You must be disappointed that Trumpo the clown didn't try to hijack it like he tried to do the last time, doing all sorts of silly things, like bending over and making an ass out of himself - a famous trick he does all the time. God knows that he always need to be the center of attention on some stage, as if it was like some addiction, or chronological disorder.

From 20 something to 8, the list of those who made the cutoff for the next Democrat debate on Sept 12:

• Former Vice President Joe Biden
• Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
• Sen. Kamala Harris of California
• Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
• South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg
• Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas

Not very surprising, but a lot more manageable.

Gabbard has reached the threshold donor* necessary as well as of today I believe.

Edit: NVM. Still needs to meet the the polling threshold.

Klobuchar was unexpected.

The latest polls show that Biden is widening his lead in the polls, with senator Warren in 2nd place, and Sanders in 3rd.

Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge (quoted below for those who don't have a Times membership.)

"A Monmouth University poll from this month showed Mr. Biden leading with the support of 28 percent of likely Iowa caucus goers — virtually unchanged from the same poll’s results from April.

But Patrick Murray, the director of Monmouth’s Polling Institute, who recently spent time in Iowa, said those numbers did not give the full picture of Mr. Biden’s support in the state.

“I did not meet one Biden voter who was in any way, shape or form excited about voting for Biden,” Mr. Murray said. “They feel that they have to vote for Joe Biden as the centrist candidate, to keep somebody from the left who they feel is unelectable from getting the nomination.”

And JoAnn Hardy, the Democratic chairwoman of Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, where most of the Democratic candidates recently attended the gathering known as the Wing Ding dinner, attributed Mr. Biden’s lead in part to simply being well-known.

“He’s doing O.K., but I think a lot of his initial strength was name recognition,” she said. “As the voters get to meet the other candidates, he may be surpassed soon. I would not be surprised.”

Asked who was poised to do that, she replied: “Elizabeth Warren has the most incredible organization in this state. I could see it being Warren.”

Yet for all the talk about polls at Biden events, in his own ad and from his own team, Mr. Biden himself, who often insists that he’s more focused on the “marathon” of the campaign, struggled to discuss the issue this week, offering seemingly contradictory statements about how much attention should be paid to polling.

“I notice you didn’t ask me why I’m ahead in all the polls still,” he said in an exchange with a reporter on Tuesday. “I notice you didn’t ask me about how I feel about the new CNN poll. I notice you don’t ask me those things.”

Asked by another reporter if polls should be ignored, Mr. Biden replied, “You already do, so it’s O.K.”

But, he added, “These polls will go up and they will go down. I’ve got to come out here and I’ve got to earn the support of these people.”

He may not be as exciting as those who pander to identity politics, or promote unrealistic and divisive policies, but he is stable, and not really controversial in his views - compared to Trump, and other candidates. But, he would appeal to moderates, and even conservatives, while being a better alternative to someone like Trump to the left. And there are a lot of reasons why people would vote for him, or have no alternative, unless they want another 4 years of far right policies, and a conservative super majority in the Supreme court.

I can see that. Even though he will likely be the DNC Frontrunner though, I just don't see why we need another centrist Democrat. The last election tells me people are not very happy with the status-quo, most especially with candidates who just try to pander to the common denominator. Trump said he'd 'bring back jobs,' 'build the wall,' 'cut taxes on the middle class,' and a few other things I can't recall right now that haven't been done either to uncontrollable variables outside his control Since taking office, manufacturing jobs have been or are being outsourced or given to automatons, the rate of illegal Mexican immigrants illegally crossing over our southern border being at its lowest point in the last decade as well as wages finally starting to increase for the lower-class, etc.)

I know there are a lot of people, particularly, progressives, who are not happy that Biden is in the lead, but this is a right leaning country, with a lot of apprehension towards progressive ideas. In some sense, these progressive ideas are lot more scary, and radical, to the majority of people in this country. It's slowly changing, with more people warming up to certain progressive, or socialist, ideas, because the ideas of conservatives, or GOP, are not helping them. But the country is not there yet. There is still a lot of stigma over progressive ideas, which conservative will pounce on, and vilify the shit out of, and campaign off of. People, at their core, like stability, and things that are familiar, even if it hurts them. And progressives, if they really want to attract more people, will need to stop acting crazy, and be more pragmatic in their ideas. * I'll explain this next.

