Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 41. (Read 12658 times)

I think it's the difference between pushing an agenda that's good for America, vs. pushing an agenda that's good for The Party.  Even here in deep blue California my Democrat family and friends are no longer able to defend the Democrat's leadership.  They are disenchanted with direction the party is going.  They aren't socialists, they aren't sold on the Green New Deal, they know the difference between universal healthcare and socialized healthcare (or Medicare-For-All, as the media likes to call it.)

I also believe social media, and cable news have a divisive and polarizing affect on politics.  It tend to attract the most extreme perspectives, while giving the appearance those views are more widely accepted.  Social media does not provide an accurate representation of the larger American philosophy, and the MSM are more often wrong than not.  It might seem like a ton of Americans do want "Free Stuff," but we are well aware of the pitfalls of handing over too much power to the government, and especially to one political party.

The American political landscape will balance it's self out, it always has in the past.  During the Clinton administration the Republicans went through the same partisan extremism, and now they seem more like the rational and effective party of the Reagan years.



This is a very interesting point you make.  It reminds me of the 2008 election, when Obama won his first term.  Here in California we had measures on the ballot to allow gay marriages and to decriminalize marijuana.  Both failed miserably.

A good friend of mine actually predicted that those measures would fail, and it was largely because of the demographic of voters who turned out for the election.  This friend of mine is half Mexican, and has a lot Democratic family members who were very supportive of Obama.  Knowing what he knows about the Hispanic community, he was confident that even though they are Democrats they are actually extremely conservative on social issues.  It could be cultural or a religious predisposition, or likely both as they can often conflate.  This friend also commented that Black Americans can also be very socially conservative, if not downright homophobic.

Being that the Democratic party, which often bills itself as "socially progressive," relies heavily on Black and Latino votes, I think this conflict will hurt Buttigieg's chances of winning the primary, let alone the General election.  

I personally have nothing against someone's sexual orientation, and if I thought he would make a good president I'd vote for him.  Like Lindsey Graham, for example.  If Buttigieg does win, it's not like he would be the first gay president.  I just hope history doesn't repeat itself...

because they are running identity politics and are not americans like trump,

its the same with racist cnn trash those are also not americans but nationalists.

Yes, TRUMP is not in the list But, he stand the chance of wining again! WINING AGAIN!!

So the Democrat candidates are all disconnected with the American people ... why?

It depends on how many people would vote for him because he is gay VS how many people will not vote for him because he is gay..

I'm sure their are a bunch of radical progressives that would vote for a candidate just because they are gay, or black, or a woman, etc.. (anything but a straight white male)
But I don't know any..
I do however know a lot of oldschool folk who will not vote for him because he is gay, but my perspective comes from not being around many progressive city types..

I doesn't matter that much to me personally, but I wouldn't say it's a positive..
I don't mind gays if they are otherwise normal for the most part, have had a couple of good friends that were gay, but the whole......
part..

I don't mind a person being gay, but when they base their entire identity around the fact that they are gay, act like complete morons showing off how gay they are 24/7, can't go 2 minutes without reminding me how gay they are, is when it becomes a problem.. Flamers, I call them..

My cousin is a lesbian.. She lives on the other side of the country.. I like her and always have..
Ever since she "Became a lesbian", when she comes to visit, or talk on the phone rarely on accident, all she can ever talk about is how they are a lesbian and their girlfriends and and and who said what about it etc..
At times it seems that some of them can't say or do much of anything without basing it around the way that they happen to like to screw...
Why do they do this? IDK..

Pete doesn't seem to be too much like that though, even though he may try to use it to what he thinks is an advantage, but it will give the LGBT agenda a push..

Something that I really don't like is how the gay/lgbt agenda is shoved right into the faces of kids these days, and popularized.. It's not a topic for children IMO..
Teaching kids that its cool to get your penis chopped off, encouraging lifestyles purely based around sexuality, to children, isn't cool..
They need to teach the kids about the STD rates and Suicide rates related to these life choices if anything.. Not about how you can use them for attention seeking behaviors..


I think a lot of it is a coordinated attempt to reduce the morals/principles of our population for voting purposes TBH.. (conspiracy inbound)
If they can get everyone to forget the old sexual morals, old Christian morals, and old general discretionary morals, the easier it will be to get everyone to forget the old constitutional morals, get people to more easily give up their liberties to protect LGBT from offensive words and such.. Force Christians to bake cakes and fund abortions..
Reducing principles in general as one small part of the vast conspiracy to weaken the west.. More voters to drive us into left authoritarianism, where we can all then be more easily controlled, like China..

I bet one of the leading assaults against free speech in the western countries that you can get locked up for right now is criticism of transgenderism..
Imagine being in a shithole like Canada or the UK where you could go to jail for simply posting the opinion that "Transgenderism is a mental illness", "Maybe Hitler didn't really gas 6 Gorrilian jews", "Islam is not compatible with western culture", or "Xi Jinping is a cunt" in China..
I see much of the LGBT agenda being progress toward that..

My libertarian side doesn't care at all about the way you choose to have sex.. Go offer your ass to 100 guys and get aids for all I care.. Shoot some meth while you're at it..
But my conservative side is like woah, big red flag here, propaganda galore, this is not good for the direction of my country away from small government constitutionalism..

I think theymos is more anarchistic, further right, than even "small government constitutionalism", but even that is a pretty good compromise compared to where we are at and were we are headed if these nutjobs get into power IMO..




Oh, Bats! er, I mean rats..
Atleast I'm doing it bigly..

I don't think he really ever stood a chance. His platform really didn't expand beyond UBI, and during the debates, he would frequently pivot to UBI.

I don't think our economy is at the point where Universal Basic Income is really needed right now. Unemployment is at record lows, and wages are rising faster than inflation. Automation is taking jobs, but even with those jobs removed from the economy, there are more jobs available than unemployed workers in the workforce. I think the UBI platform is 10-15 years too early.

It's really strange, the candidates that focus on real issues that matter to Americans are dropping like flies.  Yang and Delaney are out, both of whom actually have practical expectations, and make deliverable promises.  Two who aren't hell bent on implementing every woke socialist agenda.  Gabbard is another one, but she doesn't have a prayer, in my opinion.  It seems like all the candidates who are centrist enough to have made a real run for the general election don't stand a chance.

I see Klobuchar as one of those leftish for the primary, centering up for the general (assuming she gets the nomination,).  In fact she is already taking that centrist road, as demonstrated by the New Hampshire debate.  But that kind of deception will come to haunt her later.  I think Buttigieg will be coached the same way by his handlers, if he wins the nomination that is.  But will his dad's Marxist views, and his rhetoric during the primary keep him from converting the independents?

Americans are mostly centrist, when you come down to it.  We may swing one direction, then the other, but for the most part things tend to stay fairly balanced.  Candidates that are talking about green new giveaways make a lot of noise on the twitterweb, but that kind of talk doesn't resonate with unplugged Americans.  We want to discuss, and resolve issues that affect our daily lives.  That's why Trump won in 2016, and that's why he'll win in 2020, unless the Democrats can produce one honest, rational individual who isn't promising to give away the farm to pay for undeliverable promises.

For those of you who were holding your breath, Tom Steyer is out.  So it's official, his Schrodinger's cat of a campaign is dead.

Smart move.


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Andrew Yang drops out, RIP - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/02/11/4fe2c97c-4c2c-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

A woman president would also do that.

His homosexuality & husband is an interesting political question. IMO it's easy for a lot of people, even slightly socially-conservative people, to read "he's gay and gay-married" written on paper and not care too much. But if anyone (a superPAC, maybe) dares to attack him by blasting the airwaves with images of him kissing his husband or similar, this might evoke a disgust reaction even in a lot of social liberals, and maybe this'd be enough to kill his campaign. It's difficult to predict, since a lot of people who are honestly very strongly for gay rights (and who will tell pollsters as much) might experience some subconscious disgust at seeing it right in their faces, and this subtle but perhaps-widespread effect could have a significant impact on a Pete vs Trump race.

I find it difficult to understand the mindset of strong social conservatives, so I could easily believe that I'm underestimating just how much his homosexuality will motivate conservatives to oppose him, as well.

