Democrats 2020

[lpetrich]

I decided to consider how the participants are dressed, ...

I decided to create a post that is essentially an updated version of that post.

Sources of pictures:

• First debate: What We Learned From the 2020 Democratic Debates - The New York Times
• Second debate: Two Debates Down. Ten to Go. - The New York Times
• Third debate: Democratic debate: the best and most substantive answers of the night - Vox
• CNN climate Town Hall
• Fourth debate: Democratic Presidential Debate: Who Won the Fourth One? | SPIN
• Fifth debate: 5 Highlights From the Fifth Democratic Presidential Debate
• Sixth debate: Watch live: Democrats debate for 6th and final time in 2019 - Chicago Tribune
• Seventh debate: Democratic debate tonight: Here's everything you need to know
• Eighth debate: Democratic debate: Buttigieg, Sanders, Biden square off before New Hampshire primary
• Ninth debate: Ninth Democratic Debate Draws Record 19.7 Million Viewers – Variety

All the men dressed in business suits with black or dark blue pants and jackets, and white or light blue shirts. However, they did have a lot of variety of ties, and only Andrew Yang had no tie whenever he appeared. Beto O'Rourke was tieless in the climate one but not in the other ones.

Elizabeth Warren wore pantsuits in all of them, with black pants and shirts, and red, purple, dark purple, and bluish-green jackets

Kamala Harris wore all-black pantsuits in the first three and the town hall, a dark blue pantsuit with a white shirt in the fourth one, and an off-white pantsuit with a purple shirt in the fifth one.

Amy Klobuchar wore a skirtsuit in the first one, a jacketed dress (or skirtsuit?) in the fourth to ninth ones, and pantsuits in the others. The skirtsuit had a black skirt and jacket and a red shirt, the jacketed dresses were all dark purple, all blue, and all red, and the pantsuits had black pants and shirts, and red and blue-green jackets.

Kirsten Gillibrand wore a blue dress in the first one and a red dress in the second one.

Tulsi Gabbard wore pantsuits in the first, second, fourth, and fifth ones, where she appeared. In the first one, black pants and shirt and a red jacket, and in the second, fourth, and fifth ones, all white.

Marianne Williamson wore pantsuits in the first and second one. In the first one, light gray-cyan pants and jacket and some print shirt, and in the second one, black pants and jacket and white shirt.

 

[angelo]

In a couple of pics of the Bern, at first sight I thought it an add for KFC.

 

[PyramidHead]

Warren set to receive zero delegates in Nevada, after also receiving zero in NH. Absolutely gobsmacked at how different this would be playing out if she were the frontrunner and Bernie had those numbers. Can you imagine the calls to drop out?

I didn't see this posted here, but Warren has also quietly started accepting SuperPAC money, and her justification is literally "men in the race are doing it, so women should also be able to". She has shown the worst political instincts imaginable at every turn, from her DNA to her Medicare for All plan to her heel turn against Bernie at the 11th hour. Might have something to do with hiring all of the staffers from every losing campaign

 

[lpetrich]

With the numbers from Google search and 96% of caucuses reporting, I used some proportional-allocation algorithms, like for proportional representation.

• D'Hondt Highest Averages: {{"BS", 6589, 18}, {"JB", 2872, 8}, {"PB", 1960, 5}, {"EW", 1381,3}, {"AK", 652, 1}, {"TS", 595, 1}}
• Hare Largest Remainder: {{"BS", 6589, 17}, {"JB", 2872, 7}, {"PB", 1960, 5}, {"EW", 1381,4}, {"AK", 652, 2}, {"TS", 595, 1}}

So BS will get half or nearly half of the state's delegates.

The actual numbers are BS 14, JB 4, PB 2, and all the others 0.

Five delegates were uncommitted, and some dropout candidates got similar numbers, but Tulsi Gabbard got 0 delegates.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

With the numbers from Google search and 96% of caucuses reporting, I used some proportional-allocation algorithms, like for proportional representation.

