AuthorTopic: Election Errata  (Read 133130 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Moments that mattered from 5th Democratic debate
« Reply #1155 on: November 21, 2019, 05:24:53 AM »
Does any of it "matter" to Trumpovetsky voters?  Nope.

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wS8gVelsxo4" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/wS8gVelsxo4</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/democratic-candidates-supreme-court-trump-judiciary.html

Democratic Candidates Are Utterly Delusional About the Looming Judicial Crisis
Even their more moderate policy proposals will struggle to get the approval of a right-wing Supreme Court.

By Mark Joseph Stern
Nov 21, 20193:10 PM


Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders wave goodbye to their policy agendas at the hands of the courts.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images

More on 2020 Campaign

    Likability Is Whatever a Woman Candidate Doesn’t Have
    Trump’s Pressure Campaign Was No Secret
    The Best Part of the Debate Was When MSNBC Asked Simple Questions About Regular-People Problems
    The First Debate Without a Front-Runner

The Supreme Court will probably overrule decades of progressive precedents and strike down the next Democratic president’s reforms. You would not know this from watching the 2020 Democratic presidential debates. Wednesday’s showdown in Atlanta, the fifth so far, did not include a single question about the courts. Earlier debates allowed for brief discussions of the Supreme Court, but every candidate dramatically underestimated the threat it poses to the Democratic Party. Both the candidates and the moderators appear to be astonishingly naïve about the judiciary’s lurch to the right under Donald Trump. And it is pointless to discuss the Democrats’ ambitious proposals without explaining how they are going to survive at SCOTUS.

It’s not just the debates—Democratic politicians rarely talk about the courts at all. There is an enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the judiciary: GOP voters are more likely to be motivated by the opportunity to fill judicial vacancies, which is why Trump ran on a promise of appointing archconservative judges. Democratic voters focus more on individual political issues, and their party has never prioritized judges—or campaigned on the fact that every political dispute is ultimately resolved as a judicial question. This complacency will prove catastrophic for progressives now that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, shoring up a conservative majority that will obstruct liberal policies for a generation.

Consider a topic that the candidates discussed extensively on Wednesday night: abortion. If Roe v. Wade “gets overturned,” Rachel Maddow asked Amy Klobuchar, “would you intervene as president to try to bring that access back?” Klobuchar responded that, indeed, she would “codify Roe v. Wade into law,” to loud applause. Every major candidate has also pledged to “codify” the 1973 ruling establishing a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. They take different approaches that all lead to the same place: a crushing loss in court.

Some candidates, like Kamala Harris, have proposed legislation prohibiting states from unduly restricting abortion access. Harris’ bill would recognize a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment and bar states from infringing upon that right without federal approval. But a Supreme Court that does not uphold Roe will not let Congress enforce abortion rights in the states. SCOTUS has already ruled that Congress cannot protect a constitutional right that, according to the court, does not exist. So if Roe goes, Congress couldn’t use its authority under the 14th Amendment to stop states from outlawing abortion.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads
The judiciary is now packed with Trump nominees who operate under the principle that Democrats can’t do bupkis.

Cognizant of this problem, Elizabeth Warren has proposed a statute that would regulate abortion on the federal level, preempting states from doing so themselves. Her idea has merit, as Congress does have the power to supersede state laws that stand in the way of its aims.

But the Supreme Court held in 2018 that Congress cannot rely on preemption when it regulates states rather than “the conduct of private actors.” The court explained that the federal government may not “commandeer” states by forbidding them from passing legislation. But Warren’s plan—which asks Congress to “prohibit states from interfering” with “abortion services”—appears to do just that. The conservative justices may thus rule that Warren’s bill unlawfully commandeers state governments. They could also go further, ruling that Congress does not even have authority to regulate abortion in the first place because it is not sufficiently connected to interstate commerce. Either route would kill the Warren plan.

Not to pick on Warren, but her other big structural changes would also be imperiled by the courts. Her wealth tax would compel the ultrarich to pay annual taxes on property, real and personal, as well as financial assets. But conservatives are already developing an argument that this plan violates the constitutional rule that any “direct tax” be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Her health care plan, meanwhile, is funded in part by forcing states to redirect money from existing programs into “Medicare for All.” But in the first Obamacare case, the Supreme Court curbed Congress’ power to tell states how they must spend federal revenue. The courts could decide that Warren’s scheme amounts to illicit “economic dragooning” and deprive her program of $6 trillion.

It isn’t just progressives like Warren who have reason to fear SCOTUS. Self-styled moderates like Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg should also be gravely worried. On Wednesday, both candidates endorsed H.R. 1, a sweeping elections bill passed by the House of Representatives. Buttigieg singled out the measure’s requirement that each state adopt an independent redistricting commission to draw congressional lines. Even if Democrats made H.R. 1 the law, however, this anti-gerrymandering provision may well fall. The Supreme Court seems primed to find that Congress’ authority to regulate federal elections does not permit it to mandate the creation of 50 state redistricting commissions. Having already refused to police partisan gerrymandering, the conservative justices could soon bar Congress from stepping in and protecting voters from this scourge of democracy.

The list of suspect proposals goes on. Warren’s Green New Deal would decarbonize the economy by dramatically tightening federal pollution standards, which courts could find to exceed Congress’ power to regulate commerce. Joe Biden’s more modest plan relies partly on “new executive orders” to repurpose existing law as a tool in the fight against emissions. But President Barack Obama already tried that tack and got crushed at the Supreme Court. As a lower court judge, Brett Kavanaugh was a leading critic of the Obama administration’s efforts to expand the Environmental Protection Agency’s control over carbon. Now he can provide the fifth vote to block any Democratic presidents’ efforts to curtail emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
inRead invented by Teads

It’s not that Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, and the gang don’t understand that the Supreme Court is a problem. It’s that they appear utterly delusional about the extent of the court’s threat to Democratic policy, and short on solutions to the peril they face. Harris and Warren have said they are “open” to adding justices to the Supreme Court to restore a liberal majority. (Whether it’s wise, court packing is undoubtedly constitutional.) Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders have floated a scheme to expand the court to 15 seats, rotating five appellate judges on and off the bench. (This scheme is almost certainly unconstitutional.) Biden seems uninterested in any kind of court reform.

These half-baked, scattershot responses suggest that the 2020 candidates have not seriously grappled with a looming crisis. The judiciary is now packed with Trump nominees who operate under the principle that Republicans can do anything they want and Democrats can’t do bupkis. These judges are poised to invalidate the next Democratic president’s signature policies. The Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been since the days when it tore down the New Deal. At future debates, every time a candidate touts some proposal, the moderators should ask what they’ll do when the courts strike it down. If the candidate has no answer, it’s safe to assume that plan will be dead on arrival.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9542
    • View Profile
Los Angeles County to Intoduce VSAP E-Voting System: NOT Hand-Marked, NOT Paper,
« Reply #1157 on: December 04, 2019, 09:28:52 AM »

Posted on November 29, 2019 by Lambert Strether

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

No doubt Los Angeles County’s VSAP (“Voting Solutions for All People”) rollout will not be covered as a debacle. The real question is: If there were a debacle — like, say, a case of election fraud — would we even know? Doubtful. Just what we want in a voting system! In this post, I’ll give a brief overview of issues with electronic voting. Then I’ll look at VSAP as an institution. Next, I’ll show why the VSAP system is not only insecure, but likely to make money-in-politics even worse than it already is.

