The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread, Part 3

[Rookie Yinzer]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

[mgop]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

lol what? are you ashamed? did you sleep through 2015 and 2016?

[Rookie Yinzer]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

lol what? are you ashamed? did you sleep through 2015 and 2016?

I'm not going to spend too much time arguing FACTS with you. Hillary received the most negative press in 2016. The email servers received wall to wall coverage. Trump's coverage was focused on building the wall and banning Muslims. Coverage focused on his POLICIES and the ratings hungry media gave him billions of dollars of free media because his POLICIES were so controversial. Like him or not, his MESSAGE got plenty of coverage. Hillary's did not.

[Zaybay]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

This is great historical revisionism. Sanders received negative coverage, and while you can argue(without actual information to back yourself up, I might add) that it was less than Clinton, it was still negative:


This idea that Sanders wasnt attacked in the 2016 primary is garbage, plain and simple.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

This is great historical revisionism. Sanders received negative coverage, and while you can argue(without actual information to back yourself up, I might add) that it was less than Clinton, it was still negative:


This idea that Sanders wasnt attacked in the 2016 primary is garbage, plain and simple.

^^^
He was attacked as much as Trump. The Tandeen machine went into overdrive. To say otherwise is simply just not true.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I think the difference between a lot of the Sanders critics and his supporters who criticize literally everyone else is that the former would do the responsible thing and vote for him in the general if it came to that whereas the latter group has proven to be irresponsible, self-righteous, and destructive when not given everything it wants.

[Zaybay]

I think the difference between a lot of the Sanders critics and his supporters who criticize literally everyone else is that the former would do the responsible thing and vote for him in the general if it came to that whereas the latter group has proven to be irresponsible, self-righteous, and destructive when not given everything it wants.

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

[Zaybay]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

[Joey1996]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

All this tea is raising my blood sugar levels.

[Mr. Morden]

Of note: Justin Amash, who in late 2017 gave a "no comment" on the 2020 question, had this to say about who the Libertarian Party should nominate in 2020:

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/justin-amash-the-libertarian-party-shoul

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That blog post also notes that Michigan is presumably going to lose a House seat in 2022 redistricting and the 2011 gerrymander is currently in court, meaning that it's unclear what'll happen to Amash's seat.  So his future in the House isn't assured.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think the difference between a lot of the Sanders critics and his supporters who criticize literally everyone else is that the former would do the responsible thing and vote for him in the general if it came to that whereas the latter group has proven to be irresponsible, self-righteous, and destructive when not given everything it wants.

That's pretty apt. Back in 2016 I was not a Sanders supporter in the primary but I was 100% willing to vote for him in the general election if I had to. And that remains the same for 2020 even if my preferred candidate loses the nomination. I wish more people kept their priorities straight and put their pride in their back pocket.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

Even so, you brought up Clinton 2008 knowing good and well a significant portion of her coalition were registered Democrats who abandoned the Dems at the federal level years before. Clinton 2016 was much more diverse and significant numbers of working class brown and black people who ALWAYS coalesce behind the nominee even when they ignore their interests.

[Zaybay]

I mean, the "Sanders Supporters who criticize literally everyone" voted for Clinton by a margin of 91-9, much better than the ratio for Clinton voters in 2008(73-27) and Trump(88-12). So the latter group proved that they are willing to do the responsible thing and vote for the Democrat in the general, while the former hasnt proven themselves at all yet.

This is very disingenuous. The Clinton 2008 coalition is not the Clinton 2016 coalition.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is true. The Clinton 2016 coalition never had to vote for Sanders, so they havent proven themselves, while the Sanders 2016 coalition did prove themselves, especially when compared to historical defections.

Even so, you brought up Clinton 2008 knowing good and well a significant portion of her coalition were registered Democrats who abandoned the Dems at the federal level years before. Clinton 2016 was much more diverse and significant numbers of working class brown and black people who ALWAYS coalesce behind the nominee even when they ignore their interests.

