2020, the election campaigns have begun

[Star Ranger4]

Nope, Los Angeles. But my Brother does, Dunno if I can convince him to throw his vote your way. He is his own voter. Right. Off to the Registar recorder website then!

[Labster]

It's the Ventura/Ojai district, and it's a vote for 8 of these 9 people thing. Which is kinda ridiculous. The rule here is don't vote for Malissa S. -- not because she's bad or anything, but none of us know her. You'd think if you ran for a party office you'd turn up to at least one of the party meetings. And well, in politics showing up is job one. All of the rest of us are on a slate, even people who actually hate each other quite publicly, because hey, showing up.

If he's in Camarillo/Santa Paula/Fillmore, then the 3rd county supervisor race is interesting. The seat was held by Kathy Long, who I think hit her term limit. So someone recruited Kelly Long to run for the same seat, and she got elected on the basis of name recognition. So now we have to run campaigns against "the Wrong Long."

[robkelk]

CBC Analysis: Bernie Sanders may be just what U.S. capitalism needs, says top economist

There is no question that Piketty is himself a socialist. He is also a believer in capitalist economics and sees no conflict between the two. But the type of socialism matters.

[Star Ranger4]

If he's in Camarillo/Santa Paula/Fillmore

Nope.  He, his wife and son have one of those classic Craftsman styles right down there in old town Ventura Proper. the area that does the group christmas display.  Semi famous for 'zombie santa'.

[Labster]

Let's take a look at the candidate list now.

1) Elizabeth Warren
2) Kamala Harris
3) Julián Castro
4) Jay Inslee
5) Cory Booker
6) Michael Bennet
7) Bernie Sanders
8) Pete Buttigieg
9) Joe Biden
10) Eric Swalwell
11) Bill de Blasio
12) Steve Bullock
13) Beto O'Rourke
14) Kirsten Gillibrand
15) Deval Patrick
16) Andrew Yang
17) Marianne Williamson
18) John Delaney
19) Amy Klobuchar
20) John Hickenlooper
21) Tim Ryan
22) Michael Bloomberg
23) Tom Steyer
24) Tulsi Gabbard

Wow, not many left.  And most of my high ranked choices are gone, along with a whole rank of C-grade candidates.  Let's talk about the remaining people specifically.

Warren remains my top choice, someone who has left-wing credentials while being an Ivy League economist.  I don't know why more centrists and conservatives aren't happy about a real economist having a shot at being President.  Down side: she may have peaked too early.  Probably sounds too much like mom to some people.

Sanders is the self-described democratic socialist, the leftiest, and has good outsider cred.  Down side: May lack appeal to centrists (but probably okay with independents), party loyalists still angry about how he didn't support Hillary enough last time (whether this is fair is a whole other discussion).

Buttigieg is young, smart, did military service, and has a quasi-moderate lane.  I rated him higher because I'm just so damn tired of baby boomers.  Down sides: has near zero appeal to ethnic minorities.  Is America ready for its first gay President who, if elected, will be memorized by generations of middle schoolers by the fact his name begins with "butt" and he's gay?

Biden is experienced, plainspoken, and is the neoliberal torch bearer in this contest.  After being VP to Obama, he has the highest support among ethnic minorities now that all of the candidates of color have dropped out.  Down side: His record is a little too well known, not sating the electorate's eternal desire for something different.  Ten years of conservative attacks on Obama automatically apply to him.

Klobuchar is homespun and disciplined.  She has the ability to pander to people constantly without them realizing it, which is what people really want.  Democratic establishment, but centrist, she peaked at the right time.  Down side: Doesn't seem to have opinions without consulting a focus group first, doesn't really offer any excitement for the left wing to get to the polls.

Bloomberg is rich, self-financing, centrist, and did I mention rich?  There's a segment of Never Trumper Republicans that are pinning their hopes on a Bloomberg candidacy, offering a Democrat who they think would be tolerable to their goals and possibly even an improvement on Trump for business.  Down sides: I really can't see Bernie fans being enthused about him, and many will just stay home in November.  Seriously, two billionaires is a choice?