We’ve covered electronic voting before — see here, here, and here — and if you want to understand why hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in public (HMPBCP) is the world standard, you can read them, especially the first. In this overview, I’ll make a few high-level observations about electronic voting in general.

Digital systems can never be shown not to have bugs. As Computer Science Elder God Edgers Dijkstra wrote: “Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!” Many bugs in many important programs persist for years before they are discovered. A list would include Flash in IE6 (persisted 12 years), OpenSSL (15 years), LZO data compression (18 years), and bash (25 years). None of these examples are outlier programs or trivial; they are all used by millions, essential to enterprises, networks, etc. Each of these bug is an insecurity waiting to happen. And that’s before we get to Trojan Horses, which are bugs introduced deliberately by a developer for purposes of their own. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that any voting system decision maker who advocates electronic voting is doing so for reasons other than security, given that HMPBCP is available, which amounts to saying that such a decision maker regards a certain amount of exploited bugs — election fraud — as acceptable.

Now, of course we all use programs all the time: We have programs to turn on our lightbulbs, call cabs, download pr0n, etc. I’m using a program now to write this post! However, if we put voting machine software on the same plane as commercial software, we’re arguing that a central-to-mission function of democracy — the vote — is on the same plane as the very convenient ability to check the contents of our refrigerator from our cellphone. Lest I be thought curmudgeonly in this, recall the example of Bolivia, where one reason the vote was challenged was the use of an unauthorized server for data transmission of the count. Contrast that with the recent vote in Hong Kong, where there were many images of people marking paper ballots, and of people counting them, in public (in fact, of people demanding to be let in to observe). Imagine if electronic systems had been used: First, the Mainland would have had every incentive to have compromised the software, and might well have done so successfully; second, electronic systems, because they are always buggy, are always open to challenge. The fallout could have been extremely ugly at the geopolitical level. Nor would the people’s will have been respected.

With that, lets turn to Los Angeles County and VSAP. As with any software project, we need to understand the requirements. Here is what I can find on the extremely spiffy and well-budgeted VSAP site: “The Design Concepts“:

    The final concept created for VSAP incorporates features driven by the project principles as well as focus group feedback, input and in-person testing.

    The concept system features touch-screen technology with a simple user interface, both audio and visual output and a built-in scanner, printer and ballot box. The new voting system will provide voters with options to scan in QR coded ballots from their phone, enter their ballot choices in-person at the polling location or vote-by-mail with printed ballots.

(Note that the concept very explicitly does not say that hand-marked paper ballots will be available at polling locations; only vote by mail.) I note with alarm that the concept document includes no mention of security, or even that the voters vote be accurately recorded and tabulated. Let’s look elsewhere for that. From the aforementioned “Principles“:

    TRUST The voting system must instill public trust and have the ability to produce a physical and tangible record of a voter’s ballot to verify the ballot was marked as intended before it is cast and to ensure auditability of the system. It must demonstrate to voters, candidates, and the general public that all votes are counted as cast.

(A little too much focus on PR for my taste: “instill,” “demonstrate.”) Note the fundamental equivocation, which I have underlined: The paper is not the ballot; the paper is only a record of the ballot, which is digital. More:

    INTEGRITY The system must have integrity, be accountable to voters, and follow existing regulations. System features must protect against fraud and tampering. It should also be easy to audit and produce



https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/11/los-angeles-county-to-intoduce-vsap-e-voting-system-not-hand-marked-not-paper-not-hand-counted-in-public.html
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9542
    • View Profile
Five Common Misconceptions About the Electoral College
« Reply #1158 on: December 04, 2019, 01:14:19 PM »


Defenders of the Electoral College argue that it was created to combat majority tyranny and support federalism, and that it continues to serve those purposes. This stance depends on a profound misunderstanding of the history of the institution.
November 29, 2019
G. Alan Tarr
Board of Governors Professor at Rutgers University-Camden


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/five-common-misconceptions-about-electoral-college/602596/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Hostilities between Warren and Buttigieg boil over
« Reply #1159 on: December 07, 2019, 01:01:53 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/06/elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg-hostilities-077076

Hostilities between Warren and Buttigieg boil over

Long reluctant to call out her rivals by name, Warren went there with Buttigieg on Thursday night — and his campaign returned the fire.


Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren at the November debate. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

By ELENA SCHNEIDER and ALEX THOMPSON

12/06/2019 01:10 PM EST


Long-simmering tensions between Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, the two ascendant Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa, burst into the open this week.

Warren and Buttigieg’s campaigns each called the other out in a flurry of back-and-forths on the candidates’ tax returns, past corporate clients, campaign bundlers and opening fundraisers to the news media.

Story Continued Below

The volleys began in Boston on Thursday night, when Warren criticized Buttigieg for not disclosing the names of his campaign’s top fundraisers since April, or opening his fundraisers to the media, which former Vice President Joe Biden has done.

Story Continued Below

“The mayor should be releasing who’s on his finance committee, who are the bundlers who are raising big money for him, who he’s given titles to and made promises to,” Warren said, a rare instance of her directly attacking a Democratic opponent other than Mike Bloomberg by name. Buttigieg, she added, should also “open up the doors so that the press can follow the promises he’s making in these big-dollar fundraisers.”

Buttigieg senior adviser Lis Smith fired back on Twitter, calling Warren a “corporate lawyer” and saying she should open “up the doors to the decades of tax returns she’s hiding.” Warren hasn’t released her tax returns from before 2008, when she had corporate clients while she also taught at Harvard Law School. She disclosed the names of those clients earlier this year but has not released her tax returns from that time, arguing that the decade of tax returns she already released is sufficient.

The exchanges mark a new phase of the primary, particularly for Warren’s campaign. Buttigieg, who’s cutting a center-left path through the primary, continues to rise in Iowa polling, presenting a serious challenge to Warren in a state on which both contenders have staked their candidacies. Biden can potentially afford to place lower than first in the state given his strength in South Carolina, but Iowa is close to must-win territory for Warren and Buttigieg.

Until now, Buttigieg’s jabs at Warren on the debate stage, and in paid ads and the news media, have gone largely unanswered as she’s insisted, “I’m not here to attack other Democrats.”

Still, Warren’s team has bristled at the mayor’s swipes. He has needled her with lines like “fighting is not enough and it’s a problem if fighting is all you have" — a reference to the senator’s frequent calls to arms against conservative adversaries.

Story Continued Below

But Warren seems to have reached her limit with Buttigieg. Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday night, she tried to turn Buttigieg's "fight" critique against him, remarking that “it’s easy to give up on an idea. You can even try to make yourself sound smart and sophisticated when you do it.”