You are reading way too deeply into this. It was just a recent example from a Democratic Primary that was competitive. And you cant know if they would go for Sanders because, simply put, it didnt happen, he didnt win the nomination. What we do know is that Sanders' coalition did, in fact, coalesce behind Clinton, a much larger percentage than other recent primaries, and that there is no proof that the same would have happened if the roles were reversed. This isnt opinion or speculation, this is just fact.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Throwing poor parents in prison(who's children are likely staying home because they have to take care of their family or some situation like that, it's not "OH I DONT WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL" It's usually more complicated then that) is unacceptable and cruel. That's why I'm supporting her, and no, I'm not delusionally obsessed with hating her the way Peter Daou, Neera Tanden have a deranged hatred of Sanders, so don't even start with your apples to oranges comparison!!!!! I don't support her, because she doesn't share my values! The end!

[Holmes]

Can we please stay on topic? I keep seeing new posts expecting new news.

[Mr. Smith]

I think the difference between a lot of the Sanders critics and his supporters who criticize literally everyone else is that the former would do the responsible thing and vote for him in the general if it came to that whereas the latter group has proven to be irresponsible, self-righteous, and destructive when not given everything it wants.

Given what happened in Nebraska CD2 [RIP Kara Eastman], it would seem the reverse is more true.

And at least the reluctant supporters are honest about their frustratons, none of this "whose the adult in the room" BS, which the critics love using.

[OneJ]

Booker and Sanders went to South Carolina event of the NAACP in honor of MLK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The next scheduled announcement (according to Wikipedia) is Marianne Williamson on the 28th. Should be interesting.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Can we please stay on topic? I keep seeing new posts expecting new news.

This. This thread isn't for political brawls, it's for discussion of the 2020 tea leaves. Keep out the usual Atlas bs.

[Joey1996]

The next scheduled announcement (according to Wikipedia) is Marianne Williamson on the 28th. Should be interesting.

She will probably be the only candidate to call for reparations for black Americans. Would love to see someone like her or Andrew Yang, with ideas that are not par for the course make it to the debate stage.

[bilaps]

So much this. No one is safe from criticism, and the whole point of the primary is to air these disputes and to let the voters decide. Stop acting like every revelation will lead to a Trump victory.

Everytime someone has a valid criticism about Bernie we are told that that's not what he meant, we didn't see what we saw, we heard it wrong, or we have Bernie Derangement Syndrome....

Oh Please, if one were to actually watch the 2016 primary unfold, one would see that many stances Sanders had, such as on guns, were heavily criticized. Saying he was treated like someone special is pure historical revisionism.

Seriously, no one is safe from criticism, not Sanders, not Harris, not Beto, and not Biden. Thats literally the whole point of holding a primary.

He was treated with kid gloves by the media and Hillary's campaign because his cultists acted like cry babies and perpetuated that the media was in the tank for Hillary (even though she recieved the most negative press of ALL the candidates). I hope Sanders runs so we can finally skewer his problematic record and infeasible plans.

lol what? are you ashamed? did you sleep through 2015 and 2016?

nope, he's like cnn, go against his opinion and you'll be right almost all the time

[beaver2.0]

The next scheduled announcement (according to Wikipedia) is Marianne Williamson on the 28th. Should be interesting.

She will probably be the only candidate to call for reparations for black Americans. Would love to see someone like her or Andrew Yang, with ideas that are not par for the course make it to the debate stage.

Yang appears able to make a reasonable case for his platform, so yes, I'd like to see him given a fair shot.

[RaphaelDLG]

Beto's chance of running dropped on PredictIt fairly significantly today.  Any reason why?

[Zaybay]

Beto's chance of running dropped on PredictIt fairly significantly today.  Any reason why?

Not sure. If I were to guess, it would be the attention Harris is getting, and the Beto backlash that is starting to form. Then again, it is a betting market, so it could just be market manipulation or some other tiny factor that has to do with trade.