Democrat Debate and Caucuses 2020 (Or, rather the state thereof...)

Arch Dornan

Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
He has been very pro-active and vocal on the issue. Going as far to get angry about people with the virus being brought back to the US from Japan. He knows it is going to get bad, so he has got out in front of it.

I love how the end of the debate is about mottos. That is most and best substance they have had all night.
Out of all the leadership responses it maybe fat boy Kim who had the fastest response. Immediate closing of the border, lengthy quarantine response, sterlisation of goods coming in and immediate execution for one patient disobeying the qurantine rules.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Honestly think Biden either did really well...Or bombed with people--his irritability and willingness to contest things actually got him some time and displayed some 'personality'/fire so...he went populist-y instead of politician-y? Which, with Bernie's presence, and Trump's former success with Republicans, seems to be the 'tone' people want.

Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren all seem like they'll come out as 'forgettable', to me. I think Sanders and Bloomberg had the 'typical' Biden performance of not really stepping in it and not really having any breakout success--they'll get flack for the same stuff they got flack for (Cuba and guns for Sanders, his past and money for Bloomberg), and their answers for criticisms have been presented as coherently as they really could be. No standout 'success', but no botched things that'll really hurt the campaign I don't think (though Bloomberg's 'I bought those politicians' near-slip might get some amusing airtime).
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Out of all the leadership responses it maybe fat boy Kim who had the fastest response. Immediate closing of the border, lengthy quarantine response, sterlisation of goods coming in and immediate execution for one patient disobeying the qurantine rules.
Because Kim's people have so many parasites and are starving, if the virus spreads they will almost all die due to how weak their bodies are. That is the problem when you starve your population. When this hits SA and Venezuela, we will probably see something similar, but less extreme due to how the population is starving.

I don't advocate this at all, but it wouldn't surprise me if special ops worked to deliver the virus to NK and their population to cause the nation to collapse. It would be impossible to tell the difference between this happening and the virus spreading naturally. But that is my own personal conspiracy theory. /sigh NK is just sad and frustrating. :(

Back to the debate: What did everyone think? Winners? Losers? None??

Nothing really changed. The undecideds will probably split off in the same percentages the votes are currently being dividing up. The big questions are, when will people drop out or will they fight to the end? Will Bernie be able to get a majority? My guesses are that no one will drop out before Super Tuesday. After that I suspect Bernie, Bloomburg, and possibly Pete will be left. Joe will be dropping out from all the gaffes. Amy is just staying in to get publicity, you can clearly tell she knows she won't win, but is just having fun. Warren will bleed slowly to death but she is done. No one cares about Tom. Bernie getting a majority....it will be tight, if he doesn't then he will probably not get the nomination and the DNC will burst into hellfire. If he somehow gets the nomination, Trump will be smiling all the way to the election. Bernie is the best match up against Trump.
 

clancyphile

Pro-DH, pro-artificial turf baseball fan
Thinking back over the last twelve years, I am beginning to think we as a country dodged some real bullets.

In 2008, Hillary was beaten by Obama in the primaries. Had she won in 2008, and had she been presented with the Citizens United ruling, I think that we would have seen very thoroughly planned and executed abuses like Operation Chokepoint and the IRS targeting of the Tea Party. Instead, Obama went at it half-heartedly.

She then was arrogant enough to take Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania for granted... and lost there. That was the difference in 2016. The meltdown from what they thought was a sure thing will hurt them in the long run. They're consumed by hate, and that has caused a problem. Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were really the only ones who SAW the problem, but they were on the outside looking in very quickly.

Now, in 2020, Bernie will be the nominee, and he will alienate large chunks of the Democratic party. Really, their best bet would have been a Booker-Klobuchar ticket, but it will be Bernie and probably Stacy Abrams.

It won't be enough to prevent a landslide.
 

Certified_Heterosexual

The Falklands are Serbian, you cowards.
We don't really have a US Election 2020 thread, so I apologize for bumping this, but it seemed like the closest thing for what I want to discuss today.