Steyer has an outside chance if his wealth (only one rich) buys him a good result in Nevada.  He's a billionaire, but has much more appeal to the left of the party.  Down side: has never held public office, got in the race too late.  Doesn't really offer anything that another candidate doesn't do better.

Gabbard is... still here.  Is her financing from Russia?  Endorsed by Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, who are Libertarians.  Down side: Can't for the life of her get good press -- at least in outlets Dems would see.  Fox and Breitbart seem to like her.

None of them are perfect choices.  Perfect candidates, like perfect phone calls, don't actually exist.  If you feel like your candidate is perfect, you are projecting your own feelings onto them, and allowing yourself to be played for a fool.  Save your love for someone who will love you back, and just settle for your elected officials.

The number one question to Democrats this year is electability, but I feel like each of them excites one group while leaving another one out in the cold.  This is, incidentally, what Vice Presidents are for.  So I'm going to state it again: vote for the person who you want to be President.  They are all electable enough, they just have different strategies to getting there.  Trump is scary good at what he does, but despite how it feels he cannot negate realpolitik by executive order.

[Star Ranger4]

Senator Harris has withdrawn from the race, Lab? shite. To be honest even this republican would have been more likely to vote for her over the Honorable Senator Fienstien or the sitting president....

[Labster]

Harris was out two months ago due to lack of money and not really being inspirational. She was perhaps the smartest person running, but campaigning is CHA-based, not INT. I suspect she could have gutted it out to Iowa and New Hampshire, after X weeks stuck in an impeachment trial, where people wouldn't care about her non-whiteness and lost there. But Kamala probably rolled an intelligence check high enough to realize that this wasn't her time, and to get out before she got damaged. Oppo research always finds something, because people make mistakes.

[Star Ranger4]

Again, as I said, Shite. I suppose it is the effect of time, but I consider Harris more inspirational of follwoing than our long time senator Feinstein... To be honest, the Honorable Diane makes me think more of Frankenstein than what she hopes to spark in our state, Labster. *insert really unconvinced look mp3 here, folks*

[Labster]

I'm still mad at Dianne Feinstein because her husband, Richard Blum, increased my student "fees"* several times when he was chair of the UC Board of Regents. Not really fair, I know, but I'm still paying off those loans until Bernie forgives them all lol. Oh yeah, that, and she was an Iraq War apologist for a long time.

Oh, and seriously, her Senate office in DC is like the DMV, but slightly less welcoming.

* In-state students don't pay tuition in UC schools, they just pay several thousand dollars in "fees" each term (Don't get me started on this (No really this is a minefield topic, just don't))

[hazard]

I've a feeling that people in the USA are a good bit more left leaning than the common wisdom says they are, so complaints about left leaning candidates not interesting the 'centrists' aren't that big a deal.

That said, it's irrelevant who becomes president if the Republicans aren't ousted from power in all branches of the federal government, and preferably also take a heavy clobbering at the state and local level. And I don't just mean in votes.

Fail to do that and American democracy is likely to stop being a thing for quite a while, and we can see that Russia at least has a lot of power over the Republicans right now, and may translate that into the future even if the current president is replaced.

[Star Ranger4]

Oh, it is relevant who. Ousting the "republicans" from power, isn't, really. I'll point to places like Russia and China as to the sort of mess that can be made when a single political entity has control of everything. Also, let us not paint republicans as a whole with the tar of the sitting president. My personal opinion is that ... Oh wait. we are talking politics here. Okay, my opinon is that the country got what it deserved when they elected the present president. This from someone who has considered himself a republican for all of his voting life. who Its time for our nation to wake up and *LOOK* at our candidates, and VOTE for the one they think will best represent them at all levels of government. Doesn't matter if it is Bernie, or bloomberg, or whoever. Just as long as they VOTE for someone they believe in.

