Down Ballot Democrats Nervous About Sanders

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-27/pelosi-talks-up-party-unity-with-some-democrats-wary-of-sanders?srnd=premium ?‍?‍?‍?

Just a couple days ago you posted that you didn't want or like Sanders. You must be evolving. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Just a couple days ago you posted that you didn't want or like Sanders. You must be evolving. 

“Unity, unity, unity. Whoever our nominee is, we will support,” 

[Foxx]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

“Unity, unity, unity. Whoever our nominee is, we will support,” 

[Tiberius]

You can make an argument that Obama hurt down ballot Democrats. Lost seats all through out the country with the racists backlash. 

 

And the same with Trump, who lost the House and many, many seats in state houses across the country. 

 

You win the presidency, you probably lose other things 

[Deranged Rhino]

What's hilarious is he's now arguing against the premise of his own thread  

 

When you live your life taking talking point by talking point as fact, you're going to end up as lost as Tibs.

[Foxx]

tibs

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

What's hilarious is he's now arguing against the premise of his own thread  

 

When you live your life taking talking point by talking point as fact, you're going to end up as lost as Tibs.

I've found in my years on this planet that if you don't lie you don't have much to worry about. Someone can make this claim or that claim against me and as long as I'm not a liar I know instinctively what the truth is. 

[KD in CA]

On 2/24/2020 at 4:14 PM, LSHMEAB said:

Meh.Forget the middle. It doesn't exist.

Actually it does, and it’s huge.  
 

The #1 characteristic of the middle is that they don’t devote their lives to getting hysterical about meaningless, political bull####.  Instead they spend their time and energy on their own lives.  And they vote for the person who is most likeable and appears most competent.  Simple as that.
 

Now, you might overcome that with millions of new, dumb voters, but it’s not going to work if they all live in CA and NY.

Edited March 2, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

7 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Actually it does, and it’s huge.  
 

The #1 characteristic of the middle is that they don’t devote their lives to getting hysterical about meaningless, political bull####.  Instead they spend their time and energy on their own lives.  And they vote for the person who is most likeable and appears most competent.  Simple as that.
 

Now, you might overcome that with millions of new, dumb voters, but it’s not going to work if they all live in CA and NY.

The middle has dwindled in this country. For Democrats, it's far less important to "woo" this tiny number of folks than it is to actually motivate people to vote. Based on your description of the "rational middle, just living their lives," they sound quite a bit like the new "dumb voters" who are also just living their lives.

 

I would counter that this mythical "middle" is just as dumb as those who generally don't vote. You're an ideologue. I'm an ideologue. That's because we pay attention. To state anything to the contrary would be disingenuous.

 

Very partisan slant you just concocted, which is only noteworthy because you opined on the importance of the "middle."

 

Anyone dumb enough to not have formulated an opinion on whether they'd like to give Trump a second term shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Edited March 3, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Anyone dumb enough to not have formulated an opinion on whether they'd like to give Trump a second term shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

I don’t think Trump has done all that much, good or bad, to sway people.  Twitters aside, he’s been pretty conventional.

You’re missing a crucial factor that is part of any decision — what is the alternative?

 

Since it looks like the Democrats have abandoned the possibility of offering a superior candidate, they will have to hope that their media arm’s four years of non-stop campaigning will change some minds.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

10 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

I don’t think Trump has done all that much, good or bad, to sway people.  Twitters aside, he’s been pretty conventional.

You’re missing a crucial factor that is part of any decision — what is the alternative?

 

Since it looks like the Democrats have abandoned the possibility of offering a superior candidate, they will have to hope that their media arm’s four years of non-stop campaigning will change some minds.  

I think Trump has done and said MANY things that have polarized voters, and caused some to believe he is awesome and some to believe he is wholly unqualified. I do agree that the policies have been somewhat conventional in terms of the tax cuts/deregulation etc. Where he's diverged from conventional conservatism is the "trade wars" for lack of a better term. Oddly enough, I support the tariffs and tough tactics because I care about American workers. It's not our responsibility to worry about workers worldwide.

 

Not really interested in a political tit for tat at the moment and there's really no way to verify either of our opinions as it pertains to the "middle."

 

My personal BELIEF is that there are many, many people who will vote FOR Bernie Sanders.(Personal political views aside) I don't believe there is anyone who will vote FOR Joe Biden. I'm quite sure you'd vote for neither, which is fine.

 

There are certainly voters who may vote for Joe Biden, but wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders. What I'm positing is that the number of folks who will show up to vote FOR Sanders outweighs the number of folks who will abstain/vote for Trump should he be the nominee instead of a milquetoast candidate like Biden.