• D'Hondt Highest Averages: {{"BS", 6589, 18}, {"JB", 2872, 8}, {"PB", 1960, 5}, {"EW", 1381,3}, {"AK", 652, 1}, {"TS", 595, 1}}
• Hare Largest Remainder: {{"BS", 6589, 17}, {"JB", 2872, 7}, {"PB", 1960, 5}, {"EW", 1381,4}, {"AK", 652, 2}, {"TS", 595, 1}}

So BS will get half or nearly half of the state's delegates.

The actual numbers are BS 14, JB 4, PB 2, and all the others 0.

Five delegates were uncommitted, and some dropout candidates got similar numbers, but Tulsi Gabbard got 0 delegates.

I totally appreciate this work. Could you link to results you used as a source starting number?

Also, something seems off. The sum of your delegates is different than the sum of the actual delegate assignments, even after accounting for the 5 uncommitted.

18 BS + 8 JB + 5 PB + 3 EW + 1 TS = 35
versus
14 BS + 4 JB + 2 PB + 5 Und = 25

 

[lpetrich]

I totally appreciate this work. Could you link to results you used as a source starting number?

Also, something seems off. The sum of your delegates is different than the sum of the actual delegate assignments, even after accounting for the 5 uncommitted.

Those are caucus-level delegates and not the final delegates.

BTW, the NYT now has results for 100% of the caucuses counted: Nevada Caucuses 2020: Live Election Results - The New York Times

[table="class: grid"]
[tr][td]Candidate[/td][td]CCD's[/td][td]LR[/td][td]HA[/td][td]LR3[/td][td]HA3[/td][td]Dels[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bernie Sanders[/td][td]6788[/td][td]17[/td][td]18[/td][td]18[/td][td]18[/td][td]24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Joe Biden[/td][td]2927[/td][td]7[/td][td]8[/td][td]6[/td][td]9[/td][td]9[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pete Buttigieg[/td][td]2073[/td][td]5[/td][td]5[/td][td]6[/td][td]6[/td][td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elizabeth Warren[/td][td]1406[/td][td]3[/td][td]3[/td][td]3[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tom Steyer[/td][td]682[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Amy Klobuchar[/td][td]603[/td][td]2[/td][td]1[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tulsi Gabbard[/td][td]4[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Andrew Yang[/td][td]1[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Deval Patrick[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Michael Bennet[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]John Delaney[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td](uncommitted)[/td][td]7[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][td]0[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Delegates by proportional allocation:

• LR = Largest remainder
• HA = Highest averages (D'Hondt)
• LR3 = Largest remainder in groups of 3
• HA3 = Highest averages (D'Hondt) in groups of 3

CCD's are caucus-level delegates.

 

[Derec]

BTW, the NYT now has results for 100% of the caucuses counted: Nevada Caucuses 2020: Live Election Results - The New York Times

Your candidate math ignores (deliberately?) the fact that there is a 15% threshold and that only some delegates are based on statewide results, with others being allocated by congressional district. That's why Buttigieg could get some delegates even though he just (14.3%) fell short of the 15% hurdle. By the way, Buttigieg actually won a four counties, something Biden did not do. Even 4.7% statewide Steyer won one (ironically, he won in Mineral County by one CCD, 16-15 against Buttigieg)



In other news, both Dow Jones and S&P500 fell more than 3% today. I can't believe it's all (as the news are reporting) due to the Coronavirus panic. I think at least some of it is due to Bernie receiving 2/3 of the NV delegates and there being a serious danger he will get the nomination, and the presidency. There is a specter haunting the Democratic Primaries ...

 

[Treedbear]

...
Israel is not racist. First of all, Muslim is not a race. Second, there are a million Arabs living as citizens in Israel. There are zero Jews living in Gaza, and Abbas has vowed that zero Jews will live in any future Arab Palestinian state.

Jew is not a race either. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Intelligence Sources: All Candidates Are Russian Agents But Pete Buttigieg

Following shocking reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post that Moscow is simultaneously working to both re-elect Donald Trump and ensure the nomination of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary race, NNC has obtained further information confirming that nearly all candidates currently running for president are in fact covert agents of the Russian government.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the lone candidate not literally conducting espionage on behalf of the Russian government is Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

“Intelligence has revealed that Mr. Buttigieg is at this time the only candidate who we can count on not to place our nation’s interests square in the hands of Vladimir Putin,” an anonymous source in the Central Intelligence Agency told NNC on Saturday.

