SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Its really depressing how Warren's actions over the last couple months have made me go from strongly supporting her to borderline-hating her.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Warren attacking Bernie again, got booed. She just kept right at it, saying "his campaign relentless attacks everyone", and bringing up Ocasio-Cortez suggesting that they might compromise on Medicare for All. She's really trying to burn every bridge with Sanders and his supporters, isn't she?

Looks like we need to break out the snake emojis again.

Snake emoji? Give me a break. Warren is doing the only thing she can do. Buttigieg and Klobuchar ate her lunch among college-educated, somewhat-liberal voters. Sanders supporters are, basically, an island unto themselves. Directly appealing to them is an exercise in futility. Her best option is to remind people that she's establishment-friendly and has more of pulse than Joe Biden. Apart from that, she just has to wait for Buttigieg and Klobuchar to murder each other in a fit of mutual annihilation, and then appeal to their newly orphaned supporters who aren't excited about the prospect of the Presidential election being between grumpy old New Yorkers.

As for the debate, based on the reaction of the audience tonight, they came to see a billionaire drawn-and-quartered and they got that in spades. I thought Warren had a fairly good night. Buttigieg and Klobuchar mostly just had a duel to the death. Biden, well, I suppose he gets points for showing up. Sanders got the opportunity to experience a small taste of the lines of attack he'll face in November; and basically responded with the same lines that he gave in every other debate ... I dare anyone to name someone more practiced at staying on-message come hell or high water. Bloomberg got attacked so much that all the sick burns laid on him mostly just ended up fading into background noise by the end ... much like his coma-inducing closing statement.

[The Romulan Republic]

Warren attacking Bernie again, got booed. She just kept right at it, saying "his campaign relentless attacks everyone", and bringing up Ocasio-Cortez suggesting that they might compromise on Medicare for All. She's really trying to burn every bridge with Sanders and his supporters, isn't she?

Looks like we need to break out the snake emojis again.

Snake emoji? Give me a break. Warren is doing the only thing she can do. Buttigieg and Klobuchar ate her lunch among college-educated, somewhat-liberal voters. Sanders supporters are, basically, an island unto themselves. Directly appealing to them is an exercise in futility. Her best option is to remind people that she's establishment-friendly and has more of pulse than Joe Biden. Apart from that, she just has to wait for Buttigieg and Klobuchar to murder each other in a fit of mutual annihilation, and then appeal to their newly orphaned supporters who aren't excited about the prospect of the Presidential election being between grumpy old New Yorkers.

Bernie isn't really employing these sorts of smears against Warren, no matter what anyone says. Granted, he doesn't need to- he's winning without it.

As to what Warren could do? She could run a policy-based campaign, rather than resorting to Bernie Bros smears drawn from the Clinton 2016 playbook. If that doesn't work for her, because more voters want what Bernie's selling? Then she could drop out, and accept that she isn't going to be the nominee (in case it wasn't obvious after she came in neither first nor second in the first two contests, a performance she is on track to repeat in Nevada), rather than trying to take down the party's likely eventual nominee with her on the way to the bottom.

If she's not going to drop out, and she is certainly under no obligation to do so, then she could at least remember that we are going to have to unite this party if we want to beat Trump, and that villifying people who may end up being the nominee is therefore counterproductive, and indeed shockingly selfish and irresponsible, considering that nothing less than the American Republic and possibly the planetary biosphere is at stake in this election. Frankly, they could all stand to remember that. Anyone tearing down fellow Democrats right now needs to ask themselves if what they're doing is really in the beset interests of... life on Earth.

Not that I think its going to break Bernie. Bernie seems to benefit, if anything, from these attacks, as it makes him more sympathetic, and plays to his narrative that he is fighting a rigged system (it also appeals to the "anti-SJW" crowd, of course, but fuck them). Its something, in a way, that he does share in common with Trump, albeit for different reasons- he's almost mudslinging-proof.

As for the debate, based on the reaction of the audience tonight, they came to see a billionaire drawn-and-quartered and they got that in spades.

Good.