You are preaching to the choir on this, as anyone around here well tell you about me. But it doesn't change the fact that Trump excited his base with a lot of over the top promises - which anyone with a half a brain knew he couldn't deliver on a fraction of. He also excited his base with identity politics, or cultural nationalism (or white nationalism), which has led to a lot of hate, racism, and violence, and cemented at least 25% of the country to him, no matter what he does.

Now, we got a lot of progressive candidate who are trying to use a similar playbook to Trump's, but on the opposing ends. From the Green New Deal, to border-less borders, to medicare for all, to free college, to slave reparations.... It's all unrealistic, dangerous, and would cost an astronomical amount of money, with the argument "let's tax the the wealthy to death!!!". No one in their right mind would believe that any of this stuff would is practical, or would pass any chamber of congress, of either party, much less the the conservative controlled Supreme court. It's disingenuous to campaign on these ideas, knowing they are pure fantasy. It's best to come out with reasonable ideas, that are practical to these times.

It's a shame that there are so many Cultural Nationalists here. What do you think caused that to become so prevalent?

What about the candidates saying we should cut back on our Military Spending, eg Gabbard's ideas about stopping regime change wars?

I don't recall any Dem saying they want 'Borderless Borders.' That idea in and of itself is nonsensical, but it isn't what Dems mean when they say something similar. Perhaps they should be more clear with their proposals and ideas, but then again, we have abhorrent levels of standardized education when it comes to people being properly informed, so I'm not surprised people are mischaracterizing the Dems words and knocking down Strawmen...

True, but I think a change in optics would do some good for both Houses and the American populace in general. Something's got to give at some point.

I don't know how I, grammar (or in this case, semantics) nazi that I am, overlooked this, but this is just plain wrong on a definitional level.

That's like asking when did the Republican party become so conservative, and moved away from being the party of Lincoln. It's all rather complicated. There are many threads in all of this.

But one person comes to mind, who I think had a lot to with today's cultural nationalism, and that would be Steve Bannon, former Breibart editor, former Trump campaign advisor, and former White House aid to Trump. Like a lot of conservatives in the 90's, who got into the right-wing media business, he hated the left, and believed that the general media was to left leaning and biased against the right, and it's traditional cultural views. And he was a provocateur, always pushing partisan and racial stories that made minorities look bad and the dominate culture a victim of reverse discrimination.

During the Obama years, Bannon helped to promote the Alt-right movement ( a mixture of white nationalists, and angry white people), which rose up in response to the BLM movement. He also formed a friendship with Trump, later becoming a part of Trump's presidential campaign, and who was very influential in advising him on issues. Two things Bannon pursued were economic nationalism, while also trying to troll the left with race baiting, hoping to get a reaction from them to promote right leaning identity politics with allegations of reverse racism from the left.

Trump, in his hedonistic pursuit of attention, praise, and money, fostered these populist ideas into the country with his "America First, and Make America Great Again" policies, which went after immigrants of different races, and religions, propelled by Brannon's lackey, Stephen Miller, while destroying traditional alliances, and rebuking Trade partners, with his Trade wars and Tariffs. Trump,a nd Bannon, would justify this as a economic good, and security, of the country, while attacking critics with a hypocritical claim that they were using identity politics against them, are unpatriotic, and enemies of the country.

This is the true face of cultural nationalism in this country, which has increasingly led to more hate crimes, and domestic terrorism, towards minority groups it's also expanding across the world. I think there is a lot more to all of this, but it would make for a much larger and confusing response your question over it.

As much as we spend on Defense spending (and as much as the Pentagon wastes it), reducing it is not going to cover the entire cost of many of these things - nor raising taxes on the wealthy. The best it can do is cover a fraction of some of these things. What is for certain, the GOP will combat these policies, in any form, using scare tactics, and promoting a popular myth that they are for fiscal responsibility and small government, even though they ignore these standards under a Republican presidents (especially under Trump).

