2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, hearing the audio didn't change much for me. Both sound rather resolute.

At the end of the day, the biggest winner of this kerfuffle is probably Biden.

And it looks like Warren, Sanders, and Klobuchar are about to be anchored in DC for a while. The impeachment timing is helping Biden, although his name and Hunter's name are about to get taken in vain a lot. I think that tradeoff favors Biden in the caucus because Dems committed enough to turn out on an early February day in Iowa are probably not taking Rep arguments supporting Trump very seriously.

[JasonEvans]

Yeah, hearing the audio didn't change much for me. Both sound rather resolute.

At the end of the day, the biggest winner of this kerfuffle is probably Biden.

Winner?!?!? This was Tom Steyer's biggest media moment of the entire campaign.

[budwom]

BudWom has lived in Vermont for years. There are only about ten people living there, and two of them are U.S. Senators. I believe him when he says he has known Bernie for a long time.

Ha, you are quite correct. Bernie and I both started our Vermont work careers at the same small town newspaper, though offset by a few years. It was located in arguably the state's Dairy Capital, featuring an annual festival and parade in which politicians routinely came calling (the dairy vote used to be huge, not so much any more) and part of the ritual was coming up onto the big porch on the house next to the newspaper barn and chatting up the owner, writers like me.
So even when Bernie was running as a Liberty Union candidate for various positions, garnering 5% of the vote, he was always around.

Once he became mayor of Burlington in the very early 1980s, he was a constant presence (along the notions of what Sage mentions, Burlington is the largest city in Vermont by a factor of two, yet only 40,000 people live there. Small place).
Not unusual to see Bernie or Leahy or the other pols strolling down the main street, holding court with the constituents...he's always been a strong supporter of women, ran his administration that way, so I have to be very skeptical of a sudden report that a year and a half ago he somehow dissed a woman's chance of winning. Why bring that up now and not previously? Maybe the polls have something to do with it, I really don't know.

In a very Vermont mini anecdote: some years ago (1998?) a guy name Jack McMullen moved to Vermont from Massachusetts, thought he might grab an easy Senate seat by running vs Leahy (McMullen had gobs of money)...alas, a Vermont filmmaker got the notion of entering a crusty old retired farmer named Fred Tuttle in the GOP primary (VT has crossover voting)...Fred was a nice man, highly uneducated but pleasant...the campaign became most surreal, including debates on statewide public radio in which Fred asked McMullen "Jack, how many teats does a cow have?" (Jack got it wrong), "how to you pronounce "Calais", Jack fanned on that, too. Fred Tuttle won the GOP primary easily, then endorsed Leahy...yes, a blatant manipulation of the political process, but a pretty funny one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Tuttle

Anyway, some years ago I was wandering down Church St, the main drag, and saw four people sitting at a window table at the flagship Ben and Jerry's shop: Bernie, Ben Cohen (co-founder of B&J), Fred Tuttle, and Cherie Tartt, a transvestite performer of some local renown. A very Burlington quartet...

Bernie has a number of faults, but dissing women has historically not been one of them.

[OldPhiKap]

Winner?!?!? This was Tom Steyer's biggest media moment of the entire campaign.

It's always the billionaire oligarchs looking down on the divided leaders of the proletariat class . . . . .

(I keed! I keed! I kinda keed!)

[dudog84]

Make that two hours. The interview with Parnas continues tomorrow.

It is very intriguing. He called out and implicated...Trump, Rudy, Barr, Pence. And Bolton. Top tier take down.
Of course, he is likely going to jail himself. He put his finger on the "call witnesses" scale, though. And heavily.

Thanks. None of these people want to go to jail and will deal with what they know. Besides the obvious reasons, they all see what happened to Jeffrey Epstein. I'm glad I don't know (and therefore have dirt on) any powerful people.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Thanks. None of these people want to go to jail and will deal with what they know. Besides the obvious reasons, they all see what happened to Jeffrey Epstein. I'm glad I don't know (and therefore have dirt on) any powerful people.

Interestingly, in the segue into The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell asked Maddow why Parnas was coming forward now. She answered that he feels it makes him safer; had he kept everything he is telling now a secret, then the motivation is greater to make sure that he never shares it. Once it's out, there's not much benefit to his "disappearing".

[PackMan97]

I have to be very skeptical of a sudden report that a year and a half ago he somehow dissed a woman's chance of winning

It's probably out of context after Clinton lost.

"A woman is never going to win the WH...with negatives like that".

[OldPhiKap]

Nate's odds to take the Dem nomination as of this morning:

Biden 5:2
Bernie 4:1
Warren 7:1
Pete 12:1
Field 100:1+


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

[budwom]

the timing just seems odd, something that allegedly happened 18+ months ago coming to light as she slides in the polls.

[OldPhiKap]

the timing just seems odd, something that allegedly happened 18+ months ago coming to light as she slides in the polls.

1. The source of the original story is widely believed to be from the Warren camp, and the context of the alleged conversation makes it almost certainly so.
2. The timing, as you say, is telling.
3. Warren confronting Bernie with an open mic after the debate was likely not an accident, they are both old pro players (Bernie knew enough not to want to discuss it at the podium, although the way he brushed her off makes them both look bad IMO).

Warren knows she is fading, so she threw the first punch in the inevitable fight for the progressive vote between the two of them. it seems to me. A third-place showing by Warren in Iowa, if that was to happen, would be a big blow to her campaign.

[LasVegas]

It's probably out of context after Clinton lost.

"A woman is never going to win the WH...with negatives like that".