I thought Warren had a fairly good night. Buttigieg and Klobuchar mostly just had a duel to the death. Biden, well, I suppose he gets points for showing up. Sanders got the opportunity to experience a small taste of the lines of attack he'll face in November; and basically responded with the same lines that he gave in every other debate ... I dare anyone to name someone more practiced at staying on-message come hell or high water.

That's probably for the best. A reputation for consistency and integrity (even if somewhat exaggerated) is perhaps Sanders' strongest suit, and sticking on-message will serve him infinitely better than being dragged down into the mudslinging fray, which could then be used as proof that he and his supporters are just bullies, trolls, bigots, etc.

Bloomberg got attacked so much that all the sick burns laid on him mostly just ended up fading into background noise by the end ... much like his coma-inducing closing statement.

Eeeeexcellent

Perhaps I'm being overly-optimistic, but I have a feeling that Bloomberg, for all the uproar around him, may turn out to be just one more flash in the pan who briefly rises, gets dog-piled, and just as swiftly falls (see: Harris, Warren, Buttigieg as soon as the Nevada results come in).

Bernie is the one who's support stays. He may be growing slowly (though he is growing-over 30% in some recent polling), but he doesn't plummet into the abyss either.

[The Romulan Republic]

And No One* is back in the lead, with Bernie close behind.

FiveThirtyEight did indeed get a new batch of polls in, and Bernie lead them all:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/el ... -them-all/

10 national polls, and Bernie lead every single one (albeit his lead ranged from a couple of percent to double digits, depending on the poll).



*I feel there's an Arya Stark for President joke here. Or maybe a Rey for President joke, at least till RoS.

[The Romulan Republic]

A particularly disturbing moment tonight came when the candidates were asked if, in the event of a brokered convention, the candidate with the most votes should win. Only Bernie said yes. The others all would not commit to honouring the vote, and said that the process should play out.

Now, let's be clear: that is not "cheating". In the event no candidate gets a majority, then the pledged delegates and super delegates are all free to vote for whoever they want. But if one believes, sincerely, in the democratic process, and if one wants a united party, then the winner should ultimately be the candidate who got the most votes. A brokered convention could and likely would be catastrophically divisive, but taking the nomination from the candidate who got the most votes (realistically, at this point, Sanders) to give it to someone else, would probably cause a riot on the floor, and be all but tantamount to handing Trump a crown.

And these candidates are all standing up there saying, in effect, that they'd rather that than respect the will of the voters, if the voters pick someone other than them. Not, mind you, that I think they'd all pick Bloomberg over Bernie or something. But they're probably all hoping that they can weasel their way in as the "compromise candidate" (Hah, fat chance), or, failing that, that they can sell their support to the highest bidder in exchange for the VP slot or a cabinet post or something. And they're willing to spit on the voters and gravely jeopardize party unity to do it.

I'll vote blue in the general because I don't want America to be a fascist dictatorship, but there is no way I'd vote for anyone but Bernie in the primary. Not after that. Line. Fucking. Crossed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Iowa isn't over:

https://cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/iow ... index.html

(CNN)Representatives for the presidential campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders have requested that the Iowa Democratic Party begin a recount of select caucus sites that they had previously asked the party recanvassed, a party aide tells CNN.

Campaigns that participated in the recanvass -- those of Buttigieg, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- had until 6:45 p.m. CT Wednesday to inform the Iowa Democratic Party that they would like all or some of the sites they requested be recanvassed to be recounted. The aide said that the party had not received a request from Warren's campaign.

While Elizabeth Warren's campaign did observe the recanvass process, they did not submit a formal request for either a recanvass or a recount, the party aide said.

The rules of a recount in Iowa stipulate that a campaign's request may only be within the scope of the original recanvass. It cannot expand further than that, and it can include all the precincts recanvassed or look at a smaller amount of precincts.

The Sanders campaign originally filed recanvass requests in 28 precincts, while the Buttigieg campaign filed recanvass requests for 66 precincts and all in-state satellite precincts. The total requests were 143 precincts after duplicates were removed.