As of yesterday, Biden has been completely out of the public eye for a month. His last appearance of note was the infamous "You ain't black" interview on May 22nd. I've been waiting for the mainstream media to finally take note of this, because it is unprecedented for a presidential candidate to utterly disappear from the public stage a bare four months from the big day.

It's true that Hillary pulled a few disappearing acts in 2016; my theory is that she is suffering from a chronic disorder (I don't know what, but I don't buy it was just a bad case of pneumonia) that forced her to limit her public appearances. But the difference is that Hillary managed to stay in the headlines even when she was holed up in a Los Angeles hotel on a three-day bender after one of her $1,000-a-plate fundraisers in Hollywood. The media extended universe in the summer of 2016 was one massive supernova of Hillary human interest stories, high-profile interviews, breathless speculation about her potential cabinet picks, and, of course, FIRST WOMAN EVAR agitprop. There was so much Hillary cheerleading that it was easy for the Left to marginalize the voices pointing out that she seemed to not be making many public appearances. After all, if practically every news story of the day reveals some new tidbit about our all-but-certain amazing new FEMALE president, does it really matter that she delivered an address at a high school gym and then went into hiding for two weeks?

With Biden, it's different.

I believe the motive for both campaigns is essentially the same: the Left knows the more their candidate is exposed to the public, the less the public wants to vote for him/her. That's clear. The difference, however, can be measured in the degree to which the two campaigns have followed this strategy.

Hillary's harsh, Karen-like voice, bitchy demeanor, and strident Progressivism earned her the moniker of "America's Ex-Wife;" it's no wonder why her campaign wanted to limit her public appearances. But even with these personal shortcomings, they still trotted her out fairly regularly to:

1) keep her base energized
2) take pot-shots at her <Lefty snicker> opponent
3) maintain top-of-mind status among the electorate.

In other words, Hillary did the sorts of things that every presidential candidate has done since the Founding, just somewhat less, and instead relying on an utterly servile media behemoth to do the selling for her.

But what about Biden?

How much have you seen this man since he clinched the nomination for President of the United States? Have you seen him giving any speeches? Any rallies? Any yard signs in your neighborhood? Have you seen the raft of advertising we saw with Hillary?

Biden has to be the least heralded presidential nominee since Mondale. Joe Biden is an objectively terrible candidate, so it makes sense that his campaign team wants to limit his exposure. After all, the last time he opened his mouth he managed to start a firestorm in the one voting bloc he can't afford to piss off. But what we've been seeing thus far is not so much "limiting exposure" a la Hillary, but rather "The Invisible Man." It's not just the gaffes, every politician has gaffes. It's now clear to a significant percentage of the population (~40% according to a recent poll) that Biden is senile and would be, at best, a puppet president for other younger, woker powerbrokers.

So...what does all this say about America's electoral system in 2020?

1. Donald Trump delenda est. This one is obvious. The Left has completely given up all pretense of laying out a reasoned platform or making a cogent case for their candidate. It's "vote for Biden to STOP DRUMPH!!1!". And it will be so for the next poor bastard running with an "R" after his name. This election is a referendum on Trump—and nothing else. The Democrats could nominate a corpse and it would still be a close race. We know this because the Democrats have nominated a corpse, and it's still a close race.

2. Open tribal warfare. Building off #1 above, what first became clear in the 2000 election and increasingly blatant over the next decade is now stripped bare for all to see: vote not with your political principles but with your tribe. Biden is a corrupt, senile, hair-sniffing pedophilic old fool. And he's White. Vote Biden, Black/Hispanic/LGBT people everywhere.

3. Issues no longer matter. Biden's tax plans are fucking insane. He has endorsed the Green New Deal, which is radioactive insanity. Nobody cares, because none of it matters. None of it. If you care about issues, you're still stuck in 2012. See #2 above.

TL/DR: We're approaching peak partisanship for a nation that has not yet taken up arms. Pushed any further, like say a Trump victory (or loss), and... well, scary things are in the wind. Keep praying, bros.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top