this situation. To be fair to them they didn't fund him which was an implicit attempt but still this was the time to step in and provide direction. The nation is at stake.

Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:25 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:34 am Part of it is that Biden has certain fundamental advantages from being (1) a traditionally credentialed candidate - years in the Senate plus 8 years as VP, plus being a white straight Christian male; and (2) an important role in the Obama administration, which is both widely popular and important to people whose #1 priority is a simple return to sanity.

When you put it that way, it makes it seem so obvious. It's a real shame Biden's performance was seriously lackluster/concerning out of the gate. This thing could have been over by now and the party could have been, instead, focussing on what matters: Trying our best to make sure Trump does not get a second term.

It is, though the calendar of these things also makes a difference. In a world where SC is first, for example, you could see a scenario where Biden crushes the field there as here, there's a bunch of media stories about Biden's inevitability, the field narrows considerably, and Biden looks more dominant a la Clinton 2016 (though Clinton also benefited from a narrower field and a more unified establishment).

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:34 am

I feel like people still tend to attribute powers to the "Democratic Establishment" that far exceed what they are actually capable of.

Not power, influence. The timing of the withdrawals has me wondering if there weren't some discussions behind the scenes of, "At this point you can't win, but if you drop before Super Tuesday instead of after, you may be able to help Biden overcome Sanders, while if you wait, it could sink him."

The timing of the withdrawals (after a significant and decisive primary result) isn't particularly weird or suspicious. For Steyer in particular - he put a TON of money and campaign effort into SC, and built that into his theory of his candidacy. His plan was essentially to win or do surprisingly well (say, a close 2nd place finish) in SC, and use that to vault himself into national discussions / consideration. Instead he (and everyone else) got annihilated by Biden. After that there was no plausible world in which he's the nominee.

Buttigieg is a little different, insofar as he has delegates and has some decent polling numbers (I want to say around 11% - 13% generally and maybe 3rd - 4th place). But here too, his route to the nomination was pretty grim after SC in light of national polls - in general he hasn't been above 15% in polling in many states, which is the threshold to get any delegates. Which means in all likelihood his post-ST delegate deficit was going to be effectively insurmountable. On top of that there's no route to the Democratic nomination without at least *some* African-American support, which he didn't have nor did he have a plausible seeming way to get it.

So if he has no real way to get to the nomination, it makes sense for him to think about how his continued presence in the race will impact who the nominee is, and who he wants to be the nominee. It also impacts his political career - quitting *before* he gets publicly crushed preserves his general prestige for future races and for future consideration in cabinet postings. There certainly *could* be conversations between Buttigieg, the DNC, and/or other candidates on this (I would be surprised if there were no such conversations, especially among campaign staffers), but if he's doing his homework he has to be thinking about this stuff independently too.

I also don't really understand the apparent insinuations that there's anything necessarily improper about any of this. It's one thing if they're making threats, but if the discussion is "hey, you're pretty clearly doomed, you should think about who you think the nominee should be and whether your candidacy helps / hurts that person" - is there anything wrong with that?

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:58 pm I also don't really understand the apparent insinuations that there's anything necessarily improper about any of this. It's one thing if they're making threats, but if the discussion is "hey, you're pretty clearly doomed, you should think about who you think the nominee should be and whether your candidacy helps / hurts that person" - is there anything wrong with that?

It depends on how sinister the laughing and hand rubbing is after the statement is delivered.

And there goes Amy Klobuchar.

Amy Klobuchar Drops Out of Presidential Race and Plans to Endorse Biden
Ms. Klobuchar made her decision hours before Super Tuesday. She shocked the primary field with a third-place finish in New Hampshire, but ultimately could not compete with better-funded rivals.

...

Ms. Klobuchar will appear with Mr. Biden at his rally in Dallas Monday night. The decision comes one day after former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., departed the race, and after weeks of Democratic Party hand-wringing about a crowded field of moderate candidates splitting a finite field of centrist votes, allowing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to march forward unopposed among progressives and amass delegates.

The push to stop Sanders is real.

There are 14 people on the ballot in Virginia tomorrow. Only 5 of them (Biden, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Sanders, and Warren) are still in the race. I wonder how many "wasted" votes there will be, particularly in early voting, for candidates who withdrew.

Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:39 pm And there goes Amy Klobuchar.