Once a recount request is submitted, the state Recount/Recanvass Committee will meet in consultation with their legal advisers and the DNC Voter Protection Team to adjudicate the request within 48 hours of receipt. The state party will provide the campaigns with the cost of the recount, which they must pay.

The Iowa Democratic Party will provide the campaigns with a schedule of the recount and allow up to two observers per campaign in the recount room, but they are not allowed to raise questions or engage with the staff conducting the procedure. The recount is not open to press or the public.

The Iowa Democratic Party ended the recanvass of more than 100 caucus precincts on Tuesday. The changes made through the process resulted in Buttigieg's lead over Sanders tightening to a fraction of a standard delegate equivalent, with Buttigieg now holding 26.188% and Sanders at 26.184%.

The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party.

The recanvass led the Iowa Democratic Party to correct the counts for 26 precincts where "misapplication of the rules affected delegate allocation" and three precincts where "the reported final alignment did not match what was on the math worksheet," according to the state party. The party also announced that representative from the campaigns of Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren were on site during the recanvass.

The Iowa caucus results still remain outstanding because the caucus process descended into chaos two weeks ago. A faulty app that was supposed to streamline the caucus process, an overwhelmed call-center meant to act as a backup to the app and poor communication between the party and the campaigns marred the caucus process and left Democrats with no results the night of voting.

The chaos in Iowa has hung over Saturday's Nevada caucuses, with the state party there getting rid of the same app they planned to use and increasing the number of training sessions ahead of caucus day.

[The Romulan Republic]

The legendary Southern Firewall has finally broken- Bernie ties Biden in new South Carolina poll:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... olina-poll

[Knife]

I don't think the debate last night hurt or helped Bernie, but I think it's going to hurt Pete and destroy Bloomberg (on Super Tuesday, not Nevada since he's not running there); and help Warren.

[FireNexus]

A particularly disturbing moment tonight came when the candidates were asked if, in the event of a brokered convention, the candidate with the most votes should win. Only Bernie said yes. The others all would not commit to honouring the vote, and said that the process should play out.

I’ll just leave this here:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11571480/b ... s-campaign

Why Bernie Sanders is lobbying superdelegates — even though they won't save his campaign

Jeff SteinMay 2, 2016, 6:00pm EDT
Bernie Sanders is appealing to the superdelegates to help his campaign.

Bernie Sanders vowed to continue the Democratic primary past the last primary race in June, forecasting a much longer battle with Hillary Clinton than her allies had hoped.

"[Clinton] will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia," Sanders said at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on Sunday. "In other words, it will be a contested convention."

Down by huge margins among the delegates chosen by voters, Sanders had already opened the door for the party's unelected superdelegates to throw him the nomination. At the press conference, Sanders emphasized one part of this pitch: that the superdelegates in states he's won should swing their support behind his campaign.

"Those superdelegates in states where either candidate has won a landslide victory ought to seriously reflect on whether they should cast their superdelegate vote in line with the wishes of the people in their states," Sanders said.

This superdelegate strategy sounds reasonable, but it's got at least one major flaw: it wouldn't actually win Bernie the nomination.

As NPR's Tamara Keith points out, Clinton would still be ahead in the overall delegate count even if the superdelegates from the states Sanders won shifted to his side.

"If you mandate that the superdelegates be divvied up proportionally, the margin for Clinton narrows further," says the Washington Post's Philip Bump. "But, in the same way that she still has a lead in pledged delegates because of proportional distribution, she has a lead with superdelegates, too."

Why is Bernie Sanders lobbying superdelegates to save his campaign?

So if flipping the superdelegates in states he's won wouldn't give him the nomination, why is Sanders lobbying them?

There are a few different plausible explanations for what might be going on here, according to Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at the University of Michigan.

One is that Sanders genuinely thinks he's the best hope for the Democratic Party, and that he believes that the superdelegates really can be persuaded to rescue his candidacy.

Given how long the veteran senator has been around DC, however, it's almost hard to believe that Sanders himself thinks the superdelegates can save him. The superdelegates are made up of establishment Democratic officials who have been overwhelmingly loyal to Clinton since before the campaign began.