Jeff Link, an Iowa-based Democratic consultant, said the dynamic between the two of them is in plain sight.

“They’re fighting for the top slot in Iowa, which is the center of the universe for them, and it’s crunch time,” he said. The sharpening battle is “a recognition by each campaign that the other is a threat, and we haven’t really had that before now.”

The hostility between the two campaigns has been building beneath the surface. Last week, when Warren was asked about releasing her tax returns, she called out candidates “who want to distract from the fact that they have not released the names of their clients and not released the names of their bundlers.” It was a thinly veiled shot at Buttigieg, who has come under fire for not naming his clients during his time at the corporate consulting firm McKinsey.

Buttigieg has said he’s bound by a nondisclosure agreement and has asked McKinsey to be released from it. He responded by saying that it “sounds like somebody’s changing the subject — is she going to release those tax returns or not? I hope she does.”

Buttigieg is leading the Democratic field with 24 percent in Iowa, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. A mid-November Des Moines Register poll showed Buttigieg rocketing to the front with 25 percent of the vote, a double-digit lead over the rest of the field. Warren has slipped in Iowa over the past month, after hitting her own high, averaging 23 percent through late September into October.

“As he continues to rise in the polls, he’s going to be the target of more attacks,” said Jennifer Holdsworth, who managed Buttigieg’s failed bid for chairman of the Democratic National Committee after the 2016 election. “Mayor Pete has wide ideological appeal, across the Democratic electorate, from progressives to moderates to everything in between, while others have struggled to communicate a message as widely as him.”

On the ground, Iowa state Sen. Joe Bolkcom, who has endorsed Warren, cautioned that “the Warren campaign needs to make some adjustments in talking to Democratic voters who agree with her on health care, who agree with her on the role that money has played in corrupting politics, but who are nervous about the pace and scale of her agenda.”

“To some degree, Buttigieg has offered a more palatable message to them,” Bolkcom said, on health care and other policies, “and he’s been rewarded here for it.”

Buttigieg’s critics believe the mayor hasn’t been “held to the same standard he has demanded from others,” said Adam Jentleson, a Democratic strategist close to the Warren campaign.

“Pete has been sneaky, demanding that others disclose everything they ever ate for breakfast, while hiding his bundlers and the work for McKinsey that makes up 20 percent of his entire career,” he added. “He has been getting a pass but hopefully that ends now.”
MOST READ
An illustration of Trump standing in front of the white house and capitol building with Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi to his right and Rudy Guliani and Pres. Zelensky to his left.

    How to Fix Impeachment
    Buttigieg confronted by voters over work for McKinsey
    Democrats woo Bullock for Senate. They’re over Beto.
    Cut out of impeachment, emoluments crusaders plot plan B
    ‘People have real questions about this’: Hunter-Ukraine questions cloud Biden tour

Story Continued Below

Buttigieg is trying to fend off a range of criticisms, from his time at McKinsey to his failure to appeal to African American voters in South Carolina.

The escalating attacks aren’t limited to Buttigieg and Warren. On a Thursday night interview on MSNBC, Bernie Sanders said “Buttigieg is wrong” in his critique of Sanders’ tuition-free higher-education plan.

“I’m very glad that Mr. Buttigieg is worried that I have been too easy on upper-income people, the millionaires and billionaires, that I’m going to allow their kids to go to public colleges and universities — just [like] by the way, they can go to public schools right now,” Sanders said. “The point is, I happen to believe, that when you talk about programs like Social Security, like health care, like higher education, they should be universal.”

Buttigieg argued on Monday in South Carolina that college “is not for everybody.”

“This is not the same thing as K through 12, this is not the same thing as Social Security,” Buttigieg said. “But where I come from, three out of four people don’t have a college degree, and if the message we’re sending to them is that you need a college degree in order to get by in life, in order to prosper, in order to succeed, we’re leaving most Americans out and I think they’re just missing that very important fact.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 13385
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ Hostilities between Warren and Buttigieg boil over
« Reply #1160 on: December 07, 2019, 06:03:08 AM »
I thought it was about her own repressed gender identity, because he his married to a man.
Mark Twain — 'There are many humorous things in the world; among them, the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages.'

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
It's Revving Up here as the Winnowing of potential Trumpovetsky Opponents takes shape!

Who is your pick for best chance for the DemoDopes?  I say it's Liz Warren.  Not betting on it though, my bets on political contests do not have a good track record. lol

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/12/us/politics/democratic-primary-2020-debate-schedule.html

The Democratic National Committee announced the next set of primary debates. One will be held in each of the early-voting states.


The Democratic National Committee did not say how it would determine which candidates would qualify for the next set of debates, though it has steadily risen the bar, shrinking the field of candidates who are included.Credit...Hilary Swift for The New York Times

By Jonathan Ellis and Michael M. Grynbaum

    Dec. 12, 2019
    Updated 6:40 p.m. ET

Democratic presidential candidates will debate four times in January and February as the party’s opening quartet of nominating contests approaches, the Democratic National Committee said Thursday.

The committee laid out a packed schedule of debates, caucuses and primaries for early next year, announcing debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the first states to vote. In February alone, there will be seven days with marquee political events — either debates or the contests themselves.

The party is facing the possibility of an unprecedented scheduling conflict: If President Trump is impeached, a Senate trial early in 2020 could force some of the candidates to stay in Washington.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

“If a conflict with an impeachment trial is unavoidable, the D.N.C. will evaluate its options and work with all the candidates to accommodate them,” the committee said in a statement.
Who’s Qualified for the Next 2020 Democratic Debate?

Here’s a look at who’s made the cut for December debates so far.

The D.N.C. did not say Thursday how it would determine which candidates would qualify for the next set of debates. It has ratcheted up its polling and fund-raising standards for the six debates this year, beginning with a low threshold that resulted in 20 candidates qualifying for the first two debates and gradually raising the bar.

    Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in

The debates announced on Thursday will be divided among familiar television networks, including ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. But for the first time in the 2020 race, a pair of major technology companies signed on as sponsors, too. Apple News will co-host a debate in Manchester, N.H., on Feb. 7 with ABC News, and Twitter will partner with CBS News and the Congressional Black Caucus for a Feb. 25 event in Charleston, S.C.

Absent from the sponsorship list was Facebook, whose role in allowing disinformation to proliferate in the 2016 race has been criticized by some leading Democrats.

The inclusion of Apple and Twitter could create an awkward dynamic for candidates who have made stricter regulation of the tech industry a component of their campaign platforms. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, for instance, has called for Apple to be broken apart. And some candidates have faulted Twitter for what they see as lax policies toward political speech and unfounded rumors.
Editors’ Picks
Lovers in Auschwitz, Reunited 72 Years Later. He Had One Question.
This Is What Racism Sounds Like in the Banking Industry
Will ‘Star Wars’ Stick the Landing? J.J. Abrams Will Try
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Moderators for the debates — a plum assignment that can be the subject of much internal jockeying at TV networks — have not yet been announced. The debate in Des Moines on Jan. 14 will be hosted by CNN and The Des Moines Register. NBC News, MSNBC and The Nevada Independent are hosting a Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas.