“In fact Mr. Buttigieg is the only candidate running with the skill, the experience and the multilingual relatability needed to bridge our nation’s deep divisions and bring Americans together in this time of uncontrolled hostility,” the CIA source continued.

“Because in truth, the unity of our togetherness is in the freedom of our democracy,” added the source. “The long and winding road to the American flag was built upon the steps of our founding fathers. You don’t have to be a big shot Washington insider to see that the problems our nation faces are tearing us apart at our own peril with radical divisive rhetoric saying you need to burn down the establishment and voice a concrete foreign policy position. And that’s why I for one believe we don’t have to choose between revolution and the status quo: we can come together and find solutions that help the working class and billionaires.”

Experts say these new revelations on Russian election interference should consume one hundred percent of all news coverage for the entirety of 2020, and that Democrats should definitely spend all their time from now until November focusing solely on President Trump’s suspicious ties to the Russian government.

“I can’t think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong if Democrats focused exclusively on the possibility that the president conspired with Vladimir Putin in the lead-up to the election in November,” said Les Overton of the influential think tank Americans for an American America. “If Democrats want to prevent another four years of Trump they should hit him where they know it hurts: nonstop 24/7 Russia conspiracy theories. That’s what Americans really care about.”

Asked if it’s possible that undue emphasis on Russian collusion could prove a fruitless endeavor given Trump’s soaring approval rating after impeachment resulted in his acquittal and the Mueller report failed to indict a single American for conspiring with the Russian government, Overton disagreed and said this time will be “like, totally different.”

“Democrats should definitely invest all of their mental and emotional energy in this Trump-Russia scandal, because this time it’s a sure thing,” Overton said. “Put all your eggs in this basket and get your hopes up very, very high. The big BOOM is coming any minute now, I promise.”

Overton then departed with an envelope full of cash which he said was his life savings, reportedly to invest in lottery tickets.

 

[Derec]

Jew is not a race either. “Jewish” was never a category for race in the US Census.

I never said it was. But it is an ethnicity as well as religion, unlike Islam which is only a religion.

 

[Derec]

This article sums up why I can't stand Elizabeth Warren. She has been drinking way to deeply from fashionable nonsense coming out contemporary academia, fully embracing stuff like "intersectionality", or as I call it, "wokeness".

Elizabeth Warren Is Running an Unapologetically Intersectional Campaign

Unfortunately, The Nation is fully embracing capitalist paywalls so the full article is not readable without giving them these socialists some filthy lucre, but luckily DailyKos has some excerpts here.

§ In her plan on “Valuing the Work of Women of Color” (yes, she actually has a plan for that—a claim no other candidate can make), Warren acknowledges how the interplay of sexual and gender identities (as well as ability) with racial identities can exacerbate the obstacles women of color face.
[...]
When she calls black trans women the “backbone of democracy” and focuses on her own education in the politics of intersectionality and apologizes quickly over the treatment of black women in her Nevada campaign office she actually “does” intersectional politics.
[...]
Admission to a school won’t prevent a beating on the sidewalk outside.”

And as we all know, only those who are intersections of a sufficient number of certain categories can become victims of senseless violence. Np cis- heterosexual while male was ever attacked on the street.


And of course, DailyKos is outwokenessing Warren and Suzanna Walters (author of the Nation piece) who complain that it's not PC for a white (hey, isn't she Cherokee?) woman to be hailed as intersectional, as she is not an intersection of more than one preferred identity. I mean she is not even lesbian or trans, even if she puts gratuitous pronouns in her Twitter bio.

Does anybody think Dems will win against Trump with "discourse" like this? It makes the Orange Menace sound like the smart one.

 

[Politesse]

Elizabeth Warren is a spokesperson for misunderstanding intersectionality theory.

 

[Derec]

Elizabeth Warren is a spokesperson for misunderstanding intersectionality theory.