But there's another possible explanation for Sanders's superdelegate strategy — one that doesn't depend on him banking on a scenario that essentially nobody thinks has a chance of succeeding.

The superdelegates are not elected to their roles for the Democratic National Convention, but they do frequently hold elected office — as mayors, governors, and other key positions in the Democratic Party.

Some of these officials' constituents are vocal, passionate Sanders supporters who are not happy to see their local representatives support Clinton.

One Sanders supporter, for instance,started a "Superdelegate List," posting the names and phone numbers of superdelegates for targeted lobbying. More than 3,000 people in Vermont have signed a petition criticizing four of the state's superdelegates — including a sitting governor and senator — for endorsing Clinton despite their state's overwhelming support for Sanders.

By calling for pressure on superdelegates in regions he won, Bernie can demonstrate the power and extent of his vision for the party.

Another possible benefit of this plan: Even if they don't get Sanders the nomination, having more delegates in his corner will make him look stronger for the Democratic convention in Philadelphia this July. That could help his efforts to push for the party to include his policy positions in its official platform, which is approved at the convention.

Of the 712 superdelegates, 520 are siding with Clinton while just 39 have said they'll back Sanders, according to Bloomberg News.

"The more they get that number down, that could potentially help him at the convention change the rule or change the planks," Grossmann says. "The closer he is, the better off he is — that's the line of argument he's making for superdelegates. It's not so he has those people; it's just so the outcome appears closer than it does now."

If Sanders's goal is to push the party to incorporate his priorities, a sustained lobbying drive on superdelegates may be one way to do it. Or maybe he's thinks he's so obviously the right choice for the nomination that others can be convinced, too.

[Ralin]

Doesn't 'most votes' here probably mean they get a plurality of the primary vote but not a majority?

[The Romulan Republic]

Doesn't 'most votes' here probably mean they get a plurality of the primary vote but not a majority?

Yes. That's exactly what it means.

Unfortunately, though, there's no provision for a run-off between the top two candidates, nor is there preferential voting, so whichever candidate gets the most votes is, arguably at least, the clearest expression of the voters' will.

[The Romulan Republic]

A particularly disturbing moment tonight came when the candidates were asked if, in the event of a brokered convention, the candidate with the most votes should win. Only Bernie said yes. The others all would not commit to honouring the vote, and said that the process should play out.

I’ll just leave this here:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11571480/b ... s-campaign

Didn't end up playing out that way, and as noted above, he probably didn't have any expectation of actually stealing the nomination (the situation was completely different, there was no chance of a brokered convention between several nominees), but it would certainly have been a mistake for Sanders to do that. IIRC, my view at the time was generally that Sanders should remain in the race until all primary contests had voted, then (presuming he didn't have a majority of pledged delegates) drop out and endorse Clinton. Which is more or less what ultimately happened.

Had Sanders gone Bernie or Bust, I would not be supporting him today, and I doubt most of his voters would be, either.

Edit: In other news, Bloomberg's slide into irrelevance may have begun, following in the footsteps of Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, and Buttigieg:

https://businessinsider.com/peak-perfor ... 0-new-poll

After seeing consistent gains for months, Michael Bloomberg may have reached his ceiling in voter support for the Democratic nomination, according to Insider's latest poll.

Between the last poll in the field ahead of the New Hampshire Primary and yesterday, Bloomberg saw a spike in voters saying they would be disatisfied with him as the nominee to face President Donald Trump in November.

For the past several months, Insider has been conducting a recurring SurveyMonkey Audience poll to track the state of the 2020 Democratic primary field. You can download every poll here, down to the individual respondent data. (Read more about how the Insider Democratic primary tracker works here).

Bloomberg's entrance has been fascinating to watch. Over the five last polls of 2019, Bloomberg's awareness among Democrats averaged 65%, but following an unprecedented advertising campaign, has over the most recent three polls surged to 75%. Many of those people have been amenable to the possibility of Bloomberg's nomination.

