2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone is starting to bash the candidates they don't want to win. It was no different in the 2016 primaries. Look at how many Republicans trashed Trump then and now kiss his ass.

Clinton and Obama fought, then Clinton went to work with him.

Here's from the Clinton interview about the new documentary:
In the doc, you're brutally honest on Sanders: "He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it." That assessment still hold?

Yes, it does.
Click to expand...
 
So killaryous that the disgusting hag still hasn't understood how despised she herself is and can't keep her mouth shut. Bernie will love the free propaganda.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Everyone is starting to bash the candidates they don't want to win. It was no different in the 2016 primaries. Look at how many Republicans trashed Trump then and now kiss his ass.

Clinton and Obama fought, then Clinton went to work with him.

Here's from the Clinton interview about the new documentary:
Click to expand...

They are different beasts though. For the right, power exists for its own sake. it doesn't matter how they get it or who specifically wields it in their name, just that they have it.

the left is more likely to get discouraged and not come out if they don't get their specific candidate or policy.
 
Donal said:
They are different beasts though. For the right, power exists for its own sake. it doesn't matter how they get it or who specifically wields it in their name, just that they have it.

the left is more likely to get discouraged and not come out if they don't get their specific candidate or policy.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's a good tactic. This is the second time Sanders has had to disown an action by his own staff.

I'm merely saying that Clinton not supporting Sanders is par for the course.
 
Sometimes I feel like Bernie is too good a person for some of his ardent supporters.

Clinton needs to get over it, imo. Just give him a vote in November at least, no public endorsement necessary like he did for you.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm not saying it's a good tactic. This is the second time Sanders has had to disown an action by his own staff.

I'm merely saying that Clinton not supporting Sanders is par for the course.
Click to expand...

Democratic leadership needs to get it through their $%^&ing skulls that this won't fly anymore.

They need to figure out something quick that is above having people cut each other on their way to the nomination.
 
Donal said:
Democratic leadership needs to get it through their $%^&ing skulls that this won't fly anymore.

They need to figure out something quick that is above having people cut each other on their way to the nomination.
Click to expand...

You ever wonder if maybe Democrats aren't any more intelligent or virtuous than anyone else?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Everyone is starting to bash the candidates they don't want to win. It was no different in the 2016 primaries. Look at how many Republicans trashed Trump then and now kiss his ass.

Clinton and Obama fought, then Clinton went to work with him.

Here's from the Clinton interview about the new documentary:
Click to expand...

To be honest...this is what I've heard for years, as an explanation for why he gets so few bills passed. It's usually blamed on his personality, but I have some strong doubts.

And about the Bernie Bros - given the number of people I know that actually favored him over Hillary until they were repeatedly attacked by slur-spewing fanatics, yeah, this is definitely true. They also heckled John Lewis, which frankly, makes me glad that Sanders lost. Sorry, you can't spend a year screeching "Bernie Marched with King!" at black folks, and then disrespect John Lewis.
 
Mumbles said:
To be honest...this is what I've heard for years, as an explanation for why he gets so few bills passed. It's usually blamed on his personality, but I have some strong doubts.

And about the Bernie Bros - given the number of people I know that actually favored him over Hillary until they were repeatedly attacked by slur-spewing fanatics, yeah, this is definitely true. They also heckled John Lewis, which frankly, makes me glad that Sanders lost. Sorry, you can't spend a year screeching "Bernie Marched with King!" at black folks, and then disrespect John Lewis.
Click to expand...

It's a trade-off: Sanders has been consistent for decades.
Sanders is so single-minded he is unbending and gets nowhere.


As for the Bernie Bros, I'm reluctant to believe anything from that era given the troll and bots out there amplifying false stories or stories about a few radicals made to look like popular opinions.
 
Last edited:
I just returned from a hell day in Manhattan and noted that Bloomberg petitioners were swarming Penn Station - must have been 50 - well scripted, very aggressive.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's a trade-off: Sanders has been consistent for decades.
Sanders is so single-minded he is unbending and gets nowhere.