For some reason The Killing Fields movie is on youtube at the moment.  Bernie Bros and Sanders campaign staff make their appearance at about 50:10 and continue to do their thing through the remainder of the movie.

Blacks are also notoriously homophobic. Mexicans also tend to be very Catholic.

Means you're losing bigly. My guys (and a few gals) have larger numbers.

While bringing in the first first man..


Their racist..



Why is Trump's number so low? What does that mean?


B-b-b butt...
The polls are always right.. Only off by the allowable margin of error..
How much margin of error do they have this time? 40%?

Honestly they're going to call him the winner, but on first ballot he wasn't the winner. He won the delegate count because Iowa has the whole realignment thing, and in my mind Bernie is going to be able to say that this is more of a win then Pete can.

For Pete and his Camp, they're going to be able to run off and say that this was surprising that it happened and that they beat the odds in Iowa. Which they're right, they did beat the odds and the polls had him crashing in the polls.

Biden is going to have to have a strong finish in NH to keep his name in the news. He continues to rely on the fact that NC is very Black, and they're pretty much saying that SC is his wall (or whatever that saying is). If he doesn't do well in NH, he's going to lose his edge in electability (which I think is bullshit, but the voters dont) and he's going to fall out of fashion.

This is gonna be something. Can't believe NH is tomorrow.

I saw this on Bovada today, the odds for all presidential candidates, republicans and Kanye West included (lol):



It kind of gives you an idea of where everybody currently stands. I was surprised that they had Bloomberg so high on there. My other go-to source for odds, RealClearPolitics, seems to not be reflecting anything of value anymore, as they still have Biden up nationally by a considerable margin, despite the fact that he failed to win a single delegate in Iowa:

After Pete's shocking victory (or "victory") in Iowa, it'll be really interesting if he wins in NH as well. The polls are currently very close.

Even if he wins, it's a bit difficult to imagine him winning a majority of delegates, since he has roughly zero support among black Democrats. If he wins in NH, it makes a contested convention much more likely, though: maybe a roughly-even split in delegates between Bernie, Pete, and Bloomberg, with scattered delegates among the rest. That'd be interesting.

If Pete somehow becomes the nominee, I feel like he'd do well against Trump, since IMO he's the candidate who most projects a calming, "return-to-normalcy" vibe, which will appeal to a lot of swing voters. That said, maybe minority Democrats wouldn't turn out for him enough? I don't understand why he's so monumentally unpopular among that demographic. Maybe his polling there would improve if he became the nominee?

Policy-wise, he's probably about the same as Biden or Bloomberg. I certainly don't want him to be president, though I'm hoping he wins NH and this leads to a contested convention.

I think there were some big winners and losers from the IA caucus.

Big Losers:
Joe Biden - under performed the polls by ~6% and likely finished 4th, "Mr. Electable" my ass LOLOLOL.
Iowa Democratic Party - for either being entirely incompetent at best or corrupted at worst.
DNC - even though this really isn't their fault Trump has already weaponized it against them, and Trump has MORE than enough foils already and the dems handed him a big fat one with a bow on it.
Buttigieg - he lost millions of dollars of free MSM coverage that he should have got for finishing so strong, and honestly that is the only reason anyone campaigns hard in IA and Buttigieg was basically "all in" in IA.

Big winners:
Bloomberg - Since IA puts a huge question mark on Biden's electability (and NH may accentuate that point) and if Pete falls off once he gets out of pure white states and into NV and SC (as he polls horribly with minorities), Bloomberg can swoop in on Super Tuesday with his half a billion dollars and the moderate wing can consolidate around him.
Trump - The moron democrats keep handing him big fat foils all wrapped up nicely.
Bernie - He will come away being tied or within 1 of the most pledged delegates and likely the popular vote lead in both "rounds", he can claim victory even if buttigieg is ahead by 1% in SDE's at the end of the day (when ever that is ffs).  As the lefts anti establishment candidate the shenanigans in IA by the establishment will rally his base and might give him some boost with some indy's or under 50's.

"my code is perfect, I never debug it because there are no bug."
Overheard conversation.
He was serious.
Just wondering why the bloke was working at my local store instead of running megabillion coding corporation.

Everybody knows that real programmers test their code in production.