Of the three polls taken from mid-November to early December, 43% of the people aware of Bloomberg would not be satisfied in the event he became the Democratic nominee, compared to 21% who thought he world be, a net satisfaction of anywhere from -19 to -25 percentage points week to week.

Things have steadily turned around, for Bloomberg: In the first two polls of 2020, 33% of Democrats aware of Bloomberg would be satisfied if he were nominee, and 34% would not be.

Averaging the polls taken January 29-30 and February 7-8, 42% of Democrats aware of him would be satisfied with Bloomberg as nominee, and just 31% of Democrats would not be satisfied with Bloomberg as nominee. That's an outstanding turnaround in such a short time.

Bloomberg, however, has been the target of an onslaught of negative press in the weeks following the New Hampshire primary, and the latest poll — though it may just be one poll and ideally we'd prefer more data — shows a swell of negative perception.

The poll was taken February 18, 2020 with 1,125 respondents of whom 443 were registed to vote and said they would probably do so in their state's Democratic primary. It showed that while 41% of Democrats aware of him would be satisfied in the event Bloomberg was nominee, essentially unchanged since the February 7 poll, 38% would be unsatisfied, up 7 percentage points over the week. The overall margin of error in the poll is plus or minus three percentage points.

Bloomberg's net satisfaction rating fell precipitously — it only recently became positive in the poll taken January 22-23 — falling from +12 percentage points to +3, the first significant decline in months.

With Bloomberg drawing attacks from his opponents and increased attention ahead of his debate debut tonight, voters will get a closer look at the candidate beyond his brief cameos at the tail end of his myriad TV ads.

SurveyMonkey Audience polls from a national sample balanced by census data of age and gender. Respondents are incentivized to complete surveys through charitable contributions. Generally speaking, digital polling tends to skew toward people with access to the internet. SurveyMonkey Audience doesn't try to weigh its sample based on race or income. A total of 1,125 respondents were collected January 22, 2020, a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points with a 95% confidence level.

[Gandalf]

I think the most interesting thing about the debate was the weird Buttigieg/Klobuchar interaction. His lines about being a mayor were clearly waiting for someone to bumble right into them, and Klobuchar I guess needed to score a hit at some point to keep up the Klobucharge.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, its kind of sad watching them fight for the title of "candidate who can't win anything outside the Midwest".

[Mr Bean]

I mean, its kind of sad watching them fight for the title of "candidate who can't win anything outside the Midwest".

I think it's great because Mrs Third Place(The Klob) Vs Mr Second place (Mayor Pete) means Bernie Sanders can continue on being Mr First Place since 35% vs 22% vs 20% means he's on his way and win enough states and he starts picking up 50% 60% or even 70%.

[The Romulan Republic]

True enough.

While I'm leery of Bernie/Trump comparisons (because they're usually meant to smear Bernie as a populist who's just like Trump), it does kind of mirror the 2016 Republican primary- most of the party wanted to block Trump, but the vote was split between so many candidates that the Never Trumpers (sadly) could never unite behind one person. The same effect seems to be helping Sanders now (although it should be noted, again, that recent polling has him winning a one on one race vs Bloomberg by 20 points).

[The Romulan Republic]

Mail ballot filled out for the Colorado primary. If you haven't filled your ballot out yet, don't leave it to the last minute!

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I mean, its kind of sad watching them fight for the title of "candidate who can't win anything outside the Midwest".

I think it's great because Mrs Third Place(The Klob) Vs Mr Second place (Mayor Pete) means Bernie Sanders can continue on being Mr First Place since 35% vs 22% vs 20% means he's on his way and win enough states and he starts picking up 50% 60% or even 70%.

This is why, if Sanders ends up the Democratic nominee, the Not-Sanders lane will only have themselves to blame. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar collectively earned 51% of the vote in Iowa, and 52.4% of the vote in New Hampshire. A unity moderate candidate could've easily put Sanders to bed. Instead, what they're getting is a bunch of Not-Sanders with non-viable campaigns, about to go broke, and the least-suited member of the Democratic mega-donor class jumps into the race himself while the rest of the mega-donors stand by and watch.

