Many people around the world have never seen a paid political ad on television because it is forbidden. In most of the EU, it is felt that such things give an unfair advantage to the candidates with the most money. So anyway, here is an example of an ad by somebody with all the money in the world.
I don't have two hours to write this, but a friend posted it, and I want you to understand the "Warren Reasoning". Give it a read.
"Someone asked why I support Warren instead of Bernie. Here's a recreation of my original answer.
First, I don't have anything against Bernie. I voted for him in the primary last time. I expected to make him my first choice this time but I take my due diligence as a voter very seriously so I looked at all the candidates. I initially liked Harris a lot (and figured the contrast between her and trumpster would work to the Democrats advantage) but aspects of her past as a prosecutor bothered me. I looked at Booker but his ties to big pharma bother me. The high drug prices must be addressed, and I don't have faith he could get much done with that due to those connections. Both of them might be great in a different election year.
I liked Pete at first even though I'm not looking for a centrist. Then last summer he got a HUGE surge in donations without a matching surge in polling. That didn't make sense. Later reporting showed that the donations were coming from tech billionaires in Silicon Valley and that he is friends with a Facebook co-founder. That might not have been a deal breaker if it wasn't for the fact that he will not commit to regulating big tech companies. I work with FB, Google and Amazon (through AWS) on my day job so I know they *must* be regulated, if only to support efforts against corporate influence, etc.
I liked Castro A LOT but the handwriting was on the wall early on that he wouldn't get traction without a miracle. However, he and Warren appear to have an agreement that he'll be her VP. He's campaigning for her with his brother and that makes me very happy. Their policies are compatible. It's my dream ticket now.
Yang is doing what Bernie did last time -- bringing an idea to the mainstream. But Yang's implementation plan for UBI has flaws. It might even be very naive. So I like his UBI idea and some of the topics he brings up but his implementation isn't good enough.
Fuck the billionaire candidates. I especially find it laughable that Steyer seems to think that saying "I'm a real billionaire. Trump isn't" will make a difference. Trumpers don't care.
I cheered when Gabbard entered the race because a WOC who is a veteran and Hindu sounded interesting. I kept an open mind about her meeting with Assad but the more I looked, the more she turned out to be a dictator sympathizer and this year's Jill Stein. No.
I started reading Warren's plans in regard to the wealth tax and then Medicare for All. I was a compliance officer at a healthcare brokerage when ACA was being implemented so I have a lot of insight as to what it's going to take to make a wholesale change to our healthcare system. Anyone who claims they can fully implement M4A on day one without Congress is naive or lying. A total changeover solely by any president isn't feasible. Having read Warren's plan, I believe it has the best chance of being successfully implemented and, unlike ACA, the three phase implementation (to be clear, it's three phases within three years so M4A will be fully implemented within her first term) is set up to move more and more people to M4A so people can try it, like it and support the next step.
ACA had bad PR and marketing made worse by Republican opposition. People didn't start liking it until around the time it was being taken away. Warren compensates for that.
Warren is very smart and has experience navigating the process of creating and changing a system for the better despite opposition from Republicans and Wall Street. We need that sort of experience to get stuff done. Heck, she found the legal criteria for a president to unilaterally lower prices on the most common drugs.
She's a policy wonk who uses that info to put together plans that can actually work. I don't want pie-in-the-sky ideas. I want someone who has big ideas AND concrete, tangible plans for how to pay for and implement them. Of all the campaign documentation I've read, hers meet that criteria the best.
I also really like Warren's plans for LBGTQA rights, the disability community, regulating giant corporations, Native American rights, etc. While I haven't read every plan of hers yet (there are a lot!) the ones I have read are well thought out AND she credits experts from within each marginalized community or policy oversight group (depending upon the topic) who contributed to the plan. She gets buy-in from the marginalized communities involved.
And Warren walks her talk. A disabled friend who is politically active attended a Warren/Castro rally to check them out. She was highly impressed by how well-prepared every aspect of their accessibility accommodations were. She didn't even have to ask for certain things. They had sign language interpreters. They started the event by announcing their pronouns. She said she had never felt so seen and welcome at any event before. That tells me Warren's disability and LBGTQA positions aren't just lip service.