 

[lpetrich]

BTW, the NYT now has results for 100% of the caucuses counted: Nevada Caucuses 2020: Live Election Results - The New York Times

Your candidate math ignores (deliberately?) the fact that there is a 15% threshold and that only some delegates are based on statewide results, with others being allocated by congressional district.

I wanted to do statewide proportional allocation.

Using a statewide threshold of 15% gives (Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden) = (25, 11) delegates or (24,12) for groups of 3 delegates.


Sanders Senior Advisor Chuck Rocha: How we got 73% of Latinos - YouTube - "Bernie Sanders' Senior Advisor Chuck Rocha reacts to his boss' Nevada victory and lays out the campaign's plans for South Carolina and Super Tuesday."

By reaching out to them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Assuming that Sanders is or becomes the Democratic nominee, did he lose Florida with his most recent comments about Castro?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-florida.html

Comments from Senator Bernie Sanders praising aspects of the Communist Cuban revolution drew a forceful rebuke on Monday from Cuban-Americans, Florida Democrats and several of Mr. Sanders’s opponents, who cast him as too extreme in his views to represent the party as its presidential nominee.

Mr. Sanders’s remarks threatened to undercut his candidacy in the nation’s largest presidential battleground state as he seeks to build momentum on a broader scale after a series of early primary victories. In Florida, Mr. Sanders stands to alienate not just Cubans but also a far more diverse group of Latinos, including Colombians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, than the ones he won overwhelmingly in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.

“I’m totally disgusted and insulted,” said Lourdes Diaz, the president of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in Broward County, who is Cuban-American. “Maybe this will open people’s eyes to how super, super liberal and radical Bernie is. I’m not going to defend him anymore. I’m over it.”

I know that people often love Sanders because he is supposedly consistent, but there are times when you're running in a primary race for the presidency of the US, that you need to be more sensitive and careful that you don't say things that can be easily misunderstood by people who you need to attract to your candidacy.

He has a long habit of praising dictatorial regimes, especially in the past. I know all of this baggage will be used against him by Trump and company, so what the fuck is he thinking by adding more baggage! When people ask me why I am very highly skeptical of a Sanders victory, this is just one example. I don't like it when people bring up what candidates have said or done decades ago, but candidates need to have some polish and not double down on their same mistakes.

I guess anything is possible, but it looks right now like Bernie can kiss Florida goodbye.

Here's what he could have said:

We welcome immigrants from Cuba and we value their education. That would be a true statement, and it wouldn't be insulting to anyone who despises Castro but loves their heritage.

 

[Politesse]

It's just a standard issue media circus, only political junkies will remember it a week from now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Assuming that Sanders is or becomes the Democratic nominee, did he lose Florida with his most recent comments about Castro?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-florida.html

Comments from Senator Bernie Sanders praising aspects of the Communist Cuban revolution drew a forceful rebuke on Monday from Cuban-Americans, Florida Democrats and several of Mr. Sanders’s opponents, who cast him as too extreme in his views to represent the party as its presidential nominee.

Mr. Sanders’s remarks threatened to undercut his candidacy in the nation’s largest presidential battleground state as he seeks to build momentum on a broader scale after a series of early primary victories. In Florida, Mr. Sanders stands to alienate not just Cubans but also a far more diverse group of Latinos, including Colombians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, than the ones he won overwhelmingly in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.

“I’m totally disgusted and insulted,” said Lourdes Diaz, the president of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in Broward County, who is Cuban-American. “Maybe this will open people’s eyes to how super, super liberal and radical Bernie is. I’m not going to defend him anymore. I’m over it.”

I know that people often love Sanders because he is supposedly consistent, but there are times when you're running in a primary race for the presidency of the US, that you need to be more sensitive and careful that you don't say things that can be easily misunderstood by people who you need to attract to your candidacy.

He has a long habit of praising dictatorial regimes, especially in the past. I know all of this baggage will be used against him by Trump and company, so what the fuck is he thinking by adding more baggage! When people ask me why I am very highly skeptical of a Sanders victory, this is just one example. I don't like it when people bring up what candidates have said or done decades ago, but candidates need to have some polish and not double down on their same mistakes.