 

Just my opinion.

[KD in CA]

2 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

I think Trump has done and said MANY things that have polarized voters, and caused some to believe he is awesome and some to believe he is wholly unqualified. I do agree that the policies have been somewhat conventional in terms of the tax cuts/deregulation etc. Where he's diverged from conventional conservatism is the "trade wars" for lack of a better term. Oddly enough, I support the tariffs and tough tactics because I care about American workers. It's not our responsibility to worry about workers worldwide.

 

Not really interested in a political tit for tat at the moment and there's really no way to verify either of our opinions as it pertains to the "middle."

 

My personal BELIEF is that there are many, many people who will vote FOR Bernie Sanders.(Personal political views aside) I don't believe there is anyone who will vote FOR Joe Biden. I'm quite sure you'd vote for neither, which is fine.

 

There are certainly voters who may vote for Joe Biden, but wouldn't vote for Bernie Sanders. What I'm positing is that the number of folks who will show up to vote FOR Sanders outweighs the number of folks who will abstain/vote for Trump should he be the nominee instead of a milquetoast candidate like Biden.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Sure Trump said some things that will cause tender ears to clutch their pearls and shriek "I'm horrified", but after 3 years of deescalating foreign conflicts and steady-eddie economic growth, what exactly would make someone conclude he is 'wholly unqualified'?  I mean, where specifically are the negative outcomes that would be reasonably expected from a wholly unqualified executive branch?

 

Yeah, I guess it's possible there is enough of a groundswell of new Bernie voters drawn in by the 'free everything!!!' promises (hence my prior comment about dumb voters), but are they gonna show up in the places that matter?   Maybe so, guess we'll see.

Edited March 3, 2020 by KD in CA

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, KD in CA said:

 

Sure Trump said some things that will cause tender ears to clutch their pearls and shriek "I'm horrified", but after 3 years of deescalating foreign conflicts and steady-eddie economic growth, what exactly would make someone conclude he is 'wholly unqualified'?  I mean, where specifically are the negative outcomes that would be reasonably expected from a wholly unqualified executive branch?

 

Yeah, I guess it's possible there is enough of a groundswell of new Bernie voters drawn in by the 'free everything!!!' promises (hence my prior comment about dumb voters), but are they gonna show up in the places that matter?   Maybe so, guess we'll see.

He has a propensity to say and do irrational things (like using a sharpie on a map for God knows what reason). I find it amusing and inconsequential, while others find it troubling. But overall, everyone knew who Trump was prior to the LAST election. What happened? He won. The notion of a Biden nomination would change nothing. It would be a repeat of the "vote against Trump because he's a bad guy" failed Clinton campaign strategy. Sanders supporters, by and large, couldn't care less about Trump or his "unconventional" behavior.

 

My hunch is that Sanders would bring in a great number of "dumb" first time voters as well as a tiny number of "dumb" disaffected Trump voters who believed he'd significantly increase their personal fortune. We're talking about voters on the low end of the socioeconomic scale irrespective of race. This is especially true in rust best states like Michigan, Ohio, and PA, which still face mass exodus and poverty. They gave Trump a shot because he was a champion for the little guy. The unemployment rate has ticked down, but wages remain relatively stagnant.  The middle, as described by the media, are folks looking for a return to normalcy. There is not a single person who'd change their vote based on Trump's behavior. He's the same guy.

 

But again, this is political tit for tat; you responded to my post citing a robust "middle" and I still don't see it. 

 

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

[3rdnlng]

6 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

He has a propensity to say and do irrational things (like using a sharpie on a map for God knows what reason). I find it amusing and inconsequential, while others find it troubling. But overall, everyone knew who Trump was prior to the LAST election. What happened? He won. The notion of a Biden nomination would change nothing. It would be a repeat of the "vote against Trump because he's a bad guy" failed Clinton campaign strategy. Sanders supporters, by and large, couldn't care less about Trump or his "unconventional" behavior.

 

My hunch is that Sanders would bring in a great number of "dumb" first time voters as well as a tiny number of "dumb" disaffected Trump voters who believed he'd significantly increase their personal fortune. We're talking about voters on the low end of the socioeconomic scale irrespective of race. This is especially true in rust best states like Michigan, Ohio, and PA, which still face mass exodus and poverty. They gave Trump a shot because he was a champion for the little guy. The unemployment rate has ticked down, but wages remain relatively stagnant.  The middle, as described by the media, are folks looking for a return to normalcy. There is not a single person who'd change their vote based on Trump's behavior. He's the same guy.