In a sign of intense interest in the presidential contest, all four of the early 2020 debates are scheduled for weeknights. In past election years, networks had sought to stage some debates on weekends, to avoid pre-empting lucrative prime-time programming. This time around, politics is a big television draw.

Viewership has been strong for this year’s debates, with the first installment in June, a two-night event in Miami, seen by a record audience for a televised Democratic matchup. Since then, the ratings have waned, though network executives expect them to rebound as the critical early contests approach.

Only seven candidates are set to take the stage for a debate next Thursday in Los Angeles sponsored by PBS and Politico, the smallest lineup of 2019. An additional candidate, Senator Kamala Harris, had qualified but dropped out of the race last week.

The party’s schedule for the first two months of 2020, including debates, primaries and caucuses, is here:

    Tuesday, Jan. 14: A debate in Des Moines, hosted by CNN and The Des Moines Register at Drake University.

    Monday, Feb. 3: The Iowa caucuses.

    Friday, Feb. 7: A debate in Manchester, N.H., hosted by ABC News, WMUR and Apple News at St. Anselm College.

    Tuesday, Feb. 11: The New Hampshire primary.

    Wednesday, Feb. 19: A debate in Las Vegas, hosted by NBC News, MSNBC and The Nevada Independent.

    Saturday, Feb. 22: The Nevada Democratic caucuses.

    Tuesday, Feb. 25: A debate in Charleston, S.C., hosted by CBS News, the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Twitter at the Gaillard Center.

    Saturday, Feb. 29: The South Carolina Democratic primary.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ DNC Pushes Back Against Call by Candidates to Ease Debate Qualifying Rules
« Reply #1162 on: December 15, 2019, 02:54:52 PM »
This so-called "Democratic Process" is a total fucking joke.   ::)

RE

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/dnc-pushes-back-call-candidates-ease-debate-qualifying-rules.html

DNC Pushes Back Against Call by Candidates to Ease Debate Qualifying Rules


By Daniel Politi
Dec 15, 20193:37 PM


Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks with Sen. Cory Booker and former housing secretary Julian Castro during a commercial break at the Democratic Presidential Debate at the Fox Theatre July 31, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan.
Scott Olson/Getty Images

Popular in News & Politics

    Watch Trump Tell Same Story Four Times, Each Time Naming a Different Jewish Friend
    Man Who Slapped Reporter’s Butt on Live TV Arrested on Sexual Battery Charge
    Barr Is Trying to Erase the Truth
    Elizabeth Warren Gets Off the Mat

The Democratic National Committee is making it clear it won’t budge on the stringent requirements to qualify for the presidential debates. At least for now. The DNC sent the message shortly after nine Democratic presidential candidates, called for an easing on the thresholds for the upcoming debates amid concern that the debate stage is becoming less diverse. The letter was signed by all seven candidates who qualified for the debate as well as Sen. Cory Booker and Julián Castro, who will be kept out of the January and February debates for now.

Specifically, the candidates say that meeting either the polling or fundraising thresholds should be enough to qualify for the debate without the need of requiring candidates to cross both thresholds. Otherwise an “unintended consequence” of the rules is that the candidates who “helped make this year’s primary field historically diverse” will be left out. “Frankly, that unintended result does not live up to the values of our Democratic Party and it does not serve the best interest of Democratic voters, who deserve to hear from and be able to choose among the best our party has to offer,” reads the letter.

The DNC, however, said it will not be changing the rules for now. “The DNC has led a fair and transparent process and even told campaigns almost a year ago that the qualification criteria would go up later in the year — not one campaign objected. The DNC will not change the threshold for any one candidate and will not revert back to two consecutive nights with more than a dozen candidates,” the DNC said in a statement.

For further debates down the road though, the DNC may “scrap the thresholds altogether or substitute early-state results, or use a combination of both, as qualifying metrics,” reports the New York Times. If the donor threshold were eliminated it could help Michael Bloomberg make it onto the debate stage considering he isn’t fundraising.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Sanders surges ahead of Iowa caucuses
« Reply #1163 on: December 17, 2019, 04:38:43 AM »
BS rising from the Dead!  Will he beat Mayor Pete in Iowa?

RE

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474777-sanders-surges-ahead-of-iowa-caucuses

Sanders surges ahead of Iowa caucuses
By Jonathan Easley - 12/16/19 03:40 PM EST



Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is rising in the polls ahead of Thursday’s pivotal debate in Los Angeles, reestablishing his standing in the top tier of Democratic contenders with the Iowa caucuses less than 50 days away.

Sanders, who electrified liberals over the course of his unlikely challenge to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary, has at times been treated as an afterthought in the 2020 race, which has produced a rival on the left in Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a new Democratic star in South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

But party leaders and the news media are taking notice now that Warren has slipped in the polls. Buttigieg is sustaining attacks from every direction and questions linger about whether former Vice President Joe Biden can go wire-to-wire as the front-runner.

Sanders appears to be hitting his stride at just the right moment, surging past Warren and cutting into Biden’s lead in new national surveys. Sanders leads in the RealClearPolitics average of polls in New Hampshire, and is in second place in Iowa, only 3 points behind Buttigieg.

Campaign officials say Sanders weathered the rough stretches on the strength of his firm base of support and unparalleled grassroots fundraising operation.

The campaign did not panic or make dramatic changes in messaging or strategy in the fall after Sanders suffered a heart attack and appeared to be headed for a disappointing finish.

Instead, the campaign banked on Sanders’s unwavering focus on economic issues and wealth inequality, believing that consistent message would win out in the end.

The campaign believes the strategy is paying off in the stretch run to Iowa, leading to rising poll numbers, record fundraising and big crowds.

“No other candidate has as durable a base as we do,” said Nina Turner, the former Ohio state senator who has been one of Sanders’s most high-profile surrogates since 2015.

“So now he has an energized base and we’re starting to see his crossover appeal. We can enumerate that too, with 4 million donations and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. We have the receipts and we have the moral clarity from a senator who has stood on the right side of justice for over 40 years, whether it’s been popular or not.”

Nationally, Sanders is back in the game, surpassing Warren after trailing her by double-digits, and cutting into Biden’s lead at the top.

The latest NPR-PBS-Marist national survey released Sunday found Biden with the support of 24 percent of respondents, Sanders at 22 percent and Warren at 17 percent, with the Vermont senator leading among progressives, independents, men, nonwhite voters and young people. Sanders has a 20-point lead over the next closest contender among voters under the age of 45.

Sanders has also raised more money than anyone else while reaching the 4 million donors milestone in record time.

And polls routinely show that Sanders’s backers are the most enthusiastic and most likely to have firmly made up their minds. Supporters are flocking to his town hall events. He has had the largest one-day crowds in both Iowa and New Hampshire, where high-profile surrogates helped him to attract record numbers.