Amy Klobuchar Drops Out of Presidential Race and Plans to Endorse Biden
Ms. Klobuchar made her decision hours before Super Tuesday. She shocked the primary field with a third-place finish in New Hampshire, but ultimately could not compete with better-funded rivals.

...

Ms. Klobuchar will appear with Mr. Biden at his rally in Dallas Monday night. The decision comes one day after former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., departed the race, and after weeks of Democratic Party hand-wringing about a crowded field of moderate candidates splitting a finite field of centrist votes, allowing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to march forward unopposed among progressives and amass delegates.

The push to stop Sanders is real.

Ha, I sure saw that one coming. It's Klobbering time! (The DNC's happy to let Warren keep vacuuming up progressive delegates through March, as she's promised to do.)

Looks like both Klobuchar and Buttigieg will endorse Biden.

Kraken wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:09 pm

Kurth wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:39 pm And there goes Amy Klobuchar.

Amy Klobuchar Drops Out of Presidential Race and Plans to Endorse Biden
Ms. Klobuchar made her decision hours before Super Tuesday. She shocked the primary field with a third-place finish in New Hampshire, but ultimately could not compete with better-funded rivals.

...

Ms. Klobuchar will appear with Mr. Biden at his rally in Dallas Monday night. The decision comes one day after former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., departed the race, and after weeks of Democratic Party hand-wringing about a crowded field of moderate candidates splitting a finite field of centrist votes, allowing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to march forward unopposed among progressives and amass delegates.

The push to stop Sanders is real.

Ha, I sure saw that one coming. It's Klobbering time! (The DNC's happy to let Warren keep vacuuming up progressive delegates through March, as she's promised to do.)

It's truly inexplicable why doomed candidates are choosing to drop out of the race instead of taking votes away from the most ideologically close rival.

Defiant wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:17 pm Looks like both Klobuchar and Buttigieg will endorse Biden.

Ugh, that's really too bad. But better than Bernie I guess.

What were the numbers regarding young people voting in the SC primary anyway? That supposedly was Bernie's big superpower, the ability to get the young people to the polls.

I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:58 pm

I also don't really understand the apparent insinuations that there's anything necessarily improper about any of this. It's one thing if they're making threats, but if the discussion is "hey, you're pretty clearly doomed, you should think about who you think the nominee should be and whether your candidacy helps / hurts that person" - is there anything wrong with that?

I never intended to insinuate anything of the sort. My point was that it isn't coincidence that this is happening exactly now, it's a strategy. And a strategy is both smart and overdue.

$iljanus wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:44 pm

Defiant wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:17 pm Looks like both Klobuchar and Buttigieg will endorse Biden.

Ugh, that's really too bad. But better than Bernie I guess.

What were the numbers regarding young people voting in the SC primary anyway? That supposedly was Bernie's big superpower, the ability to get the young people to the polls.

Voters under 45 were only 29% of the voters. Sanders won the 18-29 age group, but Biden won the others.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:58 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:58 pm

I also don't really understand the apparent insinuations that there's anything necessarily improper about any of this. It's one thing if they're making threats, but if the discussion is "hey, you're pretty clearly doomed, you should think about who you think the nominee should be and whether your candidacy helps / hurts that person" - is there anything wrong with that?

I never intended to insinuate anything of the sort. My point was that it isn't coincidence that this is happening exactly now, it's a strategy. And a strategy is both smart and overdue.

The DNC is putting its thumb on the scale to favor its preferred candidate...but it's their party and they'll cry if they want to. Bernie's going to need a clear delegate majority to overcome that. If he only has a plurality, and if Warren snags enough to collectively put them over the top, her hypothetical brokered-convention strategy as the compromise candidate could work. But clearing Biden's orbit early might make him inevitable.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:58 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:58 pm

I also don't really understand the apparent insinuations that there's anything necessarily improper about any of this. It's one thing if they're making threats, but if the discussion is "hey, you're pretty clearly doomed, you should think about who you think the nominee should be and whether your candidacy helps / hurts that person" - is there anything wrong with that?

I never intended to insinuate anything of the sort. My point was that it isn't coincidence that this is happening exactly now, it's a strategy. And a strategy is both smart and overdue.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that you specifically were insinuating anything. But Trump is trying to turn this into the DNC 'rigging' the process against Bernie. That's ridiculous in my view, but I think some people are buying it.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Honestly, I think only the magical fairy of bipartisanship is in a position to heal the nation's divide. I like Warren a lot, and I plan to vote for her tomorrow, and I do think that she has a better understanding of the long-term structural problems than Biden or Sanders, but I don't think that a President Warren would be able to do anything about the structural problems.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:50 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Honestly, I think only the magical fairy of bipartisanship is in a position to heal the nation's divide. I like Warren a lot, and I plan to vote for her tomorrow, and I do think that she has a better understanding of the long-term structural problems than Biden or Sanders, but I don't think that a President Warren would be able to do anything about the structural problems.

