Dem Dems Aiming At 2020

C'mon Tulsi and the Yang Wang... err gang. Something something gimme that $1000 a month for the automation that has yet to happen!

2020 will be interesting, maybe.

I used to hang out with communists and socialists in my wonderfully misspent youth. I could separate at least nine varieties of communists by year and vineyard.

Unfortunately Biden is STILL in the lead.

Bloomberg's Money Did Buy Him Some Love
He's now in 5th place after massive ad spend
Newser

TLDR: $30m in one week...

Live look at Michael Bloomberg:

Kamala Harris Drops Out of the Presidential Race
Seattle Stranger

She never recovered from that bomb Tulsi dropped on her in the first debate.

That was brutal.

She also had that gaff CBS Interview

She says it's her race that is the reason shes not popular. She does realize it is a primary, so only dems can vote..so essentially you are saying dems don't like you cause you're a black woman. So basically is she calling the dem party racist and discriminatory?

Am I missing something here?

I quoted it and linked directly to abcnews. I read it a while ago and I was like eh?

Not knocking the dem party because I don't have a dog in that race but it seems to be a pattern of blaming things other then oneself

Been a pattern since they lost the 2016 election. Honestly taking a step back, virtually everything in the Progressive ideology is about avoiding personal responsibility for anything. No matter what happens, it's always someone else's fault.

Sorry Saevel, blaming things other then oneself is a part of the human condition. Its not exclusive to politicians, but they get quoted so we notice.

Slore, what you are missing is that it isn't a primary yet. This is poll and cash driven. She is down in the pols, short on funding, and will be trapped in DC all Dec.

The polls try to identify likely dem primary voters but they don't call cell phones, only land lines. So maybe she is calling likely dem primary voters with land lines racist, IDK.

Is O'Rourke still in? I kinda liked the cut of the guy's jib but I found it pretty funny when he said the guns thing and committed political suicide.

No, he is out.

Yeah, "we want to take your guns away" = he can't even run for senator anymore.

Jebus fricking Christ, he comes from Texas.

This is why we need campaign reform now! I think we can all agree there is way to much money in politics for both parties. I post this because the current complaint is Trump was getting help from foreign agents... Now it is uncovered that so was Clinton!


Millions illegally funneled in to a 2016 presidential candidates campaign.

justice.gov indictment.

More info on the 8 charged

They still trying to force Tulsi out of the candidacy entirely? I mean it's all rigged already, the DNC knows who they want to push for the 2020 and this is all theater.

Indeed. On the bright side, they curtailed the power of the superdelegates, but the fact that they even still exist is pretty shady. I don't know how they can complain about the Electoral College when they've got that going on in their own party.

Wanted to post this in the other thread but I think it belongs here instead.

Tulsi Gabbard doing an interview on the Rubin Report.

We can listen to her and see she's not the crazy hyper leftist we've become used to.

Apparently they were equal opportunity bribers "campaign contributers" who funded both candidates.

As a side note, I have noticed over the years that those who donate to both parties and candidates tend to give republicans more than democrats. I wonder what this says / means. But not on topic here.

I do not believe there is an organized effort to force her out.

The general train of thought by the left was she was being set up by Russia to run as a third party candidate to strip votes from the dem nominee.

But she recently said she wouldn't do that. (I am not up to date on current lefty thought about her.)

She does remain the candidate favored by Russia and several less savory nations. Also by Trump.

Oooo .... the superdelegates....

There's a LOT of mixed thought about that. The most basic arguments:

1, Well the serving members of the party should have input.
1 A, Whom? As in like governors, senators?
1 B, How much input?

2, Well, we are democrats and superdelegates are undemocratic.

As I consider myself a left libertarian and a Jeffersonian democrat, my sympathies lie with 2.

You realize how crazy that sounds right....

The fact that the major Media folks were pushing that is why I know it was a coordinated effort to push her out. Primaries are controlled by the media entities, the amount of coverage they give someone directly impacts the poll numbers of that candidate. If they don't want a candidate to go forward, they just go radio silent about them and let them fade away. It's the same thing that the Republicans did to Trump back in 2012. In 2016 Trump beat them by being so loud and obnoxious that the media couldn't help but to talk about him, negatively of course. Didn't matter that it was negative. people heard about him, got interested and looked into it.

Tulsi doesn't sound completely psychotic like the 18 other Democratic candidates. She has no chance.


Whoever is the craziest will win the nomination.

I would say paranoid. But just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Points of fact: She has praised Assad, she is the hottest dem candidate in the Russian media, Russian trolls and bots have been helping her.

I really like that she said she would not run as a spoiler.

Ok ... let me use her other title.

Major Gabbard is most certainly not a Russian plant or connected to Russia in any way shape or form.



She's currently serving as an officer in the Hawaii National Guard and was deployed to Iraq as a combat medic when she was enlisted. This puts her in an interesting position as running for the PoTUS while simultaneously having the current PoTUS in her chain of command.

She's got a helluva lot more street cred and appeal with moderates then Biden, Warren or Sanders.

I said the Russians liked her. I did not imply she liked them.

Maybe it is the dems using bots to say that the Russians are doing it to discredit her? What possible good can come to Russia from a military officer becoming president? If anything you would think they would want someone inexperienced with war/military like obama was so they can push and push like Crimea without any retaliation. Obamas policy of "Stop or I will say Stop again" was exactly what they wanted.

No you said this.


That implies cooperation.

And that entire rumor was started by the prominent Democrats in the Party, Clinton and Biden as mud to push her out of the news. "She's a Russian plant, don't pay any attention to her and don't ask why we're refusing to give her any screen time".

Didn't you guys also push that Trump was a Russian plant who would destroy the USA? Pushed it so hard that you even had a back door Democrat controlled investigation into it? I mean even you guys can't be so dense as to not notice when your perceptions are being manipulated.

So I guess if Russia doesn't want you to support Biden or Warren they just need to run a bunch of Pro-Biden and Pro-Warren ads and then leak that they are behind it to someone at WaPo.

Anyhow, none of this matters since the DNC controls who gets to the debate platform and who gets the air time. They do it by controlling the "authorized" polls, meaning they only accept poll data they agree with and reject data they don't. Rogue candidates like Tulsi wont' be allowed anywhere near the final candidacy much less to actually be the nominee. Lets remember the Democrat nominee is merely the figure head representative of The Party, their policies and positions are not important, only their loyalty to The Party and willingness to do as they are told.

And this isn't just the Democrat party, the Republicans did the exact same thing for decades. They did it all the way up to 2016 when candidate Trump threatened to run as a third party candidate if they did it again, resulting in a huge number of candidates and the unlikeliest of them being elected.

When I saw the large diverse number of Democrat candidates I really hoped the Democrats would follow suit and have a real open primary so we could get options. Then I saw the games the Media Industrial Complex was playing and started to suspect it was a farce, and now it's turning out to be accurate. The top four remaining candidates are interchangeable party loyalists who will do whatever the DNC chairman tells them to do.

Here's the rub, I don't really like Trump that much as a President. On a scale from 1 to 10 he's around a ~5, which sounds bad until we remember that the past several Presidents and candidates were around a 3. We haven't had a "good" President in a long time because of how the parties control the candidacy process to ensure only "bad" aka "loyal" candidates get fielded as options. I as hoping his election and subsequent successful Presidency, would cause both parties to rethink their positions and allow competent candidates who aren't loyalists.

Unfortunately I was wrong, the Democrats fell back to their old ways only with the radical screeching dialed up to 11.