Warren also made a point of looking at plans by people who dropped out of the race and if they had something she believed in she went to that person and asked their permission to add it to her platform with their name. So Harris' plan for laws to ensure body autonomy and Gillibrand's plans for childcare (Warren already had a plan to pay for universal childcare but Gillibrand had details she didn't) were incorporated into her campaign. Why? Because she said that just because a marginalized person leaves the table their issues shouldn't. That's someone with their heart in the right place, and the humility to realize they don't have all the ideas.
Things like that and how she reaches out to other marginalized communities and LISTENS to their concerns and needs -- I want that in a leader. I also think it's a quality that will be essential in building unity both in the party and nationally for the long haul.
She's been talking a lot lately about corruption in D.C. and how corporations have essentially bought the process because that's an issue people all across the political spectrum can agree upon. She still plans to do the wealth tax, M4A, etc. but she's got to get voters in the door to listen before she can pitch them on those topics. That's called strategy but she gets accused of "backpedaling" if she doesn't list *every* policy position she has in every three minute soundbite.
Last time around the media was working hard to erase Bernie because he scared them. This time they're erasing Warren. That tells you something, IMO.
I like Bernie (though I swear some of his supporters are trying to change that). He's my second choice, but I want a mix of ideas/systemic change AND concrete plans for accomplishing them. Warren hits that sweet spot for me. I've watched several interviews with Bernie, including the extended NYT endorsement interview, where, in response to the question "How will you implement your ideas if the GOP holds the Senate" he says something along the lines of "our movement will make them cooperate."
I have a background in communications, film and video production and criticism. I watch for the cuts in the interviews. There aren't any that could involve lopping off an answer. That's both too vague and too idealistic for my taste. It also feels vaguely cultish.
Warren does talk about the three phase implementation of M4A giving people a chance to like it so they can fight for it but it's tied to a more practical plan that Medicare would have been expanded for at least a year and a half before mid-term elections to galvanize voters. You could argue both approaches are similar but one is definitely more grounded and practical.
Bernie is my second choice, followed by Klobuchar, but Warren's mix of wanting to make big, systemic change and practical plans with methods to pay for them is what I want in a leader. Funding for some of Bernie's plans is definitely fuzzy in places, and I want more implementation details.
Whoever beats trump is going to have a mess on their hands. They have to rebuild the government and get Congress to pass laws to prevent repeats in the future, like forcing prospective candidates to turn over their tax returns when they file to run. The sort of practical, methodical approach Warren has demonstrated for years will be needed because we have to fix things as fast as possible, like restoring the Scientific Council and rebuilding the State Dept, which trump has been hollowing out.
And I think Warren can make mincemeat of trump in a general campaign. Bernie's debate performance has been mixed. Warren went to college the first time on a debate scholarship. He's going to attack. She'll do a mix of getting under his skin and making him look unhinged. It won't change his cultish base, but it will work for other people.
Plus, you know, there is an element of "judge people by their enemies" and the fact that Warren scares Bezos, Zuck and even Bloomberg so much makes me happy. Oh, and teeing up Castro as a prospective running mate is the cherry on top. He's young, smart, eloquent and Latino. He could put Texas back in play and force the GOP to defend it (it's been trending purplish, albeit reddish purple).
I'd like to see Bernie pick Harris, Andrew Gillim or Stacy Abrams as a running mate but have seen no signs of that sort of thinking. So I don't dislike Bernie but careful consideration and deep research has made me an enthusiastic supporter for Warren as my first choice. She isn't perfect. No candidate is. But she ticks more boxes that are important to me."
I can add them, K2, but they weren’t part of the original Facebook post formatting. Since some Any Porters are not on FB, I copied and pasted the entire article, but included the link for those who are on FB.