I agree but at least she'd talk about them. Biden thinks the GOP is going to respect him and cooperate. It is the worst kind of magical thinking.

Warren has no urge to heal the divide. That isn't why I support her. My support for her is in her ability to wonk the way people lied about how Paul Ryan wonked. I think your best bets on healing the divide were Beto and then later Booker. They both had leadership qualities that welcomed other to the conversation, even if neither would change simply to make the other happy. that was, in part, why I liked both of those candidates. I dunno about bipartisanship. I think that ship might be sunk. It sure seems like it, but just because the ship is sunk doesn't mean all the people voting not with you are to be ignored and left for dead. Honestly, the only one left trying to "heal", judging by his ads every 30 seconds around here, is Bloomberg, and he's not my guy.

Until Mitch drops dead I don't think anything will get better and it doesn't matter when dem gets elected. He's super unpopular in his state, but will just keep getting elected because reasons.

I'm less concerned about healing the divide right now and more concerned about just getting the country in some sense of stabiliy. IE - administration positions filled with competent people, and a President who is sane. I would say "and can speak in coherent sentences" but we're not going to get that with Biden. Oh well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

At this point the only thing that is going to heal the divide in this nation is an extraterrestrial attack. And even that is doubtful since the GOP will just claim the aliens are liberals and had it in for them all along.

Octavious wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm Until Mitch drops dead I don't think anything will get better and it doesn't matter when dem gets elected. He's super unpopular in his state, but will just keep getting elected because reasons.

You think this dies with Mitch? He's just the face of the problem, he's not the source.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:03 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:50 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Honestly, I think only the magical fairy of bipartisanship is in a position to heal the nation's divide. I like Warren a lot, and I plan to vote for her tomorrow, and I do think that she has a better understanding of the long-term structural problems than Biden or Sanders, but I don't think that a President Warren would be able to do anything about the structural problems.

I agree but at least she'd talk about them. Biden thinks the GOP is going to respect him and cooperate. It is the worst kind of magical thinking.

I think she's more realistic about it, to be sure. I think the flipside is that I think low-information voters are more likely to listen to Biden than Warren, unfortunately.

coopasonic wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:13 pm

Octavious wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm Until Mitch drops dead I don't think anything will get better and it doesn't matter when dem gets elected. He's super unpopular in his state, but will just keep getting elected because reasons.

You think this dies with Mitch? He's just the face of the problem, he's not the source.

He was *one* of the sources. The world is this way because Mitch was completely amoral and smashed norms that no one thought possible. I don't know if another GOP leader would have just said...nope...no confirmation hearings. And then publicly delighted in it. He is a complete shit stain who has been operating at a whole different level. But at this point the fire is out of control and Mitch isn't anything more than a symbol.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm

coopasonic wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:13 pm

Octavious wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:07 pm Until Mitch drops dead I don't think anything will get better and it doesn't matter when dem gets elected. He's super unpopular in his state, but will just keep getting elected because reasons.

You think this dies with Mitch? He's just the face of the problem, he's not the source.

He was *one* of the sources. The world is this way because Mitch was completely amoral and smashed norms that no one thought possible. I don't know if another GOP leader would have just said...nope...no confirmation hearings. And then publicly delighted in it. He is a complete shit stain who has been operating at a whole different level. But at this point the fire is out of control and Mitch isn't anything more than a symbol.

I really don't think we would be in this much of a mess if it wasn't for Mitch. He's a freaking genius at gaming the system and evil as shit to boot. So Mitch leaving now might not fix it, but it will sure as hell help.

Daehawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:27 pm https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1234266699718963200

Also fun:

Warren is the only Baby Boomer in the Democratic race.

The men are all Silent Generation.

Holman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:39 pm

Daehawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 12:27 pm https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1234266699718963200

Also fun:

Warren is the only Baby Boomer in the Democratic race.

The men are all Silent Generation.

Trump is considered by many a boomer - especially since he is the living embodiment of almost every negative trait ascribed to Boomers.