I mean, we saw how they reacted with Obamacare, and the whole tea party movement, that allowed the GOP to take over both Chambers of Congress.

And it's not just covering the cost, it's also the other factors, like how expensive things are in this country. It's better to try and tackle the cost of things, before throwing unlimited money at it - that one of the reasons why health spending, or defense spending, is so high.

I think it all started with AOC talking about "open borders", and then my conversation with a progressive over it, that made "borderless borders" stick in my mind, with all the figuratively talk and the vagueness of this idea. It's what allowed the right to jump on it to paint all Democrats being for it. Even without the right-wing spin on it, it still sounded impractical to me. I don't mind immigration, just not the levels we saw in Europe. That just creates chaos, and talking points for the right.

Optics is what has led to a lot of division and polarization in the media and in politics, especially with the advent of the internet and social media sites - with people like Trump capitalizing on it to stand out. Everyone is fighting for the best optics, and using it against the opposition and other groups they don't like, just like one huge flame war. Things most people could once agree on are now contested, and hated, because of optics.

Hell, the far right hate group, the Proud Boys, were using optics in their recent rally at Portland Oregon, to intimidate and punish a progressive stronghold, while also trying to play the victim card over being persecuted for their views. It a whole new world these days where outright hate can be justified as reverse racism.

Democrats have to be extra careful in a country that tilts to the right.

Doesn't look like we're following the primary race much in here, but Gillibrand dropped out of the race. Figured it might be important-ish.

I kept forgetting about this article that showed where the Democrat candidates stood on socialist ideas.

Whether or not I agree with the chart's ranking (it's not the worst, though I could nitpick it to death), that methodology makes absolutely no sense. By "Socialist" they basically claim "Whatever Bernie would do", which presupposes their conclusion. If you're going to have a Methodology, do try to have better parameters.

If they wanted to make a chart about how close the candidates are to Bernie they should just call it that rather than play around with words, lol.

Oh yeah, debates tomorrow, so there's that. Here's hoping they don't put it under another paywall to rewatch it whenever you can get to it, since I won't be able to catch them live.

Shit, totally forgot about those. But I'm taking vacation from work this week so I don't have to worry about them work-wise.

Also doesn't help that I spent the overnight hours in the ER and am still a little loopy...

Back on topic, rumor has it Bill de Blasio is dropping out in October. Just as well, seeing as he only worked seven months in August.

Also: WTF is Beto still doing in the race? I realize he's basically campaigning for the VP slot at this point, but c'mon, this is embarrassing. I know we've all heard of Bernie Bros, but have you ever met Beto Bros (or fangirls) on social media? They're 900 times worse.

Robert is our version of Trudeau and Macron (good looks, young, etc). He would have a very good chance against Trump if nominated. If anything, almost all females would vote for him after Trump's "grab them by the..." comments.

Trudeau is a no-talent man-child who only got to the Prime Minister's position by riding his father's coattails, so maybe that comparison IS apt. Macron's been a dead man walking since the yellow vest protests.

The fact that Beto admitted he doesn't really help his wife with the kids would alienate a lot of women regardless of political affiliation. Then there's...this. Don't eat while you're reading this, trust me.

Everyone was acting like he was Lone Star Jesus in 2018 when he couldn't even beat one of the most-despised men in the Senate. Give me a fucking break.

Texas is a red state, and he almost won.

Conservatives like the idea of women taking care of the children. That joke could hurt him with Democrats, but he would still get almost all of their votes.

He would do worse in the debates than Booker, but much better than Biden. And he is more likeable than Booker, Sanders, Warren, and Harris.

As usual, Biden was often on the defense as the other candidates targeted him in hopes of chewing away his lead in the polls for their own gain, while Biden went after Warren and Sanders at the start - who are not far behind him in the polls. O'Rourke committed suicide by giving a sound bite saying he is gun grabber. Yang.... may have run afoul of election law by claiming he would give out a $1,000 dollars to 10 people....

Lots of yelling and shouting.... and hating on Trump.

Any thoughts on Castro's attack on Biden?

Which part?