Although I guess I get why nobody wants to drop out. In their minds, at least, a brokered convention benefits all of them. It sure won't benefit Sanders ... his only hope is to come into the convention with more than 1990 delegates. if he comes in with anything but a majority, Bloomberg (already working on this angle,) Biden, or some party apparatchik ends up the nominee.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, its kind of sad watching them fight for the title of "candidate who can't win anything outside the Midwest".

I think it's great because Mrs Third Place(The Klob) Vs Mr Second place (Mayor Pete) means Bernie Sanders can continue on being Mr First Place since 35% vs 22% vs 20% means he's on his way and win enough states and he starts picking up 50% 60% or even 70%.

This is why, if Sanders ends up the Democratic nominee, the Not-Sanders lane will only have themselves to blame. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar collectively earned 51% of the vote in Iowa, and 52.4% of the vote in New Hampshire. A unity moderate candidate could've easily put Sanders to bed. Instead, what they're getting is a bunch of Not-Sanders with non-viable campaigns, about to go broke, and the least-suited member of the Democratic mega-donor class jumps into the race himself while the rest of the mega-donors stand by and watch.

In fairness, one should acknowledge that a portion of voters who would otherwise have gone to Sanders were likely sucked up by Yang, Gabbard, Warren, and possibly Steyer, among others. The progressive wings and Centrist wings are both strong, and both of them have suffered divisions. However, the progressive wing appears to be coalescing faster, and that is certainly helping Sanders.

Although I guess I get why nobody wants to drop out. In their minds, at least, a brokered convention benefits all of them.

Which is stunningly selfish and reckless of them, when we see how divisive its already gotten. They're putting their personal ambition ahead of party unity.

Someone should remind them that any "benefits" they could concievably get from a brokered convention (cabinet posts, VP offers, concessions on platform, etc.) will mean less than nothing if the party loses to Trump in November.

It sure won't benefit Sanders ... his only hope is to come into the convention with more than 1990 delegates. if he comes in with anything but a majority, Bloomberg (already working on this angle,) Biden, or some party apparatchik ends up the nominee.

This is the "wisdom" of those who view the entire Democratic Party as an anti-Sanders conspiracy, but I'm not at all sure it holds water. There are, in fact, Democrats who do not particularly like Sanders, but who know that to blatantly snatch the nomination from the candidate who got the most votes at the convention would pretty much guarantee a Bernie-or-Bust walkout on a scale almost certain to guarantee Trump's reelection. Some of the anti-Sanders folks are probably willing to torpedo the party (and the country) to stop him, but I'm skeptical that all of them are, when push comes to shove.

There are also delegates who will be pledged to others (like Warren) who would probably prefer Sanders to someone like Biden or (God forbid) Bloomberg, if their favorite doesn't have the votes. And in a brokered convention, all those pledged delegates would be free to vote for whom they please- including Sanders. So we'd see a lot of negotiating and deal-making on the floor, I suspect, and leading up to the convention, to try to get a majority behind Sanders.

If Sanders comes to the convention with just barely the most delegates, far from a majority, he's in for a tough time. If he's very close, though, it would be hard to deny him the nomination, even though I don't doubt some would attempt it, party unity be damned.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders has been warned that Russia is attempting to help his campaign:

https://cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/ber ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race.

It remains unclear how Russia is attempting to help Sanders, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the effort. The revelation comes a day after it was reported that the US intelligence community believes Moscow is taking steps to help President Donald Trump win and at a time when Sanders is emerging as the Democratic front-runner.

Speaking to reporters in Bakersfield, California, Friday afternoon, Sanders confirmed that his campaign was briefed about the Kremlin's efforts about a month ago and condemned Russia's attempts to interfere in US elections.

"It was not clear what role they're going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are going to get involved in this campaign, and look, here's the message to Russia: stay out of American elections," Sanders said.

"And what they are doing, by the way, the ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016 and that is the ugliest thing they are doing -- is they are trying to cause chaos, they are trying to cause hatred in America."

The Vermont senator speculated that the news broke on Friday afternoon in order to have an impact on Saturday's Nevada caucuses, in which he is a leading candidate.