[robkelk]

So, are the Dems picking their leader Canadian-style this time around?

The link is to an analysis piece, not to breaking news.

The rules governing Democratic primaries and caucuses differ from state to state, but they generally give all registered Democrats (and, in some cases, Independents and even Republicans) a chance to vote.

But the process determines the allegiance of the 3,979 delegates who get to go to the Democratic National Convention. Normally, the eventual nominee has already secured a majority of delegates by that point, making the vote a formality.

That might not happen this time. If it doesn't, the decision on who becomes the next Democratic nominee will be made by delegates on the convention floor — much like the delegated conventions that, until recently, were common in Canada.

On this side of the border, these conventions have generated some unexpected outcomes. Stéphane Dion was the compromise candidate who won the 2006 Liberal leadership race, despite finishing in third place on the first ballot behind frontrunners Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Joe Clark (in 1976) and Brian Mulroney (in 1983) both became the Progressive Conservative leaders without leading on the first ballot.

So...

I'll echo what Labster has been saying lately: Vote for the person you want to become President.

And I'll add: Let the delegates sweat out the details. If you're backing an underdog, you might end up pleasantly surprised... but only if that underdog has some support now to take into the convention.


Two weeks to Super Tuesday. (Since it's "Super", does it get a cape? )

[hazard]

Oh, it is relevant who.  Ousting the "republicans" from power, isn't, really.  I'll point to places like Russia and China as to the sort of mess that can be made when a single political entity has control of everything.  Also, let us not paint republicans as a whole with the tar of the sitting president.  My personal opinion is that ...  Oh wait.  we are talking politics here.  Okay, my opinon is that the country got what it deserved when they elected the present president.  This from someone who has considered himself a republican for all of his voting life.  who  Its time for our nation to wake up and *LOOK* at our candidates, and VOTE for the one they think will best represent them at all levels of government.  Doesn't matter if it is Bernie, or bloomberg, or whoever.  Just as long as they VOTE for someone they believe in.

If the current Republican party actually opposed the current president on issues they care about or on the basis of decency, I would not tar them. But it's pretty clear that the current Republican party is not a party working for anybody other than Trump and is not by any measure acting in a way that is to the betterment of the nation and the people of the United States of America. Every time they have a chance to confront issues where the interest of the people is counter to the president's demands, they act in favour of the president, even when that would offer major damage to the USA. It's for that reason that the current Republican party needs to be ousted from power and replaced with people who would act in the interests of the people.

[Matrix Dragon]

Elizabeth Warren just killed a man and it was glorious.

[hazard]

Well, don't just leave it at that.

[Matrix Dragon]

This is how she opened the debate.

“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians. And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump.”

This was followed by a verbal castration of Bloomberg, with Mister Stop And Frisk less than two feet away, utterly failing to hide the realization that he was going up against someone that A) Actually has charisma, and B) Has spent her entire career trying to put a stop to shit-nuggets like him. And it was glorious.

[hazard]

Did anybody else help her out in this? Because there's a few candidates who have the history to be credible with the same or similar truthful accusations.

[Matrix Dragon]

Did anybody else help her out in this? Because there's a few candidates who have the history to be credible with the same or similar truthful accusations.

Yeah, he took it from all corners. Unsurprisingly, Bloomberg did not do well at all in an arena where he can't just throw a fuckload of advertising money at a problem.

[Labster]

Elizabeth Warren just killed a man and it was glorious.

Well, don't just leave it at that.

Enough said, right?

Bloomberg represents a unique threat to the others.  Most candidates drop out when they run out of money, Bloomberg can keep spending as long as he wants to.  He's also at a disadvantage -- everyone else has been doing this for a year, and as a new entrant he didn't even know how to get himself more time in the debate.  So everyone decided that now is the time to strike.

You didn't even mention the best part, where Warren tried to get Bloomberg to release people from non-disclosure agreements in relation to sexual offenses, and Biden pointed out that he could do it right now, on national television.  Both of Bloomberg's responses, fumbling around "honoring agreements made willingly" got boos from the crowd.