“We knew he had a core base that looked like it might be in the 10 percent range, but he’s honing on 20 percent now and we know from experience in the Iowa caucuses that you can turn that into much bigger numbers when ballots are cast,” said Patrick Murray, the pollster for Monmouth University. “He’s not surging statistically, but his numbers are very, very solid, and that’s a big advantage when the other candidates are moving up and down.”
How This State Farm Employee Left an Impactful Mark on Her Community
Sponsored Content
How This State Farm Employee Left an Impactful Mark on Her Community
By State Farm

In Iowa, the Sanders campaign believes its enthusiastic base of support is ready to deliver a surprise victory on Feb. 3.

The campaign’s network of volunteers, led by young people and college students, knocked on 30,000 doors in 48 hours over the weekend.

A Sanders event in rural Ottumwa, Iowa, drew 200 people on Sunday night during a snowstorm.

“We’ve had a consistently strong field organization and presence here, but there’s no doubt that we’re starting to see the kind of momentum you get when good news builds on good news,” said Bill Neidhardt, the campaign’s deputy director in Iowa.

Sanders also has a narrow lead in two of the past three polls of New Hampshire, where he posted a blowout victory against Clinton in 2016.

On Friday, Sanders and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) turned out 1,300 people at a rally in Nashua, which is the largest crowd for any candidate in New Hampshire this year.

And with the next debate in liberal California, the Sanders campaign is turning its sights on the Super Tuesday state with the largest delegate haul in the nation.

Sanders will attend five events across California this week, including a Los Angles rally with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). The campaign has five offices in the state and says it has surpassed 8 million attempted voter contacts through its network of 760,000 volunteers.

A Los Angeles Times survey from early December found Sanders passing Warren to take a narrow lead in the Golden State.

There are still questions about whether Sanders can win the nomination.

While Sanders has built a more diverse coalition than he had in 2016, Biden continues to have a huge lead with black voters, who are the cornerstone of the party’s primary electorate.

And while polls find Sanders running as good or better than anyone in head-to-head match-ups against President Trump, many Democrats remain fearful that nominating a self-described socialist will be a surefire general election loser.

If Sanders emerges as the rival to Biden as the campaign enters the home stretch, there are questions on whether he can emerge on top.

Former President Obama has reportedly told those close to him that he’d speak out against Sanders if he continues to build momentum, and some believe that other party leaders would join a concerted “anyone but Bernie” effort to block him from winning the nomination, if it comes to that.

Many mainstream Democrats continue to be annoyed by Sanders’s persistent lines of attack against the national party and the moderates who refuse to embrace the left’s most ambitious policy proposals.

“He’s still running the same divisive campaign and claiming that it’s all rigged against him,” said Jon Reinish, a Democratic strategist. “So it’s no surprise that you’d have a popular party figure like President Obama speak out, and he’s smart to raise the alarm about what’s at stake here.”

The Sanders campaign says it’s fueled by the doubters and by slights from the political press. Sanders allies have made a pastime out of highlighting examples of media outlets ignoring or downplaying Sanders’s standing in the polls.

“It’s no surprise; the establishment will do what it’s always done to protect the status quo,” said Turner. “We’re ready for it. Thank God our victory won’t be contingent on the establishment or media elites.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ D.N.C. Increases Qualifications for January Debate
« Reply #1164 on: December 20, 2019, 08:42:32 AM »
It's going t6o be a Brokered Convention.  That should be entertaining.  ;D

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/politics/january-democratic-debate.html

D.N.C. Increases Qualifications for January Debate

Only Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have so far met the new criteria to take part in the debate, scheduled for Jan. 14 in Des Moines.


The next Democratic debate will be hosted by CNN and take place in Des Moines in January.Credit...Hilary Swift for The New York Times
Reid J. EpsteinMaggie Astor

By Reid J. Epstein and Maggie Astor

    Dec. 20, 2019
    Updated 11:19 a.m. ET

LOS ANGELES — The Democratic National Committee will again increase the qualification standards for its next debate in January, requiring candidates to receive at least 5 percent support in four qualifying polls, or 7 percent in two early-state polls, making it likely that the field of candidates will be winnowed further for the event.

The announcement on Friday from Tom Perez, the D.N.C. chairman, came despite intense public and private lobbying from Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and his allies to lower the barrier to participate in the party’s debates, a cause that gained momentum after just one person of color, entrepreneur Andrew Yang, qualified for Thursday’s debate in Los Angeles.

Five candidates — former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.,  Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — have already met the 5 percent threshold and the donor threshold of at least 225,000 individual donors, meaning they will receive invitations to the next debate, scheduled for Jan. 14 in Des Moines.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York has also met the polling standard but will be thwarted by the donor requirement, unless he changes his stance against accepting contributions from others.
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

But two candidates who were on Thursday’s debate stage in Los Angeles —  the businessman Tom Steyer and Mr. Yang — will have work to do in order to qualify for January. Mr. Steyer has met the polling mark twice during the window set by the D.N.C.; Mr. Yang has reached 5 percent only once in that period.

“Whatever qualifications they set, you know that this guy is going to be there,” Mr. Yang said Thursday while touring a pop-up store selling campaign merchandise in the Fairfax section of Los Angeles. “The Yang Gang cannot be stopped. We are growing when other campaigns are shrinking and we are going to be there through the spring as the voting gets underway.”

    You have 5 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

Short of a dramatic turnaround in his fortunes, the 5 percent threshold will doom Mr. Booker’s chances of returning to the debate stage. He has not reached 5 percent in a qualifying poll since March. The former housing secretary Julián Castro, the only Latino candidate in the race, has never reached 5 percent.

The January debate, scheduled to take place at Drake University, could be moved or postponed if President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate is taking place in mid-January. It remains unknown when the trial will begin or how long it will last.

Three more debates are planned for February — one each in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Mr. Booker on Saturday organized eight other Democratic presidential candidates to sign a letter to Mr. Perez asking that debate thresholds be lowered in a way that would allow him and Mr. Castro to participate in the January and February debates.

But Mr. Perez spent little time considering their request. Instead he spent the weekend facilitating an agreement for unionized cafeteria workers at Loyola Marymount University, in order to avoid picket lines outside Thursday’s debate, which will take place there.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ 3 winners and 4 losers from the December 2019 Democratic debate
« Reply #1165 on: December 22, 2019, 12:01:52 AM »
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/19/21030908/who-won-december-2019-democratic-debate

3 winners and 4 losers from the December 2019 Democratic debate

Winners: Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar. Loser: Pete Buttigieg.
By Dylan Matthews, Zack Beauchamp, Ella Nilsen, Andrew Prokop, German Lopez, and Anna North Dec 19, 2019, 11:20pm EST


And then there were seven.