As for the Bernie Bros, I'm reluctant to believe anything from that era given the troll and bots out there amplifying false stories or stories about a few radicals made to look like popular opinions.
Click to expand...

Problem with Bernie is he comes off as the eternal Sixities radical who can't move on.
As for the bros, I don't like personality cults, period. And it's hard to deny a lot of Sanders followers are in full personality cult mode.
 
dudalb said:
Problem with Bernie is he comes off as the eternal Sixities radical who can't move on.
As for the bros, I don't like personality cults, period. And it's hard to deny a lot of Sanders followers are in full personality cult mode.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm saying the information isn't reliable. That doesn't mean it is false or true.
 
theprestige said:
You ever wonder if maybe Democrats aren't any more intelligent or virtuous than anyone else?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, no. They're humans with biases, blind spots and all the other human frailties. However, there is one group, commonly known as the GOP, that has demonstrated way too much spinelessness, obsequious and misplaced fealty to Trump that they have, as a group, been found to have lost their moral compass.
 
Venom said:
https://www.axios.com/mike-bloomber...nee-8148b285-5108-4470-b8e4-577b3ca07a75.html

Fairly old news by now but it's still astonishing what this man Michael Bloomberg is doing and prepared to do to "get rid of Trump".
Click to expand...

Not sure how that really works.

There's a cap of $5k on lateral contributions to other candidate committees.

Contributing from an individual committee to a party committee is unlimited. Early and mid-season drop outs can to forward their money up. When they say they are putting their money behind another candidate, they probably mean to their leadership PAC. Those who fade late can sometimes hit debt issues. Nearly every district can use more office equipment and other assets somewhere in the party, but that's little stuff. They usually have to sell their digital database. Even though the payout will settle all debts and give the burnt out principals a parting bonus, the party almost absolutely gets a sweetheart deal out of it.

I don't know if there are any rulings or opinions on paying staff in one committee to perform work for a different committee. Perhaps an in-kind contribution, though it would still have that $5k cap anyways.

It depends on the specifics of what he means.

A very jaded take is that rather than forward his cash up to the party to decide what to do with it, he will decided who works on what "for the party" which in reality means he can dictate what his "price" is for being cooperative and generous.

ETA: Taking in a few variations of verbiage in other articles, it seems like he would reorganize as a nonconnected PAC. Just like most PACs with a big stack of poker chips, you have to totally-not-make certain promises to them in order to get them to totally-not-coordinate with you.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Not sure how that really works.

There's a cap of $5k on lateral contributions to other candidate committees.

Contributing from an individual committee to a party committee is unlimited. Early and mid-season drop outs can to forward their money up. When they say they are putting their money behind another candidate, they probably mean to their leadership PAC. Those who fade late can sometimes hit debt issues. Nearly every district can use more office equipment and other assets somewhere in the party, but that's little stuff. They usually have to sell their digital database. Even though the payout will settle all debts and give the burnt out principals a parting bonus, the party almost absolutely gets a sweetheart deal out of it.

I don't know if there are any rulings or opinions on paying staff in one committee to perform work for a different committee. Perhaps an in-kind contribution, though it would still have that $5k cap anyways.

It depends on the specifics of what he means.

A very jaded take is that rather than forward his cash up to the party to decide what to do with it, he will decided who works on what "for the party" which in reality means he can dictate what his "price" is for being cooperative and generous.

ETA: Taking in a few variations of verbiage in other articles, it seems like he would reorganize as a nonconnected PAC. Just like most PACs with a big stack of poker chips, you have to totally-not-make certain promises to them in order to get them to totally-not-coordinate with you.
Click to expand...
You mean how will Bloomberg support other candidates if Bloomberg is not the candidate?

PACs and SuperPACs are pretty unlimited.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
.....
ETA: Taking in a few variations of verbiage in other articles, it seems like he would reorganize as a nonconnected PAC. Just like most PACs with a big stack of poker chips, you have to totally-not-make certain promises to them in order to get them to totally-not-coordinate with you.
Click to expand...

PACs are a mechanism to collect and spend donations. He can spend his own money on anything, including ads supporting other candidates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom