DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
Klinker said:
Thanks author. That jives with what I’ve read as well.You bet whatever you value it turned the tide. Till that point the draft of only those who could not avoid it fueled the war machine. When the lottery system was put in place and the sons of Congressmen and Senators began to be drafted.............suddenly it was a whole new ball game.Bernie holds some protests, hard right men like Ted Cruz who have built their whole lives around their unyielding conservatism are going to vote for “socialized medicine”. I find that hard to believe.Click to Read MoreYou bet whatever you value it turned the tide. Till that point the draft of only those who could not avoid it fueled the war machine. When the lottery system was put in place and the sons of Congressmen and Senators began to be drafted.............suddenly it was a whole new ball game.Bernie holds some protests, hard right men like Ted Cruz who have built their whole lives around their unyielding conservatism are going to vote for “socialized medicine”. I find that hard to believe.Click to Read MoreKlinker said:
author said:.So, is that what turned the tide? Tet, Cronkite’s pronouncement and the mounting losses in middle America?
The beginning of the end was the Tet Offensive which shattered the illusion that the war could be won. Walter Cronkite explaining that on nationwide TV doomed Johnaon's efforts. Also when the sons of the middle class began returning home in body bags.......the smoke and mirror charade was over.
It’s relevant because Nan is telling us that if Bernie holds some protests, hard right men like Ted Cruz who have built their whole lives around their unyielding conservatism are going to vote for “socialized medicine”. I find that hard to believe.
Walter Cronkite was once called "the most trusted man in America". When he said the war could not be won........America listened. All the Generals who were still advocating a fixed position World
War 2 strategy were discredited..............by a bunch of little guys and woman who cut up bicycle tires to use as shoes and were tired of their country being occupied by the Japanese/French /Americans,
Walter Cronkite was once called "the most trusted man in America". When he said the war could not be won........America listened. All the Generals who were still advocating a fixed position World
War 2 strategy were discredited..............by a bunch of little guys and woman who cut up bicycle tires to use as shoes and were tired of their country being occupied by the Japanese/French /Americans,Click to Read MoreYou bet whatever you value it turned the tide. Till that point the draft of only those who could not avoid it fueled the war machine. When the lottery system was put in place and the sons of Congressmen and Senators began to be drafted.............suddenly it was a whole new ball game.Bernie holds some protests, hard right men like Ted Cruz who have built their whole lives around their unyielding conservatism are going to vote for “socialized medicine”. I find that hard to believe.Click to Read MoreKlinker said:
author said:.So, is that what turned the tide? Tet, Cronkite’s pronouncement and the mounting losses in middle America?
The beginning of the end was the Tet Offensive which shattered the illusion that the war could be won. Walter Cronkite explaining that on nationwide TV doomed Johnaon's efforts. Also when the sons of the middle class began returning home in body bags.......the smoke and mirror charade was over.
It’s relevant because Nan is telling us that if Bernie holds some protests, hard right men like Ted Cruz who have built their whole lives around their unyielding conservatism are going to vote for “socialized medicine”. I find that hard to believe.
Walter Cronkite was once called "the most trusted man in America". When he said the war could not be won........America listened. All the Generals who were still advocating a fixed position World
War 2 strategy were discredited..............by a bunch of little guys and woman who cut up bicycle tires to use as shoes and were tired of their country being occupied by the Japanese/French /Americans,
I lived it
Since the topic of women's suffrage and protests is at the center of this current discussion, and I'm all for protests, I'm using this opportunity to publish a few words and reminders about my hero and NJ's own Alice Paul. Here is a quote from activist writer Zoe Nicholson on Alice Paul and her strategy.
“Ultimately Miss Alice Paul showed us that creating change is all in the contrast, in the differential. As activists, we are called to make an unforgettable spectacle of ourselves. Anything less than novel will not do. At an unexpected and/or unwelcome time, create what the opponent will perceive as chaos. Always pressing for greater contrast from what was, what is and what is wanted. All in the interest of the mission. What do we have today to create the contrast? What can we do to demonstrate the outcome we want while permanently breaking convention. What can a person do that alerts them and all who see, that there is a possibility for a different Life? Liberty? Justice
Anyone who wants to relive the impact that Ms. Paul and Lucy Barnes created with their protest/parade should watch Iron Jawed Angels.
Here's a 4 year old article.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/102-years-ago-alice-paul_b_6781812
Hope there is a huge parade August 18, 2020 to celebrate the 19th amendment becoming the law of the land and giving women the right to vote.
Morganna said:
Since the topic of women's suffrage and protests is at the center of this current discussion, and I'm all for protests, I'm using this opportunity to publish a few words and reminders about my hero and NJ's own Alice Paul. Here is a quote from activist writer Zoe Nicholson on Alice Paul and her strategy.
“Ultimately Miss Alice Paul showed us that creating change is all in the contrast, in the differential. As activists, we are called to make an unforgettable spectacle of ourselves. Anything less than novel will not do. At an unexpected and/or unwelcome time, create what the opponent will perceive as chaos. Always pressing for greater contrast from what was, what is and what is wanted. All in the interest of the mission. What do we have today to create the contrast? What can we do to demonstrate the outcome we want while permanently breaking convention. What can a person do that alerts them and all who see, that there is a possibility for a different Life? Liberty? Justice
I'm always available to make a spectacle of myself.
Anyone who wants to relive the impact that Ms. Paul and Lucy Barnes created with their protest/parade should watch Iron Jawed Angels.
Here's a 4 year old article.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/102-years-ago-alice-paul_b_6781812
Hope there is a huge parade August 18, 2020 to celebrate the 19th amendment becoming the law of the land and giving women the right to vote.
Yes, we need more Alice Pauls to fight for the new causes like Medicare for All.
Some argue that the Dems path to victory is by appealing to working class and middle class voters who voted for Trump.
Others argue that the Dems must appeal to minorities and youth who have not voted in large numbers.
LOST said:
Some argue that the Dems path to victory is by appealing to working class and middle class voters who voted for Trump.
Others argue that the Dems must appeal to minorities and youth who have not voted in large numbers.
So to which of these two groups does Tom Steyer appeal?
neither
LOST said:
Some argue that the Dems path to victory is by appealing to working class and middle class voters who voted for Trump.
Others argue that the Dems must appeal to minorities and youth who have not voted in large numbers.
So to which of these two groups does Tom Steyer appeal?
He's running as an inspirational populist, sounding a lot like Bernie without the policies. In the video below they play his ad where he sits in the cliche blue rolled up sleeve shirt in a barn and goes on for way to long talking about how the little people have been screwed over by the system for too long. Meanwhile, he only gets to do this because he's rich. His ad is well done and he hits some strong emotional notes, but he does not mention a single policy--so if he's elected he can just say, " I never promised that." Maybe he will add policies later, but the people who do that seem disingenuous from the start. I don't understand why this guy is running and why we need him in the race. It just seems like just another rich narcissistic with a bottomless pocket for PR.
Edited to add: Speaking of disingenuous, one thing I forgot to mention is that this guy has a huge database to work with for getting votes created through his recent push to get Trump impeached, which went nowhere but got him a big list. So, some are wondering if it was just a ploy to make the database he could run on as a candidate.
I don't have time to read the 200 or so posts that have been made since the last time I checked this thread (sorry!) so pardon any duplication. But I think that if M4A is the highest priority, then time and money might be better spent on trying to hold the house and flip the senate. If those two things happen, it is also quite likely that we will have a Democrat in the White House who won't veto the bill. JMO
nan said:
LOST said:He's running as an inspirational populist, sounding a lot like Bernie without the policies. In the video below they play his ad where he sits in the cliche blue rolled up sleeve shirt in a barn and goes on for way to long talking about how the little people have been screwed over by the system for too long. Meanwhile, he only gets to do this because he's rich. His ad is well done and he hits some strong emotional notes, but he does not mention a single policy--so if he's elected he can just say, " I never promised that." Maybe he will add policies later, but the people who do that seem disingenuous from the start. I don't understand why this guy is running and why we need him in the race. It just seems like just another rich narcissistic with a bottomless pocket for PR.
Some argue that the Dems path to victory is by appealing to working class and middle class voters who voted for Trump.
Others argue that the Dems must appeal to minorities and youth who have not voted in large numbers.
So to which of these two groups does Tom Steyer appeal?
Edited to add: Speaking of disingenuous, one thing I forgot to mention is that this guy has a huge database to work with for getting votes. His biggest involvement recently has been a focus on getting Trump impeached, which went nowhere but got him the names and emails of a huge amount of people. So, some are wondering if it was just a ploy to make the database he could run on as a candidate.
I can't believe I agree with nan! Until Steyer starts talking policy, he's nothing more than a meaningless rich guy trying to buy votes.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I can't believe I agree with nan! Until Steyer starts talking policy, he's nothing more than a meaningless rich guy trying to buy votes.
If people like you and people like me are agreeing that that this guy sucks than the people who are trying to figure out what group he is appealing to can cross two more off the list. Is there anyone left?
California supports their "Favorite Daughter" but Liz is surging.
Persistence!
Bernie did an hour-long interview with the Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) and they tried to corner him with multiple badly framed questions, but he did a great job throwing it back at them, even using occasional profanity. In this interview, he explains how he will get big revolutionary change like Medicare for All passed, by campaigning in the home states of those who oppose. He also explains how he is the leader on all of these bold policies, and the others are just imitations, many just started supporting Medicare for All in 2017, while he started in 1974.
The first video below has some highlights of the interview and analysis, including implementing his policies. The second is the full interview. In that one Sanders makes the important point that Joe Biden's strong past support for NAFTA and TPP make him a poor candidate to win the rust belt states.
Thought this was interesting -- a ranking of Democratic candidates by who has done the most to to help Democrats win state legislative seats.
Via NYT, reporting on https://partybuilder.org/
A ranking released Thursday shows that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas are currently the most engaged with candidates for state office. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are also ranked in the top 10.
As a Warren-inclined voter, I was glad to see her up there, though as someone also interested in Harris I was disappointed to see her rank so low. I think building up the local party is important. Obama, for instance, I felt was a good president but not a great Democrat, and that he lost more seats in 2010 than he had to as a result.
Interesting article on how establishment Dems (here called "liberals") bash Progressives (here called "leftists") and how the condescension is based more on tone rather than acknowledging that they "might have legitimate criticisms of the liberal approach.:
Liberals bashing leftists is a big problem
Sanders rhetoric does not match the treatment of his employees.
Unionized campaign organizers working for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential effort are battling with its management, arguing that the compensation and treatment they are receiving does not meet the standards Sanders espouses in his rhetoric, according to internal communications.
Messages from the workers:
“Hi @Faiz,” the messages began. They poured in from across the country.
“I am struggling financially to do my job, and in my state, we’ve already had 4 people quit in the past 4 weeks because of financial struggles,” wrote one field organizer. Another employee said his co-workers “shouldn’t have to get payday loans to sustain themselves.”.
A third said he supported the demands for higher wages “because I need to be able to feed myself.”
Payday loans? Can't feed themselves?
Campaign management response:
Shakir said that it would be damaging to the campaign’s budget to implement a pay hike after expanding field staff based on previously planned salary figures. In conclusion, he said, he would negotiate the matter only through the channels established by the union arrangement.
Just like a response from some corporation that Sanders would rail against.
Rhetoric is cheap and easy. Not so easy when its your turn to pay the bills.
BG9 said:
Just like a response from some corporation that Sanders would rail against.
Rhetoric is cheap and easy. Not so easy when its your turn to pay the bills.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html
This is more of the Washington Post trying to smear him. They once published 16 negative stories about Sanders in 16 hours. Sanders allowed his staff to unionize so they have the power to negotiate more money. I would not jump to conclusions based on what the WAPO says.
nan said:
BG9 said:This is more of the Washington Post trying to smear him. They once published 16 negative stories about Sanders in 16 hours. Sanders allowed his staff to unionize so they have the power to negotiate more money. I would not jump to conclusions based on what the WAPO says.
Just like a response from some corporation that Sanders would rail against.
Rhetoric is cheap and easy. Not so easy when its your turn to pay the bills.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-bernie-sanders-campaign-as-workers-demand-the-15-hourly-pay-the-candidate-has-proposed-for-employees-nationwide/2019/07/18/3a6df9f4-a966-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html
There's not much to jump to conclusions about.
Is Bernie paying them at least $15/hour or is he not?
Should he pay them $15 or should he not?
drummerboy said:
There's not much to jump to conclusions about.
Is Bernie paying them at least $15/hour or is he not?
Should he pay them $15 or should he not?
We will see when his campaign makes a statement.
OK, edited to add, I found this article. They are being paid $15 an hour, but I think some of them were putting in more work than their contract hours so it overall came out to less. It's a normal issue in campaigns, and they are negotiating now to figure it out.
Bernie Sanders defends staff compensation after complaints his campaign isn't paying $15 an hour
"I'm very proud to be the first presidential candidate to recognize a union and negotiate a union contract," the Vermont senator and presidential candidate told the Des Moines Register in an interview Friday. "And that contract was ratified by the employees of the campaign, and it not only provides pay of at least $15 an hour, it also provides, I think, the best health care benefits that any employer can provide for our field organizers."
He also expressed frustration that staffers had taken their complaints to the media.
"It does bother me that people are going outside of the process and going to the media," he said. "That is really not acceptable. It is really not what labor negotiations are about, and it's improper."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders defended his campaign’s compensation package Friday after a Washington Post story highlighted concerns among staffers that they were not receiving the $15-an-hour wages Sanders champions on the campaign trail.
"I'm very proud to be the first presidential candidate to recognize a union and negotiate a union contract," the Vermont senator and presidential candidate told the Des Moines Register in an interview Friday. "And that contract was ratified by the employees of the campaign, and it not only provides pay of at least $15 an hour, it also provides, I think, the best health care benefits that any employer can provide for our field organizers."
He also expressed frustration that staffers had taken their complaints to the media.
Sanders said field organizers, who are the lowest-ranking members of a presidential campaign and are typically in their 20s, make $36,000 a year with 100% employer-paid health care, as well as paid vacation and sick leave.
For a staffer working 40 hours a week, that comes out to about $17 an hour. But 40-hour workweeks on presidential campaigns are rare. Sanders said the campaign will limit the number of hours staffers work to 42 or 43 each week to ensure they're making the equivalent of $15 an hour.
This article is depressing. It essentially says that Trump may win Electoral College in 2020 by a wider margin, while losing popular vote by a wider margin also (up to 5%). Reason is that he is still doing well in the Sun Belt states (FL, AZ, ..) so the real battleground will be in the Rust Belt states where he is still doing well, especially if you consider that many of his 2016 voters stayed home in 2018, but may return in 2020. So if this reasoning is correct, then the person that can beat Trump is the person that can beat him with white uneducated voters in the Rust Belt states (such as WI, MI, ...)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-edge-.html?searchResultPosition=1
exactly this. And this is is why I think Trump will win again. The only candidate from the Dem mix with this type of appeal is Biden. At least so far.
I'm in agreement with both of you @basil and @conandrob240. At best I see it as a 50/50. I just said to a friend although he wasn't my first choice, I think Biden may have the best chance right now but I'm wondering if a younger version of a centrist like Bullock, Bennet or Inslee might break out.
Yesterday I reminded her that I had picked Sherrod Brown as that guy before he decided not to run and then later that day I heard an analyst say that someone who could do it was Brown if he changed his mind. I doubt he will.
Tom Friedman spoke about his article in the Times Trump's going to get elected, isn't he? this week and made a plea to lean towards the center.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html
By the time the vote gets to NJ we should know which way the wind is blowing.
this is why the Democrats are in trouble. Liberal voters are trying to figure out who to support in the primary based on who they think will appeal to Trump leaning Midwest voters. Just support the person you think is the best candidate. I'm not going to try and figure out who can get Joe Lunchbox in Wisconsin to switch back to the Democrats from Trump. Because I don't know how to rationally figure out how to appeal to people who are making decisions based on gut.
ml1 said:
this is why the Democrats are in trouble. Liberal voters are trying to figure out who to support in the primary based on who they think will appeal to Trump leaning Midwest voters. Just support the person you think is the best candidate. I'm not going to try and figure out who can get Joe Lunchbox in Wisconsin to switch back to the Democrats from Trump. Because I don't know how to rationally figure out how to appeal to people who are making decisions based on gut.
By the time NJ gets to vote most candidates will have been eliminated so we have no real voice. The only way for us to make a difference is to pressure our representatives to push the DNC to let us move up our primary.
Primary and caucus calendar[edit]
Democratic primary and caucus calendar by currently scheduled date
February
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
March 10
March 17
March 24
April 4–7
April 28
May
June
No scheduled 2020 date
The following primary and caucus dates have been scheduled by state statutes or state party decisions, but are subject to change pending legislation, state party delegate selection plans, or the decisions of state secretaries of state:[216]
- February 3: Iowa caucuses
- February 11: New Hampshire primary
- February 22: Nevada caucuses
- February 29: South Carolina primary
- March 3: Super Tuesday (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia primaries); Democrats Abroad party-run primary for expatriates features a March 3–10 voting period.
- March 10: Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, and Washington primaries; North Dakota firehouse caucuses (identical to a party-run primary)
- March 17: Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Illinois primaries
- March 24: Georgia primary[217]
- March 29: Puerto Rico primary (Currently scheduled for June 7 but expected to be held to March 29) [218][219][220][221][222][223]
- April 4: Alaska, Hawaii, and Louisiana primaries
- April 7: Wisconsin primary
- April 28: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York (Currently scheduled for February 4 but expected to be held on April 28),[224][225][226][227][228][229] Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island primaries
- May 2: Kansas primary
- May 5: Indiana primary
- May 12: Nebraska and West Virginia primaries
- May 19: Kentucky and Oregon primaries (Oregon legislature considering move to March 3 or 10)[230][231]
- June 2: Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota primaries
- June 16: District of Columbia primary (bill proposing a move to June 2 has been tabled)[232][233][234]
That NYT article is depressing. The only good thing about it is there’s 16 months until the election and a lot can change in that time.
