• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The consolidated New Hampshire primary results thread (let's try this again)

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,937
20,887
136
I'm also concerned about that. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg would vastly prefer a Trump presidency to a Sanders one.
I think you are correct about that, but Bloomberg has stated several times that he will not run 3rd party and that if he does not win the Dem nomination, he will commit up to $1billion simoleons to the Dem nominee to defeat Trump. (I'm guessing advertising budget...probably of the anti-Trump vein more than the "pro-whoever" vein")
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,596
23,707
136
One of the most respected news critics in the industry validates a lot of the shit we've been saying:


(Paywalled, but for god sakes, this is a tech forum)
Now you're quoting op-ed pieces to 'prove' your views?

Remember when we used to make fun of Trumpkins for mistaking some op-ed for actual evidence supporting their argument? You guys become more like them every day.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,477
3,542
136
Trying to pull the center right failed miserably in 2016, Republicans went back home despite having the most disgusting and corrupt piece of shit ever running under their party's name. And they still full-throatedly support him.

There is no swing voter in 2020. This isn't 1965 when everyone got their news from Walter Cronkite, this is 2020 where you either get your news from the right wing echo chamber or you are utterly horrified by it. But our base is bigger than their's is, and if we can nominate someone who excites our base we turn out to vote and we win. If we nominate someone bland and run on Trump being a crook instead of ideas to move the nation forward it very well could again turn off enough voters again because 'bothsides.' Focusing only on Trump puts the Democrats back in the same danger zone they were in for the 2016 election.
That's not how Bill Clinton won, and that's not how Obama won really.

Anecdotally, I know many centrists that voted T as they wanted change &/or disliked Hillary, but are not really happy with T and are open to bolting IF Ds can offer someone not crazy, weak or out in left field

2018 told us how weak Ts base really is. Yes there are the rallies and fox news and lots of hype, but it's a lot of bullshit also. It always is with Trump, it isn't any different here.

Offer a competent, accomplished, fiscal conservative/social liberal (which MB is) and you can absolutely win.

Just don't scare suburbs with lots of new taxes and high promises to blow up the healthcare system and force them in to a tough choice.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,596
23,707
136
I think you are correct about that, but Bloomberg has stated several times that he will not run 3rd party and that if he does not win the Dem nomination, he will commit up to $1billion simoleons to the Dem nominee to defeat Trump. (I'm guessing advertising budget...probably of the anti-Trump vein more than the "pro-whoever" vein")
He's also said he will continue to fund the massive data operation he has created in support of the nominee, something he has been building for at least a year or more. I would imagine that would be incredibly valuable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,477
3,542
136
Question: How fucking stupid does one have to be to get himself impeached over interfering in a 5th-place candidate’s campaign? Asking for a friend...
You have to be Trump stupid.

The kind of stupid that bankrupts a casino even when the odds are rigged in the house's favor.

So.. Really fucking dumb.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,937
20,887
136
Nothing gets done without the president’s consent either, and unlike the majority leader the president has enormous power to enact policy unilaterally.

Give my party the presidency for 20 years and you take the majority leader for 20 years and let’s see what the country more closely resembles, yours or mine.
Remember how Obama nominated some 82+ federal judges, all of them blocked by Mitch for years, to later be filled within months by Trump, as if it was something that "Trump did for his people"?

There is a lot that POTUS can or can't do, all at the whim of SML.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,937
20,887
136
Question: How fucking stupid does one have to be to get himself impeached over interfering in a 5th-place candidate’s campaign? Asking for a friend...
tbf, the strategy is still sound. Trump's team identified Biden as the opponent most likely to defeat him. So either you start hammering him early on and keep repeating the same ridiculous lies throughout the general, or completely remove him from the equation by preventing his nomination.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,596
23,707
136
Remember how Obama nominated some 82+ federal judges, all of them blocked by Mitch for years, to later be filled within months by Trump, as if it was something that "Trump did for his people"?

There is a lot that POTUS can or can't do, all at the whim of SML.
It's not that the majority leader has no power, it's just that the president has several orders of magnitude more. Nominations is something good to bring up in this context though. Previously the Senate had input over who the president staffed his administration with. Then one day he just decided to stop caring what they said. What happened? Nothing. There could exist a world in which the majority leader has more power than the president but it's not the one we live in. Congress has delegated much of the actual nuts and bolts lawmaking (well, rulemaking) authority to the executive so on a broad range of issues Congress is simply no longer involved, or involved in a way that is easily ignored.