 

But again, this is political tit for tat; you responded to my post citing a robust "middle" and I still don't see it. 

 

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

People on the lower end of the wage scale have seen their wages grow the most. Fracking is alive and well in MI, OH and PA and has not only improved the environment but provided many jobs in the energy business along with the jobs servicing that industry. Sanders is not going to find much support in those states. 

[KD in CA]

8 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

It appears as though you're using this as an opportunity to tout Trump, which is cool, but doesn't really address the point at hand.

Where exactly have I touted Trump?
 

You stated that everyone should have already decided if they would vote for Trump or not;  I pointed out that’s unlikely to be the case when we don’t even know who he’s opposing.

I asked you what made him, in your words, ‘wholly unqualified’ and you replied that he used a Sharpie. 
 

And now it appears you’re running away from supporting your two statements.

[LSHMEAB]

40 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

Where exactly have I touted Trump?
 

You stated that everyone should have already decided if they would vote for Trump or not;  I pointed out that’s unlikely to be the case when we don’t even know who he’s opposing.

I asked you what made him, in your words, ‘wholly unqualified’ and you replied that he used a Sharpie. 
 

And now it appears you’re running away from supporting your two statements.

Your recollection is a bit off. I stated that MANY find him wholly disqualified to be President and many find him awesome. If you'd like their reasoning, Google is your friend. The guy was literally impeached so there's clear, empirical evidence that MANY find him wholly unqualified. I didn't support the impeachment, nor do I much care about a few phone calls with Zelensky. BUT, this particular thread isn't really about Donald Trump. 

 

You implied that there was some robust middle that would determine the election in RESPONSE to my assertion that non voters were far more important. 

 

At any rate, we're talking about the D primary; Biden is the candidate for those who believe there's this soft middle just looking for a return to normalcy. The beltway crowd STILL doesn't understand Trump's popularity and would like to wish it away.

 

Sanders is a huge departure from status quo, for better or worse. My opinion is the anti Sanders folks, who probably agree with most of his policies, UNDERESTIMATE Trump's political strength. They believe some run of the mill candidate like Biden would surely win because Trump is a "bad man." I disagree with their take.

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

People on the lower end of the wage scale have seen their wages grow the most. Fracking is alive and well in MI, OH and PA and has not only improved the environment but provided many jobs in the energy business along with the jobs servicing that industry. Sanders is not going to find much support in those states. 

Workers in the fracking industry are probably not at the extreme low end of the wage scale. I'm talking retail employees and fast food workers.

Edited March 3, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

 

Workers in the fracking industry are probably not at the extreme low end of the wage scale. I'm talking retail employees and fast food workers.

Many people working in the energy business used to be low wage earners until there was job openings in the industry and Sanders has vowed to shut down pipelines and prevent fracking. Walmart has pledged to make their minimum wage $15 per hour by the end of this year. Fast food restaurants are hurting for workers and have been boosting wages. The real test of the unemployment rate is the strength of wages and we are at the point where we are at the lowest rate we're going to get and it just becomes a competition for workers and wages will continue to rise at the entry level point. 

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Many people working in the energy business used to be low wage earners until there was job openings in the industry and Sanders has vowed to shut down pipelines and prevent fracking. Walmart has pledged to make their minimum wage $15 per hour by the end of this year. Fast food restaurants are hurting for workers and have been boosting wages. The real test of the unemployment rate is the strength of wages and we are at the point where we are at the lowest rate we're going to get and it just becomes a competition for workers and wages will continue to rise at the entry level point. 

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing.

 

I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway.

 

I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie.

 

The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Over the long haul, and this predates Trump, folks are generally earning less (adjusted for inflation) than their parents. Nearly half of American's don't have 400 BUCKS in case of emergency. I'd also posit that the state minimum wage laws play a large role in the growth at the bottom. On the flip side, it's also true that the increases are reflective of a tightening labor market, which is a good thing.

 

I remember your post regarding quality of life and how it's better now due to readily available, relatively inexpensive technology. It was was interesting thought and has quite a bit of sway.

 

I'm skeptical that this particular trend will continue, but the numbers you cited were by and large accurate. I'm not going to change my economic views, but facts don't lie.

 

The elephant in the room in the coming years will be automation. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp on the implication there.

I agree with you on automation. The problem with automation is that it may be more efficient and less costly to have a kiosk instead of a person taking orders, but sooner or later that Wendy's restaurant won't have any customers that have any money.