The one where he said that Biden was not fulfilling Obama's legacy by not covering all Americans..... Or the confusing part about Castro attacking Biden's memory by accusing him of not remembering something he just said a few minutes earlier.... I had to look at the video of the exchange a couple of times, and I still don't quite understand why Castro brought this claim up, unless it was out of some misunderstanding, or out of over eagerness to attack Biden's memory at some point in the debate... It was rather bizarre, and I think it hurt Castro more than Biden.

I don't get the hate on Castro for pointing out the elephant in the room. Biden is in terrible shape. Someone tried to defend that "Corn Pop" word salad of his today by pointing out that the clip is two years old. That just means his cognitive decline dates back to at least 2017.

As for the earlier discussion:

Sen. Chris Coons, no fan of guns himself, made an interesting argument I hadn't considered: Not only does Beto running his mouth about taking people's guns away astronomically increase the chances of Trump getting reelected, but it could undo all the progress made towards gun regulation over the past two decades. Upon reading his comments further, it makes sense: the idea is to work towards compromises, but when Beto actually goes full Leroy Jenkins and actually says the Democratic Party wants to take your guns away, suddenly the whole "ZOMG they're gonna take your guns" argument you hear in some of the gun nut circles doesn't sound so crazy anymore. Also, that sound bite will be played in NRA and other gun rights ads for the next 40 years.

At 9/16/19 10:10 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

Because it came off as a low blow, when Biden didn't do anything wrong. And there was an interesting article that argued that people should measure Biden by his arguments, instead of his gaffes. But, again, people who support Trump in some way shouldn't be using this argument against Biden, since Trump loses on gaffes, and content of his argument, coming and going.

Of course, if you are so intent on having Elizabeth Warren win the primaries.... Polls show that should could win against Trump.

After years of using this very argument, and offering no practical solution to mass shootings that didn't rely on some myth that led to selling more guns, I think the general public has grown tired of the gun activist argument. It's not having the effect it use to have, not after all these mass shootings that have nothing to do with Muslim extremists.

As I said before, I think she and Harris have the best shot. Harris is currently not doing all that well, and she's Hillary lite. Hell, she's even fake like her.

Harris will make me not vote - mostly because of her identity politics. But luckily, she's not doing very well. And Warren is pretty much tied with Sanders in the polls, for 2nd and 3rd place. I don't particularly care for either platform they are on, including the identity politics they both flirt with, but I can vote for either - even if I think that some of their socialist policies are disingenuous and unrealistic, and will be used by the right to do another 2010

But, who would you voter for? Trump, or Warren?

If Biden doesn't win the nomination then there is nobody to vote for. Warren or Sanders would completely destroy the economy.

No, because they have to pass their policies, which have to go through Congress first. And the chances of anything they submit passing a Republican, much less a Democrat, controlled chamber is next to zero. It's why I call them disingenuous, knowing that, along with the cost. Even, by some fluke, something did pass it would be swatted down by the Conservative dominated Supreme court, who are basically Republicans. To sum of their time as president, they would be lame ducks. Basically, all you are promoting with this is a right leaning talking point, and fear mongering.

And I seem to remember you arguing there was no difference between either Democrats or Republicans.

People like Jimmy Dore also said Trump would be a lame duck. Is Trump a lame duck?

I said 'nobody', not 'Trump'.

Depends on who you ask.

Trump, along with the Republican controlled Congress, passed tax reform that cut taxes that benefited corporations and the rich. They also increased government spending. Both have led to trillion dollar deficit spending. But, Trump couldn't repeal Obamacare, or even replace it with something even worse.

Trump also couldn't get border wall funding, but because of the Conservative justice, he was allowed to take that money from other government departments to build a few hundred miles of it. The conservative justice have also allowed him to be prejudice against other religions, and races, over his immigration policies.

None of his trade deals, like the one with Mexico and Canada, have passed congress. His trade war with China has been a failure so far, and even if he did get a trade deal it would most likely not pass Congress.

Trump, like Obama did, is using executive powers to get around congress, but is just abusing the heck out of for pettiness and stupidity.

And as I said before, multiple times to you, Democrats, over all, favor more centrist policies over far left leaning policies, while Republicans favor right leaning policies.