The December Democratic debate was the most exclusive affair to date, with former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Sen. Kamala Harris out of the race and prior participants like Sen. Cory Booker, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, and former US housing secretary Julián Castro knocked out for failing to meet polling and/or donor thresholds. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang was the only person of color on stage, a situation that prompted understandable concern before the event, and he and fellow longshots Sen. Amy Klobuchar and billionaire Tom Steyer were joined by the race’s Big Four: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

After a fairly ho-hum first hour, the field burst into open conflict, with some candidates ganging up on Iowa frontrunner Buttigieg. Klobuchar took on his lack of experience in high office, and Warren brought up his fundraiser in a “wine cave.” Amid the sparring, the candidates were able to have an unusually substantive, policy-focused discussion on everything from immigration to the Uighur crisis in China.

It’s rare that a debate features dramatic moments that shake up the whole race, and this time was no exception. But it was a lively debate, and we’ll see if it will change the state of play in some meaningful ways. Here’s who ended the night ahead, and who fell behind.
Winner: Joe Biden

So far in 2019, Joe Biden has not been what anyone would call a debate superstar. His answers have often come off as rambling and incoherent, giving rise to questions about his age.

This debate was different. To be sure, Biden is still the frontrunner, with a very healthy lead in the national polls. So Biden could have just come into the debate, done enough to not lose, and he probably would have still remained on top.
Former Vice President Joe Biden on stage during the Democratic presidential primary debate on December 19, 2019. Chris Carlson/AP

But Biden didn’t just coast; he genuinely did well. Asked about his claims that he’ll be able to work with Republicans if he defeats Trump, Biden gave one of the best answers of the night:

    With Trump out of the way, it’s not going to change things in a fundamental way. What it will do is it will mean that we’re in a position where he’s not going to be able to intimidate, his base is not going to be able to intimidate those half a dozen Republicans we need in other things. I refuse to accept the notion, as some on this stage do, that we can never, never get to a place have we have cooperation again. If that’s the case, we’re dead as a country. We need to be able to reach consensus.

    If anyone has reason to be angry with the Republicans and not want to cooperate it’s me — the way they’ve attacked me, my son, my family. I have no love. But the fact is we have to be able to get things done and when we can’t convince them, we have to go out and beat them as we did in the 2018 election in red states and in purple states.

I’m not sure I buy the logic; I don’t think the Republican Party, given what happened in the Obama years, will work much, if at all, with a President Biden. But it’s the kind of answer that at once condemns what Trump and his party are doing right now while not condemning the people who might have voted for them — a smart approach if Biden wants to win over some of those voters in the general election. At the same time, it made the point that Republicans perceive Biden as the enemy — a winning message in the Democratic primary election.

In the less substantial moments, Biden was also sharp. When Politico’s Tim Alberta looked confused at Biden’s joke that Winston Churchill was the oldest president in US history, Biden quickly ribbed him: “I was joking. Politico doesn’t have much of a sense of humor.” When Bernie Sanders kept his hand raised through one of Biden’s answers, Biden quipped, “Put your hand down, Bernie.” The moments landed well with the audience, earning Biden the kind of laughs he rarely saw in previous debates.

Biden also benefited from the other candidates spending much of the night attacking each other instead of him. In particular, Pete Buttigieg — who’s had some good polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to vote — came under fire from both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. (More on him below.)

Biden by and large avoided similar attacks throughout the night, while making some dents in concerns about his age and gaffes. For the frontrunner, that adds up to a big win.

—German Lopez
Winner: Amy Klobuchar

A very different Amy Klobuchar was standing on the debate stage Thursday.

Gone was the shaky candidate with the quivering hair that Rachel Dratch parodied on Saturday Night Live. In her place was a confident Klobuchar who was in a groove all night, with personal anecdotes, quippy one-liners about wine caves, a snappy moment telling Pete Buttigieg to respect the experience of his fellow candidates onstage, and clear, substantive responses to policy questions.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar speaks during the sixth Democratic primary debate on December 19, 2019. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

“We should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and been able to show they can gather the support that you talk about — moderate Republicans and independents as well as a fired up Democratic base and not just done it once,” Klobuchar told Buttigieg at one point, methodically dismantling his pitch for a fresh face in the White House. “I have done it three times. I think winning matters.”

There’s a clear strategy to Klobuchar going after Buttigieg — she wants to be the main moderate alternative to Joe Biden in the Democratic field. Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who like Buttigieg often mention Klobuchar in the same breath. “Feisty” is often the word voters use to describe her, adding they think she could stand up to Trump — if she can only break through the Democratic pack.

Klobuchar has made it this far; despite relatively lackluster polling numbers thus far, she’s on the debate stage — something her fellow Senate colleagues Cory Booker and Michael Bennet cannot say.

The senator from Minnesota may well have set herself up well for a boomlet after Thursday’s debate performance.

—Ella Nilsen
Winner: foreign policy

In nearly all of the Democratic debates so far, foreign policy has been sort of an afterthought. That changed thanks to the moderators, who asked questions on the war in Afghanistan, Israeli settlements (more on that later on), and US-China relations. The questions produced one of the most substantive discussions of the night, and the most substantive foreign policy discussion of the entire debate season.

Take the China questions, for example. The moderators asked about Chinese repression — both the brutal crackdown on the Uighur Muslim minority and the repression of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. The candidates were forced to deal with the genuinely difficult question of how to respond to horrific human rights abuses by one of the world’s most powerful nations — and, to the candidates’ credit, they had genuinely interesting answers.
Sanders, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar, and Steyer react during the sixth Democratic presidential primary debate at Loyola Marymount University. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Pete Buttigieg argued China is too large and important to be allowed to get away with horrific abuses — and that the US needs to set some red lines. “The reality is there are a lot more to the relationship with China than who is selling more dishwashers,” he said. “The message I will say is if they perpetrate a repeat of anything like Tiananmen Square, they will be isolated from the free world.”

Tom Steyer took a different view: While supporting the Hong Kong protesters was important, the US couldn’t press too hard because it needed China on the vital issue of climate change. “We actually can’t isolate ourselves from China,” Steyer argued. “If we are going to treat climate as the threat that it is, we are going to have to partner with the Chinese.”

Joe Biden followed Steyer, arguing that the risks of outright war between the US and China are low — that the US can and should pressure China on egregious human rights issues and military adventurism in the region. “We have to make clear that we, in fact, are not going to abide by what they have done,” he said. “A million Uighurs, Muslims, are in concentration camps. They’re being abused.”

These are all reasonable, defensible views on one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges of the 21st century: how to deal with a key economic and political partner that’s also a ruthless, increasingly militarily assertive dictatorship? That kind of substantive exchange is what you’re hoping for in a debate like this; credit both to the moderators and the candidates for it.

—Zack Beauchamp
Loser: Pete Buttigieg

Though he’s in fourth place according to national polls, Pete Buttigieg has loomed large in the nomination contest of late — he’s in first place in Iowa and about tied for first in New Hampshire.

So naturally, several of his rivals went into this debate hoping to take him down. And Buttigieg took serious heat on two main issues — his fundraising from wealthy donors, and his lack of experience at winning elected office beyond one city in Indiana.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks as Pete Buttigieg listens during the Democratic presidential primary debate at Loyola Marymount University on December 19, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Elizabeth Warren kicked things off by invoking a phrase that was soon repeated again and again: “wine cave.”

