2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[Dusty Bake Activate]

lmao at the Rising. It funny to me that Bernie supporters turned on them for this, but was fine when they were unfairly criticizing Warren.

Saagr Enjeti said he would vote for Tucker Carlson for president.

He says he’s economically left wing and socially right wing.

He’s in good favor with a lot of the progressive online audience because he’s a lot more vocal about his criticisms of the neoliberal establishment than he is his social views. Progressives cosign his neoliberal critiques, but if he opens up more with his views on social issues they’ll turn on him real quick lol.

Anyone who would vote for Tucker Carlson for president can eat a hepatitis dikk in my book but I still like listening to him.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Saagr Enjeti said he would vote for Tucker Carlson for president.

He says he’s economically left wing and socially right wing.

He’s in good favor with a lot of the progressive online audience because he’s a lot more vocal about his criticisms of the neoliberal establishment than he is his social views. Progressives cosign his neoliberal critiques, but if he opens up more with his views on social issues they’ll turn on him real quick lol.

Anyone who would vote for Tucker Carlson for president can eat a hepatitis dikk in my book but I still like listening to him.

Economically left wing and socially right wing is an interesting combo. I dont see that very often. I might have to listen to him out of curiousity

 

[afterlife2009]

I don't know why people are being dishonest about this, it was obvious the "highly-educated, affluent" descriptor was being used as a stand in for "elite" and we all know what elite connotes these days when people talk about certain segments of the Democratic party. Warren sees this as well. It's laughable to act like she being the sensitive one here.

lmao what? Her campaign already conceded this point in November during her M4A debacle lol.

On the ground in the early states, Warren heard skeptical questions about Medicare-for-all in her public town hall meetings and during private meetings that her staff frequently arranges with key community leaders before she goes onstage.

The exchanges were a reminder that many in Warren’s base of largely educated affluent voters might not be ready to give up their private health plans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f4d30e-0bb0-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html

 

[JoogJoint]

Having John Kerry go to bat for you on the campaign trail isn't a good look for Biden considering Kerry will always be known as a quitter.

 

[88m3]

that's all fine and dandy @FAH1223 but there was less to lose when it was Hillary vs Obama

 

[the next guy]

everyone in here is fighting about wether or not Warren is elitist, meanwhile, Cornpop's destroyer is going to be the nominee.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Economically left wing and socially right wing is an interesting combo. I dont see that very often. I might have to listen to him out of curiousity

Tons of religious people fall in this camp, the black church going south is that

 

[FAH1223]

everyone in here is fighting about wether or not Warren is elitist, meanwhile, Cornpop's destroyer is going to be the nominee.

Yang internal polls?

And I thought Marianne dropped out

 

[blotter]

that's all fine and dandy @FAH1223 but there was less to lose when it was Hillary vs Obama

This is revisionist. Obama hammered the idea that McCain was a continuation of Bush because people were so fed up with Republicans. Trump's approval hasn't come close to the lows Bush2 saw

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Tons of religious people fall in this camp, the black church going south is that

Good point, church goers slipped my mind there. The seahawks loss has me frazzled

Nevertheless, i find "socially liberal fiscally conservative" combo to be more common regardless of how much sense it makes

 

[mastermind]

that's all fine and dandy @FAH1223 but there was less to lose when it was Hillary vs Obama

Americans have no memory

We were in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economy was fukking collapsing.

Dubya was considered one of the worst presidents by 2006.

 

[storyteller]

I agree that Warren is being a bit sensitive here, but I think there's a difference between drawing contrasts on policy and dissing a candidate's support base. Warren never made a statement like this when Bernie was calling himself a socialist or saying be believed her M4A plan would hurt jobs. I think writing off her supporters struck a nerve.

If the inverse happened and the Warren campaign was releasing statements saying Bernie can't win because his support base aren't reliable Democratic voters and questioning their loyalty, I think Bernie would be well within his rights to punch back like Warren did.

Nah, if we're being real this is just the Warren campaign seizing on what they see as an opportunity. When Politico described Warren voters as affluent and educated and pointed out that she has to work to expand her base, it was no big deal.



The "attack" in question literally called her the second choice. Spoke to the reality of her polling demography and questioned if those demographics could translate to enough momentum to win an election. Right now, she's behind Biden and Sanders in the primary and neck and neck with Trump in head to head polling. It's not an unfair question to ask. It's not dismissive. It's a valid question about polling reality.

You can counter that with electability arguments, Warren has a gang of ways to confront the question. But treating it as "trashing" and pushing the "Bernie's divisive" narrative is a fundraising strategy that doesn't actually answer the question. That's fine, maybe it'll work and maybe it won't. But it's really just flipping a narrative that Warren supporters have never had a problem with before. Some wear it like a badge of honor, I mean being educated is something earned...why be upset having that pointed out?

 

[King Kreole]

Nah, if we're being real this is just the Warren campaign seizing on what they see as an opportunity. When Politico described Warren voters as affluent and educated and pointed out that she has to work to expand her base, it was no big deal.



The "attack" in question literally called her the second choice. Spoke to the reality of her polling demography and questioned if those demographics could translate to enough momentum to win an election. Right now, she's behind Biden and Sanders in the primary and neck and neck with Trump in head to head polling. It's not an unfair question to ask. It's not dismissive. It's a valid question about polling reality.