Oops - sorry - this was a reference to the Dems!

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:43 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 6:39 pm

Warren is the only Baby Boomer in the Democratic race.

The men are all Silent Generation.

Trump is considered by many a boomer

No, Trump is considered by many to be a baby

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:14 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:03 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:50 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Honestly, I think only the magical fairy of bipartisanship is in a position to heal the nation's divide. I like Warren a lot, and I plan to vote for her tomorrow, and I do think that she has a better understanding of the long-term structural problems than Biden or Sanders, but I don't think that a President Warren would be able to do anything about the structural problems.

I agree but at least she'd talk about them. Biden thinks the GOP is going to respect him and cooperate. It is the worst kind of magical thinking.

I think she's more realistic about it, to be sure. I think the flipside is that I think low-information voters are more likely to listen to Biden than Warren, unfortunately.

He speaks their language, anyway. Or at least some language.

Big News:

‘I’m Proud To Endorse Biden And So Are All Of You,’ Announces Pipe-Waving Amy Klobuchar

i guess rittchard can get an avatar refresh and Defiant finds a new signature

Beto is also endorsing Biden.

Just as an aside, I was trying out Oculus Quest games the other day and went into one called Rec Room. I didn't realize it was mostly kids in there, and I was sitting there trying to figure out the controls. This kid comes up to me and starts screaming "OK BOOMER! OK BOOMER! OK BOOMER!"

My thoughts were, in this order:

1. This kid is smart, because he figured out from my avatar's action that I was an old dude that didn't know WTF I was doing.

2. I'm Generation X, goddammit.

3. I need to get out of this game before I start cussing out a 9 year old.

Fireball wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:31 pm Big News:

‘I’m Proud To Endorse Biden And So Are All Of You,’ Announces Pipe-Waving Amy Klobuchar

From the title I thought it was a marijuana pipe.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 10:34 am

I feel like people still tend to attribute powers to the "Democratic Establishment" that far exceed what they are actually capable of.

Not power, influence. The timing of the withdrawals has me wondering if there weren't some discussions behind the scenes of, "At this point you can't win, but if you drop before Super Tuesday instead of after, you may be able to help Biden overcome Sanders, while if you wait, it could sink him."

I'm certain there were discussions, but I think the other candidates were also perfectly capable of figuring this out on their own.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:42 am
I agree generally. I fear however that a return to normality is impossible and the assumption that a centrist has the easiest time is unproven. They all are beating Trump in the general polls. If we need a realist who can defeat Trump then Biden is the wrong choice. Same problem goes for Sanders.

Being a realist does to how you govern, not how you run. I realize that you don't think Biden is being realistic about working with Republicans if he becomes president but that doesn't have much to do with the campaign. As for a centrist beating Trump, I don't think it is unproven at all. Who won the House for the Democrats? It was centrist/moderate candidates, not the progressive wing. Biden will probably appeal to those same voters. Sanders argument was that he didn't need to broaden his appeal, he could increase turnout, but that's not proving true in the primaries.

That factored in, this is a real mess. I'm still pretty certain that Joe is going to face massive problems and the Democrats are walking into the same trap they did with Hillary. The GOP has laid the groundwork to dirty him up. Another overhanging issue is that Joe has no cash on hand. I'll assume that improves but his campaign will have to scale up quickly while fighting against a better funded foe. There are a ton of risks here.

And you don't think the Republicans aren't ready to dirty up Sanders, or any other candidate that the Democrats put forward? I don't think Biden carries any more risks that any other candidate, and I happen to think he carries a whole lot less baggage than Sanders. I've read a ton of stuff lately that can be used against Sanders - his past support of leftist dictators, the "socialism" label, past comments about women, getting a nuke waste site moved to a Latino community in Texas for Vermont nuke waste, etc. He's got a ton of baggage.

malchior wrote: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:50 pm I'm glad she dropped but this is my nightmare scenario. None of the three likely President's are going to heal the nation's divide. I think Warren had a chance of at least being realist enough to speak to the long-term problems we face. None of these men will do that even if one wasn't actively trying to tear the system down. Either we go full on kleptocracy or are looking down the barrel at another 4 years of divided governance that'll fuel the final competent autocrat ready to step into the divide.

Warren is definitely a realist but I"m not sure why you think that is the same as healing the nation's divide. She can be rather snarky to those that disagree with her - I've seen it in a town hall directed at a questioner. She doesn't strike me as a healer at all.