“The mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine,” Warren said. Indeed, this is true, as Brian Slodysko of the Associated Press reported. (Recode’s Theodore Schleifer found photos of the fundraiser on a donor’s Instagram account. It indeed looked fancy.)

“Think about who comes to that,” Warren said. “We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States.”

Bernie Sanders soon ribbed Buttigieg (and Joe Biden) on a similar topic. “My good friend, Joe, and he is a good friend, he’s received contributions from 44 billionaires. Pete on the other hand, is trailing, Pete. You only got 39 billionaires contributing.” Even Andrew Yang joined in, while touting his proposal to give every voter “100 democracy dollars” they can donate — Yang said it would spur more women to run for office “because they don’t have to shake the money tree in the wine cave.”

Later, Amy Klobuchar took aim at Buttigieg’s thin electoral record. “We should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and been able to show they can gather the support that you talk about — moderate Republicans and independents as well as a fired up Democratic base.” She added: “I have done it three times. I think winning matters.”

Buttigieg tried gamely to defend himself. He pointed out that Warren (and everyone else on the stage) is personally far wealthier than him. He said anyone who wants to beat Donald Trump needs to raise as much money as they can. And, to Klobuchar, he said that he is a winner — he won elections as “a gay dude in Mike Pence’s Indiana” (though Klobuchar then pointed out that when he ran statewide in Indiana, for treasurer, he lost “by 20 points”).

Overall, Buttigieg seemed to have been attacked more than the national frontrunner Biden — and the attacks on him were particularly dangerous because they came on two fronts. The candidates running to the left on economic issues (Warren and Sanders) slammed him for purported coziness with big donors, while the more moderate Klobuchar focused on his lack of experience. Voters considering Buttigieg heard two separate prominent arguments that could spur them to reconsider.

—Andrew Prokop
Loser: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In the surprisingly substantive foreign policy debate, there was one foreign leader who came in for special criticism from the two frontrunners, Biden and Sanders — and it wasn’t an enemy dictator like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. It was the prime minister of one of America’s closest allies — Israel.

The topic first came up when moderator Yamiche Alcindor asked Sanders about how he’d handle the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements — and whether he’d consider holding up US military aid in protest of them.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits an army base in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights overlooking Syrian territory, on November 24, 2019. Atef Safadi/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Sanders refused to rule out conditioning aid, and insisted on the need for America to be “pro-Palestinian” as well as pro-Israel. He then described Netanyahu as a “racist” (seems pretty true, given what he’s done to Palestinians and said about Arab voters) who is “under indictment for bribery” (this one is absolutely, undeniably true).

While Sanders’s view may not have been surprising — he’s a lefty on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who’s made no secret of his dislike for Netanyahu — Biden’s was quite surprising given his relatively moderate reputation.

“Netanyahu and I know each other well. He knows I think what he’s doing is outrageous,” Biden said. “What we do is we have to put pressure constantly on the Israelis to move to a two-state solution, not withdraw physical aid.”

This type of critical language — where even moderates call for constant pressure on Israel from the United States — used to be almost unthinkable in the Democratic Party, and shows how far left the party has moved on this issue.

For that, Netanyahu personally deserves some of the credit. He has not only slandered Arab citizens of Israel and relentlessly expanded Israeli settlements in the West Bank, making a two-state solution harder and harder, but he’s also openly aligned himself with the Republican Party — having lobbied against Obama’s Iran deal in the US Congress and tightly aligned himself with Trump.

Israeli politicians used to be deathly afraid of losing bipartisan support in America. The theory was that Israel’s national security depended on getting security and political support from the United States, and couldn’t afford to risk losing that every four years. Netanyahu’s strategy of turning Israel into a partisan issue may well have made that longstanding approach untenable.

—Zack Beauchamp
Loser: that goddamn background

Viewers have lodged valid complaints about previous 2020 debates: Moderators were too obsessed with health care; the candidates were too shy about drawing out their differences; unserious candidates like self-help author Marianne Williamson took up too much space.

A criticism no one made to date was: “The background moved too much.”
Democratic candidates stand on stage in front of a distracting moving background at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California, on December 19, 2019. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

That changed tonight. Throughout the three-hour debate, the words “POLITICO,” “PBS NEWSHOUR,” and the PBS logo crawled at a slow, nauseating pace behind the candidates. At times the letters of the word “POLITICO” even appeared to vibrate, nudging into each other like the strings on a guitar being played with vibrato. People tweeted complaints all night.

We tuned into this debate to hear from the candidates, not to be taunted by malevolent typography. Just put up a big blue background or something! I don’t care. This is the easiest possible thing to get right and instead viewers were subjected to the year’s most baffling graphic design.

—Dylan Matthews
Loser: the last question

The evening’s final question was, ostensibly, holiday-themed. “In the spirit of the season,” moderator Judy Woodruff asked candidates if there was “a candidate from whom you would ask forgiveness for something, maybe, that was said tonight or another time, or a candidate to whom you would like to give a gift.”

The results broke down along gender lines. Andrew Yang kicked things off by saying, “I would love to give each of you a copy of my book.”
Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg answered a holiday-themed question about giving a gift or asking for forgiveness during the Democratic debate on December 19, 2019. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

“Come to think of it, I should probably send my book around more, too,” Mayor Pete Buttigieg responded, before adding that it would be a gift “for literally anybody up here to become president of the United States compared to what we’ve got.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders joked that “I can give out any one of four books that I wrote,” before saying that “the gift that all of us need to give to the American people is a very, very different vision” than the one provided by Trump.

Not every male candidate mentioned his books, but every one chose a gift. Meanwhile, both Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, the only women on the stage, asked for forgiveness.

“I know that sometimes I get really worked up,” Warren said. “And sometimes I get a little hot. I don’t really mean to.” She went on to say that stories she hears about people unable to afford their medical care make her impassioned.

Klobuchar made a similar plea. “I would ask for forgiveness any time any of you get mad at me,” she said. “I can be blunt. But I am doing this because I think it is so important to pick the right candidate here.”

The contrast couldn’t have been starker: Men plugging their achievements, women saying they were sorry for being confrontational. In Warren’s case especially, the answer felt like a response to criticisms that she is “angry” or “unlikable” — criticisms male candidates haven’t faced in the same way. And in both cases, the women’s responses reflected an enduring social expectation that women should apologize for being assertive or confrontational.

The question itself was a throwaway, revealing little of substance about any of the candidates. What it revealed, instead, was that even when they’re running for the highest office in the country, women still feel like they have to say they’re sorry.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Report: Bloomberg used prison labor for campaign calls
« Reply #1166 on: December 25, 2019, 12:41:22 AM »
Slave Labor for Billionaires!

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ukDOzsXwmYY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ukDOzsXwmYY</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination
« Reply #1167 on: December 26, 2019, 09:41:22 AM »
Sure he "could". ::)  So could at least 3 other current front runners.  BUT...can any of them beat Trumpovetsky?  ???   :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/26/can-bernie-sanders-win-2020-election-president-089636

Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination

His resiliency in the primary has caught the attention of the party establishment.