Two of Sanders' centrist Democratic rivals seized on the news, with Michael Bloomberg's campaign calling Russian support for Sanders a "no-brainer" for Moscow.

"They either nominate the weakest candidate to take on their puppet Trump, or they elect a socialist as President," Bloomberg's campaign tweeted.

And former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's Arlette Saenz in Las Vegas that the report indicates that Putin doesn't want him to be elected.

Trump briefed
Trump has been briefed on the Russian effort to help Sanders, a White House official said. The timing of the briefing wasn't clear.

At a rally in Las Vegas before the Post's report broke, Trump suggested Moscow would prefer Sanders to win, not him, making no mention of the fact he'd been briefed about the matter.

"Doesn't he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) want to see who the Democrat's going to be? Wouldn't you rather have, let's say, Bernie? Wouldn't he rather have Bernie, who honeymooned in Moscow?" Trump said.

At Wednesday night's debate, Sanders was asked about online aggression from some of his supporters. Without mentioning the intelligence briefing, he replied, "All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me."

Asked Friday by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" why the Sanders campaign didn't disclose Russia's involvement, Ro Khanna, a national co-chair of the campaign, said the Vermont senator didn't want to publicly reveal sensitive information. As for why Moscow would want to boost Sanders, Khanna said he has "no idea what motivates Vladimir Putin."

Russia's long-running effort to interfere in US elections
Russian interference in the last presidential election -- which the US intelligence community believes was aimed at boosting Trump's candidacy and hurting his opponent, Hillary Clinton -- led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Part of the election interference included a Russian government-linked troll operation that sought to help Trump's candidacy and undercut that of Clinton in part by posting messages in support of Sanders.

Since 2016, US intelligence officials have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections, noting threats to both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential race.

On Thursday, CNN and other outlets reported that the intelligence community's top election security official delivered a briefing to lawmakers last week warning them that the intelligence community believes Russia is already taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election to help Trump.

The President has repeatedly downplayed the threat as he has dismissed any suggestion that Kremlin influence played a role in his election.

US intelligence officials, however, have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections.
Last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Russia was continuing to "engage in malign foreign influence" online with the goal of sowing division and discord, "and to generate controversy, to generate distrust in our democratic institutions in our electoral process."

This story is breaking and will be updated.

CNN's Donie O'Sullivan, Jim Acosta, Zachary Cohen, Dana Bash and Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

Contrast Sanders' response to Fuhrer Donald's.

Of course, this probably won't stop certain folks from saying that Sanders winning is no different than Trump winning in 2016, that Sanders is a Russian asset, that Sanders colluded, that Sanders isn't the legitimate nominee... which might even be part of the Kremlin's intent. Conspiratorial-sounding? Sure. But remember, Putin's ultimately backing Trump, with the aim of destabilizing the US system. If he can cause a clusterfuck at the Democratic convention, with Centrists trying to block Bernie on the grounds that Russia helped him, they'll happily do it. The Kremlin's going to have their fingers in as many pies as possible, so that whatever the outcome, they cause the maximum disruption.

Also lol at Bloomberg suggesting that the Russians would want to elect Sanders because he's a socialist. Of course, I'm sure he knows its bullshit, but there are plenty of morons out there who think that Russia is still communist, and will swallow this hook line and sinker.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://rollingstone.com/politics/polit ... rt-956687/

Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia. Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.

I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

In 2016, Russia used internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.

In my view, because of our extraordinary grassroots organization, because of our grassroots fundraising and because of our agenda that speaks to the needs of working class people, we are the strongest campaign to defeat Donald Trump and that is exactly what we will do.

Spoken like a true President, and a true American.

[The Romulan Republic]

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS PROJECTED TO WIN THE NEVADA CAUCUSES, CURRENT TALLY 46.6% SANDERS, 19.2% BIDEN, 15.4% BUTTIGIEG, 10.3% WARREN.




Sanders can't win outside heavily white states, you say?

Sanders can't win more than 30% anywhere, you say?

FEEL THE FUCKING BERN, I SAY.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, just heard some of the talking heads on TV report that following the last debate, Bloomberg's favorabillity ratings dropped 19 points!