That’s the thing, they both could be telling the truth. Misunderstandings happen all the time with human communication.

[OldPhiKap]

That’s the thing, they both could be telling the truth. Misunderstandings happen all the time with human communication.

Yup. And within the progressive wing, is there anyone who really thinks that Bernie is sexist? Say what you want about the guy, he's championed equal rights for all since marching with Dr. King in the '60's; fought for equal pay for women for years; and has always been stridently pro-choice. He's not my cup of tea but there is no doubting his passion.

This just really smacks of desperation to me by Warren, and she's trying to spin a molehill into a hard-to-buy mountain.

(This is not an endorsement, obviously).

[Acymetric]

That’s the thing, they both could be telling the truth. Misunderstandings happen all the time with human communication.

Which is why it would be nice if Warren would offer up what the conversation was, and what was actually said, so that we can make up our own minds.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

That’s the thing, they both could be telling the truth. Misunderstandings happen all the time with human communication.

I wouldn't be shocked if he said something like "A woman is going to have a harder time winning the White House than a man because there are still plenty of ignorant people out there who would never vote for a woman" with the following clause being something like "much like there are still plenty of ignorant people out there who would never vote for a Jew like me." Stating that it is harder for a woman to get to the White House is a lot different than saying that a woman should not be in the White House, but can be spun to sound like the same thing.

[budwom]

1. The source of the original story is widely believed to be from the Warren camp, and the context of the alleged conversation makes it almost certainly so.
2. The timing, as you say, is telling.
3. Warren confronting Bernie with an open mic after the debate was likely not an accident, they are both old pro players (Bernie knew enough not to want to discuss it at the podium, although the way he brushed her off makes them both look bad IMO).

Warren knows she is fading, so she threw the first punch in the inevitable fight for the progressive vote between the two of them. it seems to me. A third-place showing by Warren in Iowa, if that was to happen, would be a big blow to her campaign.

yeah, that's the way I see...whatever happened, it would behoove both of them to talk about something else.
Meanwhile, as far as odds are concerned, what about The Bloomer?

[OldPhiKap]

Meanwhile, as far as odds are concerned, what about The Bloomer?

The linked article lets you use a pull-down screen to put each candidate's name in each state and see how they project state by state. Bloomberg is projected for example to get 4% in California and Florida, and 6% in Texas and North Carolina.

I skimmed the methodology discussion so someone can probably form a better opinion than I can about that aspect of the article. Certainly, some states have very little polling and it is WAY early to see how his strategy will really work on Super Tuesday.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It's probably out of context after Clinton lost.

"A woman is never going to win the WH...with negatives like that".

Or, on regards to Hillary "that woman is never going to win the White House."

[JasonEvans]

So, we are about 2 weeks away from Iowa and while "who wins?" is a huge question, I'm wondering what happens to the losers. Put another way, how many tickets are there out of Iowa? I think the answer depends upon the candidate.

Biden - I think he could finish as low as 4th and still be quite viable... so long as he does not finish a distant 4th. If he is in the mid-teens and the other three major contenders are all at least in the 20s then it will look really bad. A third place finish isn't a big deal for him and I think 2nd could even be a positive for Uncle Joe. If Biden wins Iowa I'd make him at least a 75% favorite to win the nomination.

Sanders - 4th is bad and could completely derail his campaign. Again, it would need to be a close 4th place and it actually would help him if Warren came in 3rd, not an impressive first or second. Third could be a problem if Warren comes in first. 2nd is ok for Bernie, especially if Warren does poorly and is effectively knocked out.

Warren - I think 3rd would be a problem for her and 4th is a disaster. 2nd is a positive so long as Bernie does not finish first. I think Warren and Bernie each want to see the other drop out so they can take on Biden in a one-on-one matchup.

Buttigieg - I have a hard time seeing him being viable going forward with less than a 2nd place finish. He likely needs to finish at least one or two spots ahead of Warren to make the argument to upper/middle class educated Democrats that he is their choice over Warren.

Again, as much as the order matters, the margins matter too. Finishing 4th in a race where the results are: 26, 25, 23, 22 (4% for others) is tough but maybe not a death knell for the 4th place finisher. Finishing 3rd in a race where it goes 34, 32, 16, 14 (4% for others) is a big problem for the 3rd and 4th place candidates.

-Jason "Biden (who is not a hard campaigner) and Buttigeig have an advantage over the next couple weeks while Warren and Sanders are chained to a desk in DC... but the nation will be focused on DC, not Iowa" Evans

[cato]

Yup. And within the progressive wing, is there anyone who really thinks that Bernie is sexist?

There are certainly progressive women who think that Bernie gives short shrift to issues important to women. Unfortunately, all I have are anecdotes, and I could not find relevant polls in searching for a few minutes. However, this poll is interesting in that it finds women to be the largest bloc of undecided voters for the D nomination:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZG00D

It looks like both Sanders and Warren are holding steady with their popularity among women, with Sanders outpolling Warren 15% to 11%. Of course, Sanders’ overall numbers are higher — 20% in this poll — which suggests to me that he is more popular among men.

At any rate, my suspicion is that the last week is not going to win many converts to either candidate among women voters. If there are more women voters who are undecided at this point, I wonder if Biden or one of the other candidates has the most to gain?

[dudog84]

-Jason "Biden (who is not a hard campaigner) and Buttigeig have an advantage over the next couple weeks while Warren and Sanders are chained to a desk in DC... but the nation will be focused on DC, not Iowa" Evans

But Iowa will be focused on Iowa, as they always are. And that is what matters. They take being 1st very seriously.