By HOLLY OTTERBEIN and DAVID SIDERS

12/26/2019 05:04 AM EST


Suddenly, Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is being taken seriously.

For months, the Vermont senator was written off by Democratic Party insiders as a candidate with a committed but narrow base who was too far left to win the primary. Elizabeth Warren had skyrocketed in the polls and seemed to be leaving him behind in the race to be progressive voters’ standard-bearer in 2020.

Story Continued Below

But in the past few weeks, something has changed. In private conversations and on social media, Democratic officials, political operatives and pundits are reconsidering Sanders’ chances.

Story Continued Below

“It may have been inevitable that eventually you would have two candidates representing each side of the ideological divide in the party. A lot of smart people I’ve talked to lately think there’s a very good chance those two end up being Biden and Sanders,” said David Brock, a longtime Hillary Clinton ally who founded a pro-Clinton super PAC in the 2016 campaign. “They’ve both proven to be very resilient.”

Democratic insiders said they are rethinking Sanders’ bid for a few reasons: First, Warren has recently fallen in national and early state surveys. Second, Sanders has withstood the ups and downs of the primary, including a heart attack. At the same time, other candidates with once-high expectations, such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, have dropped out or languished in single digits in the polls.

“I believe people should take him very seriously. He has a very good shot of winning Iowa, a very good shot of winning New Hampshire, and other than Joe Biden, the best shot of winning Nevada,” said Dan Pfeiffer, who served as an adviser to former President Barack Obama. “He could build a real head of steam heading into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.”

The durability of Sanders’ candidacy has come as a surprise even in some states where he performed strongly in 2016 and where he is attempting to improve his standing ahead of the 2020 election.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener, who defeated a Sanders-backed Democrat for his seat in the liberal-heavy San Francisco area in 2016, said Sanders has been “more resilient than I anticipated.”

“But in retrospect,” he added, “he has a very, very loyal following, and people have really stuck with him.”

Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan would eliminate private insurance
See where he stands on all the issues »

Sanders is in second place in national polls, nearly 9 percentage points behind Biden, according to the most recent RealClearPolitics average. He is second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire. The latest CNN poll found he has the highest net favorability rating of any Democratic presidential candidate.

Story Continued Below

While Sanders’ supporters complain relentlessly that he has received less attention from the media than other candidates, he has also avoided sustained criticism that some of his rivals have suffered. That could be helping him, especially compared with Warren, who has recently come under fire from the left and center for her health care plan.

“If you really think about it, Bernie hasn’t been hit a lot with anything. It’s not like he’s getting hit by other campaigns,” said Michael Ceraso, a former New Hampshire director for Pete Buttigieg’s campaign who worked for Sanders in 2016.

“You sort of take for granted that he, like Biden, are institutional figures for very different reasons,” Ceraso said. “Early in the campaign, Bernie’s people said, ‘Look, this guy in these early states has a nice hold, and there’s a percentage of supporters, a quarter of the electorate will potentially go for him.'” He added, “It waned a little bit because people were looking at other options … and now they’re saying, ‘Wait a minute, this guy has been the most consistent of anyone.'”

At the beginning of the year — another high point for Sanders’ campaign, before Warren surged — some establishment Democrats talked about how to stop his momentum. Brock, who has a close relationship with many Democratic donors, said he has not heard anything like that in recent weeks: “That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. This is more of an analysis in the political world than in the donor world.”

Many moderate Democrats still dismiss Sanders’ candidacy. They believe his so-called ceiling remains intact and that Warren will depress any room for growth he might otherwise have.

“He can’t win the nomination,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way, adding that Sanders’ uptick is simply him “bouncing around between his ceiling and his floor a little bit more than people had thought he would.”

On the other hand, he acknowledged his staying power. “Not until the very end will people say to Bernie Sanders, ‘When are you dropping out?’”

A series of TV segments around last week’s Democratic debate illustrate the shift in how Sanders is being perceived. “We never talk about Bernie Sanders. He is actually doing pretty well in this polling,” former senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said on CNN after the event. “He’s actually picked up. And the fact is Bernie Sanders is as consistent as consistent can be.”

The same day on MSNBC, national political correspondent Steve Kornacki said, “Democratic voters like him, and if he starts winning, there could be a bandwagon effect.” GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who conducted a California focus group that found most participants thought Sanders had won the debate, said on CNBC, “I think you’re going to see continued movement. Sanders has been gaining in California over the past two months.”

Larry Cohen, chairman of the pro-Sanders group Our Revolution, said Warren’s candidacy is not a problem for Sanders if both of them can — together — amass a plurality of delegates heading into the convention.

“The math is that if you think of the voters for Warren and the voters for Sanders as two circles, yes, there is overlap, [but] most of the circles are separate,” Cohen said. “I think between them, we can get to a majority.”
Matt Wuerker cartoon
Matt Wuerker Cartoons Year in Review

By MATT WUERKER

If Sanders’ candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be subjected to the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches. That includes an examination of his electability. “That conversation has never worked well for anyone,” Pfeiffer said.
MOST READ
Lisa Murkowski

    Sen. Murkowski ‘disturbed’ by McConnell’s approach on impeachment
    Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination
    The 2019 Presidential Campaign Dropouts, Ranked
    Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020
    How Close Did Russia Really Come to Hacking the 2016 Election?

Story Continued Below

Former California Gov. Gray Davis stopped short of saying firm support for "Medicare for All" would be an impediment for Democrats in the primary but suggested the risk for the nominee is significant.

“Californians and Americans, in general, like options — not mandates,” he said.

Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager, said political insiders and pundits are rethinking his chances “not out of the goodness of their heart,” but because “it is harder and harder to ignore him when he’s rising in every average that you see.” And he welcomes a conversation about Sanders’ electability, he said.

“We want that,” he said. “I’d love to be able to argue why he stands a better chance to beat Donald Trump than Joe Biden.”

Christopher Cadelago contributed to this report.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline UnhingedBecauseLucid

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: 🗳️ Democratic insiders: Bernie could win the nomination
« Reply #1168 on: December 26, 2019, 03:46:32 PM »
His supporters should read this instead... :

https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2019/12/18/the-left-needs-to-give-up-hope/

 :-[



Man can do what he will, but he cannot will what he wills.
­~ A. Schopenhauer

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39759
    • View Profile
🗳️ Another Dem Bites the Dust
« Reply #1169 on: January 02, 2020, 05:50:39 PM »
No Latinos now in the running.  Blacks and Asians gone too.  Next Debate stage will be nice and White.  Will that pull in any Joe Bageant voters?

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5xqHyt965p0" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/5xqHyt965p0</a>
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Errata

Started by Guest The Kitchen Sink

0 Replies
705 Views
Last post October 13, 2016, 02:05:21 AM
by Guest
3 Replies
1526 Views
Last post November 08, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
by monsta666
24 Replies
4784 Views
Last post February 28, 2017, 06:54:54 AM
by RE