I guess anything is possible, but it looks right now like Bernie can kiss Florida goodbye.

Here's what he could have said:

We welcome immigrants from Cuba and we value their education. That would be a true statement, and it wouldn't be insulting to anyone who despises Castro but loves their heritage.

On the flip side, a large segment of the population sees through not answering questions directly. You are talking about triangulating instead as if people when they see pivoting don't recognize it. We're not some super class of highly intelligent who are better than everyone else who can be easily tricked by words, non-answers, and wordsmithing. While many, many people are stupid, they still have instincts and can read when an answer is evasive or trying to appeal to someone.

This is something Third Way Democratic politicians need to understand more.

Now, I can't read the whole the article and can only see the initial few sentences and headline. It seems like he said that it would be unfair to say everything was bad about Cuba. I agree 100%. It's also unfair to say everything is bad with the Trump regime or just about any regime. Health care in Cuba has been pretty good and many of Cuba's problems have to do with externalities such as the economic and other sanctions, not things internal to Cuba. That said, they are also some bad things about Cuba, but we can't pretend there are not a few decent policies, just because Fidel was a dictator who took down a fascist and then never let go of control.

Now I found a different link that doesn't have a wall where I can look at a bigger quote rather than a quote-mine in the first sentences.

Here is what Bernie said:
"We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?"

1. Are you very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba?
2. Did the Castro regime improve the literacy of Cuba?
3. Doesn't Bernie admit that he is very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba?

 

[southernhybrid]

Sorry, but I disagree. IF this comment was so insignificant, why are so many Democrats in Florida having a fit about it? To me, this is one of Sanders problems. He speaks like a raving maniac, without carefully thinking through what he says. Now, that might not bother the two of you, but I assure you it's going to have an impact on a lot of other voters. Will he still be able to win in November. I remain highly skeptical. I know exactly what he said, but people who were victims of Castro, don't want to be told anything good about his regime. Sanders has no tact whatsoever.

And as far as only political junkies remembering this, I don't think you're considering the tons of adds, which will snip out the worst part of his comment. I predict that will played again and again, especially in Florida and other states that have a lot of Hispanic immigrants that came from oppressive countries. This is going to probably be the nastiest race we've ever seen. And Sanders better learn to think before he speaks, if he's even capable of that. I have my doubts.

I used to think he was the kooky leftie in Congress. I even liked the guy when I was younger. Now, I see him way in over his head, ego driven without a realistic plan. The only things that might save him is for the economy to tank, or for people to finally get so disgusted with Trump that they will vote for any alternative.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that Sanders will lose Florida over this one casual comment. What he said is true. Not everything that Communists have done has been bad. Cubans are highly educated and have made some considerable advances in medical care. However, it was a comment that could, and will, be taken out of context and used against him. He really needs to avoid putting himself in the role of a salesman for socialism. He should do more to explain what has been wrong with these regimes, and I think he is starting to realize that. He should do more to tie Trump to the dictators that Trump has cozied up to.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think that Sanders will lose Florida over this one casual comment. What he said is true. Not everything that Communists have done has been bad. Cubans are highly educated and have made some considerable advances in medical care. However, it was a comment that could, and will, be taken out of context and used against him. He really needs to avoid putting himself in the role of a salesman for socialism. He should do more to explain what has been wrong with these regimes, and I think he is starting to realize that. He should do more to tie Trump to the dictators that Trump has cozied up to.

He is in a tough spot, because many of his supporters are aware of the truth about Castro(which is that he was a hero to Cuba and one of the greatest people who ever lived), but he is running for the president of a settler-colonial empire that is committed to snuffing out socialist countries and painting their leaders as despots. The American left doesn't want to confront that yet and just wants comfortable socialism within its own borders. If Bernie fails to enact his reforms due to the institutional barriers that will be placed in his way, my hope is that the left will become radicalized by this and rethink their indoctrination about Cuba, the USSR, and other places where socialism is being built. But now isn't the time for that conversation, as most of the comments on this forum demonstrate.