You can counter that with electability arguments, Warren has a gang of ways to confront the question. But treating it as "trashing" and pushing the "Bernie's divisive" narrative is a fundraising strategy that doesn't actually answer the question. That's fine, maybe it'll work and maybe it won't. But it's really just flipping a narrative that Warren supporters have never had a problem with before. Some wear it like a badge of honor, I mean being educated is something earned...why be upset having that pointed out?

I'm not offended by that characterization at all, and I think it was basically a love tap of an attack. I'm also glad Warren is capitalizing off of her opponents' mistakes. It shows a killer instinct that I wasn't sure this campaign had in it. Fair or not, divisiveness is a trait Bernie has been tagged with, and Warren isn't leaving meat on the bone. She's playing to win the game, word to Herm Edwards. It's a campaign! The lovey-dovey stuff worked well early on when there was time and space, but the first votes are in less than a month and now it's game time. As I said before, if Warren released campaign material characterizing Bernie's movement as untrustworthy Democratic allies in the fight against Republicans, I think Bernie would be right to jump on that as well and do the whole fake-indignation routine.

I think it stings to see someone diss the movement you've been building, especially when you've been traveling the country and talking to people in need who put their faith in you and genuinely care about making their lives better, but I think the Warren people actually offended by this are being just as dumb as the Bernie people actually offended that she criticized Bernie. I respect both sides who are pretending to be offended to gain political ground though. If I was to really get my conspiracy theory hat on, I would say that Warren anticipated the blowback from Bernie's camp and planned on using it to consolidate the anti-Bernie to her side over Pete/Biden.

 

[storyteller]

I'm not offended by that characterization at all, and I think it was basically a love tap of an attack. I'm also glad Warren is capitalizing off of her opponents' mistakes. It shows a killer instinct that I wasn't sure this campaign had in it. Fair or not, divisiveness is a trait Bernie has been tagged with, and Warren isn't leaving meat on the bone. She's playing to win the game, word to Herm Edwards. It's a campaign! The lovey-dovey stuff worked well early on when there was time and space, but the first votes are in less than a month and now it's game time. As I said before, if Warren released campaign material characterizing Bernie's movement as untrustworthy Democratic allies in the fight against Republicans, I think Bernie would be right to jump on that as well and do the whole fake-indignation routine.

I think it stings to see someone diss the movement you've been building, especially when you've been traveling the country and talking to people in need who put their faith in you and genuinely care about making their lives better, but I think the Warren people actually offended by this are being just as dumb as the Bernie people actually offended that she criticized Bernie. I respect both sides who are pretending to be offended to gain political ground though. If I was to really get my conspiracy theory hat on, I would say that Warren anticipated the blowback from Bernie's camp and planned on using it to consolidate the anti-Bernie to her side over Pete/Biden.

This is actually exactly what I was thinking. Her approach here isn't gonna gain any progressives but could peel off voters from Pete specifically. Speculation incoming: I think the M4A stuff and her dropoff after actually leaked out to Pete. That's why if you check second choice polling it's gone from almost 50/50 Bernie and Biden to a larger chunk having Bernie as their second choice. Progressive minded people stuck with her moreso than anyone gave credit to at the time.

This sort of move appeals to a specific sort of primary voter and you can even see it in this thread. People who will never give Bernie a fair shot and are chomping at the bit for any reason to attack him LOVE this. Pete's a bum at campaigning, debates are when Biden looks his weakest and garnering this attention could give Warren a chance to snag those voters.

To me though...this doesn't change my rankings. Bernie first, Warren second, begrudgingly Biden third, Pete last (only listing people I think have some semblance of a chance to win tbh). I'm concerned with platform more than anything here and these political games are all strategy. I think Warren might make a gain here but my guess is that it won't be enough to get past Biden or Bernie if I'm being honest. That can shift if Warren takes Iowa though. Iowa with it's oversized impact is gonna be big and it's still up for grabs.

 

[King Kreole]

This is actually exactly what I was thinking. Her approach here isn't gonna gain any progressives but could peel off voters from Pete specifically. Speculation incoming: I think the M4A stuff and her dropoff after actually leaked out to Pete. That's why if you check second choice polling it's gone from almost 50/50 Bernie and Biden to a larger chunk having Bernie as their second choice. Progressive minded people stuck with her moreso than anyone gave credit to at the time.

This sort of move appeals to a specific sort of primary voter and you can even see it in this thread. People who will never give Bernie a fair shot and are chomping at the bit for any reason to attack him LOVE this. Pete's a bum at campaigning, debates are when Biden looks his weakest and garnering this attention could give Warren a chance to snag those voters.

To me though...this doesn't change my rankings. Bernie first, Warren second, begrudgingly Biden third, Pete last (only listing people I think have some semblance of a chance to win tbh). I'm concerned with platform more than anything here and these political games are all strategy. I think Warren might make a gain here but my guess is that it won't be enough to get past Biden or Bernie if I'm being honest. That can shift if Warren takes Iowa though. Iowa with it's oversized impact is gonna be big and it's still up for grabs.

Yeah, I think Warren's M4A debacle convinced her that there's nothing she could ever do to peel off the Bernie-left, so she has to compete for the non-Bernie voters. And you're right on with this move activating the anti-Bernie faction. All the biggest anti-Bernie boosters on twitter were turned up .

My rankings haven't changed either. Warren first, Bernie second, Biden third and Pete last. Like you, I'm focused on platform and policies, so this political gamesmanship is mostly amusing to me. I'm uncertain of whether this move will pay off for her, but I agree, if it does and she takes Iowa, she'll have as good a chance as anybody to take the nomination.