People often mention the 'power of the purse' as something Congress still controls but do they really? In the last year after all we've seen the executive declare fake emergencies and just rearrange funds explicitly denied for a purpose into it. What happened? Nothing. You could say Congress could refuse all future funds but even that wouldn't work anymore as the president has the authority to simply mint coins of any value, which he could then use to fund the government and/or his priorities.

I view this massive accumulation of unaccountable executive power to be a bad thing, but it's what exists now. The presidency previously operated under norms where they followed the constitutional order because it was best for the country. Once the president decided to stop doing that, that's basically the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,738
4,825
146
tbf, the strategy is still sound. Trump's team identified Biden as the opponent most likely to defeat him. So either you start hammering him early on and keep repeating the same ridiculous lies throughout the general, or completely remove him from the equation by preventing his nomination.
Hell, it still worked. Nobody can convince me that the Biden rabblerabblerabble through the impeachment hearings didn't contribute to him rolling in 5th in NH. Fifth.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,609
2,051
136
That's not how Bill Clinton won, and that's not how Obama won really.

Anecdotally, I know many centrists that voted T as they wanted change &/or disliked Hillary, but are not really happy with T and are open to bolting IF Ds can offer someone not crazy, weak or out in left field

2018 told us how weak Ts base really is. Yes there are the rallies and fox news and lots of hype, but it's a lot of bullshit also. It always is with Trump, it isn't any different here.

Offer a competent, accomplished, fiscal conservative/social liberal (which MB is) and you can absolutely win.

Just don't scare suburbs with lots of new taxes and high promises to blow up the healthcare system and force them in to a tough choice.
The Democrats need to stop modeling their party on Bill Clinton. This isn't 1992. There is no Fairness Doctrine keeping our news media halfway balanced so that everyone is watching and listening to roughly the same news. So there are very very few actual swing voters. And the country isn't nearly as conservative as it was back in the days of Reagan. Plus there is no Ross Perot running a robust spoiler campaign against the GOP. The Democrats nominated a competent, accomplished, fiscal conservative / social liberal in 2016 and where did it get us? Trump was hated just as much in 2016 as he is now.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,738
4,825
146
It's not that the majority leader has no power, it's just that the president has several orders of magnitude more. Nominations is something good to bring up in this context though. Previously the Senate had input over who the president staffed his administration with. Then one day he just decided to stop caring what they said. What happened? Nothing. There could exist a world in which the majority leader has more power than the president but it's not the one we live in. Congress has delegated much of the actual nuts and bolts lawmaking (well, rulemaking) authority to the executive so on a broad range of issues Congress is simply no longer involved, or involved in a way that is easily ignored.

People often mention the 'power of the purse' as something Congress still controls but do they really? In the last year after all we've seen the executive declare fake emergencies and just rearrange funds explicitly denied for a purpose into it. What happened? Nothing. You could say Congress could refuse all future funds but even that wouldn't work anymore as the president has the authority to simply mint coins of any value, which he could then use to fund the government and/or his priorities.

I view this massive accumulation of unaccountable executive power to be a bad thing, but it's what exists now. The presidency previously operated under norms where they followed the constitutional order because it was best for the country. Once the president decided to stop doing that, that's basically the game.
It's akin to just deciding that all your pawns on the chessboard can simply teleport wherever they want, then the referee saying 'I'll allow it'.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,596
23,707
136
The Democrats need to stop modeling their party on Bill Clinton. This isn't 1992. There is no Fairness Doctrine keeping our news media halfway balanced so that everyone is watching and listening to roughly the same news. So there are very very few actual swing voters. And the country isn't nearly as conservative as it was back in the days of Reagan. Plus there is no Ross Perot running a robust spoiler campaign against the GOP. The Democrats offered a competent, accomplish, fiscal conservative / social liberal in 2016 and where did it get us? Trump was hated just as much in 2016 as he is now.
There was no fairness doctrine in 1992 and the evidence indicates Ross Perot's candidacy harmed Clinton, not Bush. (when Perot was in Clinton's margins over Bush were smaller than when he was out). In addition, the net total of swing voters who swung from Obama to Trump exceeded Trump's margin of victory in the crucial states.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,149
14,361
136
Question: How fucking stupid does one have to be to get himself impeached over interfering in a 5th-place candidate’s campaign? Asking for a friend...
Maybe that's why Joe is in fifth place... slime attacks work in unexplainable ways.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,025
5,520
136
Maybe that's why Joe is in fifth place... slime attacks work in unexplainable ways.
As much as I’d love to give credit to Trump’s criming, something tells me he doesn’t really get the credit for Biden being a candidate out of touch with the current party base.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,609
2,051
136
There was no fairness doctrine in 1992 and the evidence indicates Ross Perot's candidacy harmed Clinton, not Bush. (when Perot was in Clinton's margins over Bush were smaller than when he was out)
OK I see the Fairness Doctrine was ended in 1987, but right wing media had not yet emerged as a huge force in 1992. Clear Channel didn't start going hard right until I want to say 1994 or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,596
23,707
136
OK I see the Fairness Doctrine was ended in 1987, but right wing media had not yet emerged as a huge force in 1992. Clear Channel didn't start going hard right until I want to say 1994 or so.
I agree that right wing media is a force today in a way it definitely was not in 1992.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,477
3,542
136
The Democrats need to stop modeling their party on Bill Clinton. This isn't 1992. There is no Fairness Doctrine keeping our news media halfway balanced so that everyone is watching and listening to roughly the same news. So there are very very few actual swing voters. And the country isn't nearly as conservative as it was back in the days of Reagan. Plus there is no Ross Perot running a robust spoiler campaign against the GOP. The Democrats nominated a competent, accomplished, fiscal conservative / social liberal in 2016 and where did it get us? Trump was hated just as much in 2016 as he is now.
How would you describe Obama then?