He's really vulnerable on that, and will continue to be until he grants the release.  I think all of the people willing to vote for a New York billionaire who won't release his taxes and has a pile of NDAs with women for sexual harassment have already made their choice.  But I also think that it means he's not in the race all the way.  He still sees more risk in disclosure, and possibly getting more lawsuits.  But as a candidate, the risk is in not airing your dirty laundry immediately, and having it come out as a steady drip of opposition research.  Any good campaign consultant would have seen that line of questioning coming, yet Bloomberg was so obviously unprepared for the question.

Anyway this debate was fairly good for drama and people attacked each other a lot.  Finally, after the love-fests of the past are gone.  They all like each other for real, but they all want to win.  It's just politics, after all. They also spent thirty minutes critiquing each other's Obamacare fanfic, all of which will never become law because Republicans will kill it in the Senate.

[Rajvik]

I've been listening to the sound clips off and on all day and laughing my ass off on the insults going both ways, considering we finally saw the angry marxist-communist come out (Bernie Sanders) and show his true face when Bloomberg called him out for "Being the best known Socialist, who just happens to be a multi-millionaire and own three houses" Now i don't have a problem with Bernie being rich, what i have a problem with is that the man seems to think that every other millionaire/billionaire is curse on existence, but that he is entitled to his money.

Lie-awatha nailed Bloomberg for his NDA's and his poor treatment of minorities and women, and Bloomberg admitted his carnal knowledge of his neighbor's Bichon with his inability to either own it or pivot away from it.

Quite frankly if this is the establishment democrats "Plan B" because Biden looks like he's toast, then the establishment is screwed

[robkelk]

Most of the pundits appear to have missed one important part of the debate - maybe because it didn't have any sound bites.

What if nobody has a majority of delegates at the convention?

Bernie likes first past the post - whoever had the most delegates should get the nod.

Everybody else (with the possible exception of Warren, who gave an unclear answer) thinks that the DNC should follow the existing rules.

Analysis

[Rajvik]

If there is no clear winner in the first vote, then there will be a "Brokered Convention" in which the party will end up picking someone other than Sanders and piss off all the Bernie Bros, causing the majority of them to stay home

[robkelk]

Can anyone catch up to Bernie Sanders now?

Analysis piece, written before he took Nevada.

Whatever the results are, what happens in Nevada probably won't stay in Nevada.

[Rajvik]

So, MSNBC's Chris Mathews called Bernie out for being a communist and said something to the effect that "Sanders winning Nevada was like the Nazi's overrunning the Maginot line" and because of that various groups of democrats are calling for his ouster from his show.

On top of that, Friday there was a leak from the House Intelligence committee to the New York Times saying that the Russians are supposedly helping Sanders as well as Trump.

Now Trump has accused Adam Schiff of being the leak, and has called the accusation another attempt at the debunked Russian collusion narrative, Clinton has long since accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent, (an accusation no one seems to really takes seriously) and Bernie seems to be running away with the democrat delegates for the nomination. where will things go

[robkelk]

So, MSNBC's Chris Mathews called Bernie out for being a communist

Bernie is not a communist. Bernie is a socialist.

You keep making that mistake no matter how many times you're corrected. Learn the difference.

If you're going to lambaste somebody, lambaste him over something that he actually is - don't lambaste somebody because you think he's something that he isn't. That would go a long way to you being taken seriously in these debates.

and said something to the effect that "Sanders winning Nevada was like the Nazi's overrunning the Maginot line" and because of that various groups of democrats are calling for his ouster from his show.

And those calls are valid. Mathews lambasted Saunders because he claimed Saunders was something that he isn't.

the debunked Russian collusion narrative

What, were there two Russian collusion narratives? The only one that I'm familiar with hasn't been debunked. Trump's claimed there's nothing to it, but that isn't the same as showing a chain of reasoning, let alone showing evidence.