Edit: Bernie now leads the overall delegate count by 28 to Buttigieg's 22, with Warren at 8, Klobuchar at 7, and Biden at 6, although they're still counting in Nevada.

[The Romulan Republic]

Twitter just suspended about 70 pro-Bloomberg accounts for "platform manipulation":

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/fe ... nipulation

Twitter has started suspending and restricting dozens of accounts posting content promoting the Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg.


Barack Obama isn't running in 2020 – so why is he in all the campaign ads?
Read more
“We took enforcement action on about 70 accounts, which includes a combination of permanent suspensions and account challenges to verify ownership,” a Twitter spokeswoman said.

The action was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Twitter said the accounts violated its platform manipulation and spam policy, which prohibits coordination among accounts to amplify or disrupt conversation.

This can refer to creating several accounts to post duplicative content but also includes “coordinating with or compensating others to engage in artificial engagement or amplification, even if the people involved use only one account”.

“We ask that all of our deputy field organizers identify themselves as working on behalf of the Mike Bloomberg 2020 campaign on their social media accounts,” said Sabrina Singh, a Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman, adding that content “shared by staffers and volunteers to their network of friends and family” was “not intended to mislead anyone”.

The billionaire’s campaign, which has been pouring unparalleled amounts of money into online advertising, is hiring hundreds of digital organizers to support the candidate, including by pushing content to their own social media channels.

The Wall Street Journal reported that these organizers in California receive $2,500 a month to promote Bloomberg’s candidacy through actions such as posting on social media to their own networks.

This month, a paid partnership between the former New York mayor’s campaign and popular Instagram meme accounts pushed Facebook to announce it was allowing US-based political candidates to run branded or sponsored content on its social networking platforms.

[AniThyng]

So I saw on AOC's twitter she's starting a PAC. (CNN article follows) I see the chatter that she should have backed Sema Hernandez instead of Cristina Ramirez for the TX primary. What say SDN?


https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/21/poli ... ortez-pac/

(CNN)Democratic freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York announced on Friday that her political action committee will endorse a series of progressive women congressional candidates, including challengers to incumbent Democrats.

Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter that the group, Courage to Change, is endorsing seven women candidates. Six of them are running for House seats and one is running for a Senate seat.
Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, one of the candidates to get an endorsement, is running in the Democratic primary in the race to challenge Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. She will be competing in a crowded field of Democratic candidates, including MJ Hegar, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the campaign arm for Senate Democrats.
Two of the candidates are mounting primary challenges to incumbent House Democrats and have been previously endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez: Marie Newman, a Democrat challenging Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois and Jessica Cisneros, a Democrat challenging Democratic Rep. Henry Cueller in Texas.
One of the candidates, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, is running in the Democratic primary to challenge Republican Rep. Don Bacon.
Several of the endorsed Democratic candidates, Teresa Fernandez in New Mexico, Georgette Gomez in California and Samelys Lopez in New York, are running for open congressional seats where the current officeholders are either not seeking reelection or running for a different office.
The endorsements are from Courage to Change, Ocasio-Cortez's leadership PAC, which has raised $340,297 to date, through 23,469 contributions, Corbin Trent, a senior aide to Ocasio-Cortez, told CNN. They plan to max out to each of the endorsees.
News of the endorsements was first reported by The New York Times.
The endorsements stand as the high-profile congresswoman's latest move to leverage her own political following in a bid to boost progressive candidates running for office. The outcome of the races may serve as a test of how well that will translate and in some cases, the endorsements will put her at odds with the Democratic establishment.
"It's time to elect a progressive majority in Congress accountable to strong, grassroots movements that push support for issues like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, racial justice, & more," the congresswoman said on Twitter in announcing the endorsements.
Ocasio-Cortez announced the formation of Courage to Change in January, saying at the time on Twitter, "The rumors are true. Today we're announcing the Courage to Change PAC - and we need your help. We are pushing the envelope in DC by rewarding those who reject lobbyist money, fight for working families,& welcome newcomers."