Look at Bloomberg's record and try to find where it's radically different. It's fair to say Obama may be more conservative than this entire D field. The voters can't be won back? Who says that?

You have to use a better yardstick than Hillary, whom never proved she could win a competitive election, and was the most unpopular candidate in history save one.

Really, the only national, competitive race she ever won was against Bernie, which certainly isn't a ringing endorsement of his electoral strength.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
23,933
1,680
126
Question: How fucking stupid does one have to be to get himself impeached over interfering in a 5th-place candidate’s campaign? Asking for a friend...
In Trump's defense, Biden was leading the pack when this whole Ukraine debacle started. If anything, I think that the impeachment might have convinced some voters that Hunter Biden was a shady character, and that his Dad might have been covering for him.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,678
126
In Trump's defense, Biden was leading the pack when this whole Ukraine debacle started. If anything, I think that the impeachment might have convinced some voters that Hunter Biden was a shady character, and that his Dad might have been covering for him.
His appointment to the board of Burisma was transparently corrupt, even if Trump's actions in applying political pressure to the Ukrainian Government were indefensible. Both can be true. It didn't seem like the corruption was a big story in the primaries, but it's possible it hurt him with voters anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,289
2,926
136
tbf, the strategy is still sound. Trump's team identified Biden as the opponent most likely to defeat him. So either you start hammering him early on and keep repeating the same ridiculous lies throughout the general, or completely remove him from the equation by preventing his nomination.
It is also worth pointing out that the crimes he committed to dig up dirt on Biden is the just what we know about. It is quite possible that he has been doing similar stuff for all the likely candidates and it just didn't come to light because it was not as major of a move as illegally withholding billions of dollars of aid, and Trump has basically shut down any ability of anyone to oversee his Administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,609
2,051
136
How would you describe Obama then?

Look at Bloomberg's record and try to find where it's radically different. It's fair to say Obama may be more conservative than this entire D field. The voters can't be won back? Who says that?

You have to use a better yardstick than Hillary, whom never proved she could win a competitive election, and was the most unpopular candidate in history save one.

Really, the only national, competitive race she ever won was against Bernie, which certainly isn't a ringing endorsement of his electoral strength.
I would describe Obama as someone who ran as another FDR coming to fix another economy bought to brink of collapse by Republicans. Obama hugely excited the Democratic base in 2008. And then disappointed that base by trying to find compromise with Republicans and got his ass handed to him in the 2010 midterms for it. The only thing that saved him in 2012 was Ryan coming after peoples' Medicare.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,835
2,350
136
Seems like there are two problems here that present significant problems for your theory.

1) Mondale was not a centrist - his most significant primary opponent attacked him as being too liberal.
2) Bill Clinton ran as a centrist and won twice.
No and No.

Clinton ran against Perot and the GOP which diluted the election much more so than Nader and Johnson/ Stein did.

And anything left of insane right wing is too liberal so whatever.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,835
2,350
136
BTW This is Biden's 3rd time running for President and he has never, ever, won even one Presidential State Primary.

Can he keep his streak alive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ASK THE COMMUNITY