For now though, Trump does indeed stand to gain from his polarizing tactics. Make bogeymen (and bogeywomen) out of the far left, which fires up the MAGA base and the far left concurrently, while also boosting the bogeypeople’s stature within the Democratic Party. Ultimately Trump wants run against the far left for the obvious electoral reasons laid out in the NYT article, so paradoxically, anything he can do to help the far left helps him.
I’m starting to have an incipient belief that Harris may be the best hope on the D side. I don’t particularly like her, but with her prosecutorial background, I believe she may have the potential to effectively slide toward the center between the primary and the general, in a way that other candidates like warren and sanders don’t. Harris needs to improve as a candidate (i.e. clean up inconsistencies, clarify message etc.), but I think she can potentially do this, and win some states that matter. And I think trump would be sh-t scared to debate her.
I disagree with the last few posts. I think there are a number of people who voted for Trump last time who may have buyer's remorse. Some didn't know much about him and may have thought all the trash he said was just electioneering and that he would change after being elected.
Others thought we would "grow into" the job. And others just hated Hillary Clinton. The Dem candidate just has to be clear and consistent. I am trying to decide whether the Dem should constantly attack Trump or just ignore him for the most part but just laugh at him when he says something stupid.
Sometime in 2015 or early 2016 a reporter began asking Bernie Sanders about something Trump said and Bernie cut him off saying "I don't have time to respond to every silly thing Trump says". If the Media had taken that same position Trump might not be President.
His strategy is to make his opponent fight on Trump's turf.
ml1 said:
Because I don't know how to rationally figure out how to appeal to people who are making decisions based on gut.
You appeal to their gut. Not sure how but it is possible.
Smedley said:
I’m starting to have an incipient belief that Harris may be the best hope on the D side. I don’t particularly like her, but with her prosecutorial background, I believe she may have the potential to effectively slide toward the center between the primary and the general, in a way that other candidates like warren and sanders don’t. Harris needs to improve as a candidate (i.e. clean up inconsistencies, clarify message etc.), but I think she can potentially do this. And I think trump would be sh-t scared to debate her.
A Black Female from California? She embodies everything Trump's core hates.
LOST said:
A Black Female from California? She embodies everything Trump's core hates.
Trump’s core is voting for trump. But Obama/Trump voters are not trumps core. There are a lot of Obama/Trump voters in important states.
Smedley said:
Trump’s core is voting for trump. But Obama/Trump voters are not trumps core. There are a lot of Obama/Trump voters in important states.
Obama/Trump voters are likely to go for Bernie because they want someone they can trust to actually work on their side. Biden is more like Hillary, whom they despised and the other candidates don't have his consistent track record.
We’re Having a Different Conversation Than Them
What Makes Bernie Different
Bunch’s column on Netroots claims, in its conclusion, that “only Warren can unite two critical primary voting blocs — 2016 Sanders voters shopping for a newer progressive, and suburban women who’ve been the backbone of groups like Indivisible and who still resent Sanders for challenging Clinton.” Like all the other pro-Warren pieces you’ve seen and will continue to see in the progressive media, Bunch’s article is based on totally backwards premises about how politics and power work.
If Sanders manages to win the 2020 Democratic primary, it won’t be because professional-managerial class voters who “shop” for candidates came around to him, and it certainly won’t have anything to do with the mythical suburban moderates whom the Democrats are always using to justify moving to the right. If he wins, it’ll be because of the people the Left has always needed to win: organized labor, nonvoters traditionally shut out by the political process, working-class voters, and others who are demanding systemic change.
So is it “telling” that Bernie wasn’t at Netroots, a $900-a-head conference run by a blogger who hates him and featuring such events as “New Tools Showcase curated by New Media Ventures” and “Morning yoga with Reggie”? Was it telling that Sanders “pretty much surrendered this particular venue to Warren”? If anything, it says what we already know: that the media hates Bernie Sanders and smears him to shift attention away from his popular but paradigm-shifting ideas: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a living wage, an end to foreign intervention.
It’s way more telling, though, that the fight to save Hahnemann, a fight about which the other 2020 Democratic candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, have been totally silent, was entirely surrendered to Bernie.
Obama/Trump voters are unlikely to go for Bernie because crossover voters are centrist and bernie is far left.
Smedley said:
Trump’s core is voting for trump. But Obama/Trump voters are not trumps core. There are a lot of Obama/Trump voters in important states.
I was reacting to your statement that Trump would be scared to debate Harris. He would not actually debate her. He would just attack her in his usual manner. Not that it would get him any votes, it would most likely lose him votes, but he would enjoy it.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
It wasn’t exceptional in Delaware.