Joe Biden seriously must have dementia. This is both sad and disturbing. He couldn't otherwise have thought these stories he's been telling the past week in SC and NV wouldn't ever be fact checked.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has begun telling a story on the campaign trail of his being arrested in South Africa decades ago. The only problem is, he doesn’t appear to have mentioned this incident publicly before this month. The Democratic presidential candidate told some version of the following story at one campaign event in South Carolina and two in Nevada over the past two weeks, per The New York Times: On a visit to South Africa decades ago, he claims he tried to visit Nelson Mandela in prison and got arrested. “This day, 30 years ago, Nelson Mandela walked out of prison and entered into discussions about apartheid,” Biden can be heard saying in a video from the South Carolina event on Feb. 11. “I had the great honor of meeting him. I had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see him on [Robben] Island.” Former civil rights activist and Georgia congressman Andrew Young was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the late 1970s when Biden visited South Africa. Young told the Times that he had traveled with then-Sen. Biden to South Africa but had never been arrested there — “and I don’t think he was, either,” Young said.
Can you imagine video like this Trump-Bloomberg bromance stuff ever coming out with Bernie in it? Of course not. Just like there you're never going to find out about dozens of sexual harassment lawsuits with paid-off victims, or find out about Bernie's racist past in some Trump attack ad. I'm not sure whether Bloomberg supporters are just in complete denial or whether they actually somehow deep inside *want* to lose to Trump.
It's that zombie-like buying into perceived "electability". I believe that Bloomberg supporters have latched onto the notion that Bloomberg is smart guy because he's so rich and that people who voted for Trump because they believe he's a smart rich guy would be attracted to Bloomberg.
I don't get this. What Bernie racist past? He war arrested for supporting civil rights protests.
I'll simply quote my post and apologize for any ambiguity. "...you're never going to find out about dozens of sexual harassment lawsuits with paid-off victims, or find out about Bernie's racist past in some Trump attack ad."
Bernie hasn't got a smelly load of sleaze in his past like Biden and Bloomberg do that can be sprung on him by Trump.
Congratulations, Kimby ~ you've found yet another goofy-ass opinion piece proving nothing more than what we already know; to wit, that many registered Democrats are scared, status quo sucking Republicans at heart.
It’s a train wreck. No matter who is the nominee. We NEED to keep the House and WIN the Senate to stop Trump.
It's not a train wreck, it's a diverse electorate coalescing around the best bet to unseat Trump and flip the Senate. Sanders is the best and likeliest way to get there, even if he scares old. conservative white people.
And you're needlessly alarming yourself by reading all the pundits who put forth the idea that the sky will fall should we deviate from the status quo. Take a look at all the pictures & videos of Sanders' meetings and rallies so you can absorb the range of people supporting him. I do not believe that the "moderate" commentators are really taking those people and their wishes and their voting power into account.
We know that Bernie Sanders frightens and appalls old, conservative white people. My question to you is: when, ever in the history of the US, has it happened that old, conservative white people have been right about *anything* politically controversial in retrospect? I can’t think of a single time, ever. It’s like the complete opposite of infallibility; always wrong 100% of the time.
Have old, conservative white people ever been right about anything political? Even once?
"not available to readers in Europe" because some American websites are too conservative to adopt modern privacy rules. I admit that the only reason I wanted to click on the link was to find out why "fuck" was part of the sequence.
Memo to Mike: Bloomberg needs to go medieval on Bernie if he wants any chance of beating Trump By Rick Wilson New York Daily News
Feb 21, 2020 | 8:50 PM
Bring him down first, Mike. Bring him down first, Mike. (MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images) Dear Mr. Bloomberg, or may I call you Mike?
So, Wednesday didn’t quite go according to plan, did it?
You’ve invested $400 million dollars in the biggest, fastest, shiniest campaign toy that money can buy. You’ve moved from zero to competitive in all the polls. But for far too much of the time on that debate stage, you still wound up looking and sounding like a guy who just fell off the pumpkin truck.
We know, you’re a billionaire, and super smart, to boot. You are accustomed to people telling you that you’re the brightest, richest, funniest and best-looking guy in the room. I get it. But like many billionaires, you have some cognitive blind spots and probably think that your skill in one domain transfers to all others.
You’re missing a few key elements in this fight, so here’s a little pro bono tough love.
First, your prep for the debate was some Dollar Store garbage. It wasn’t your answers on money in politics or buying the election that were problematic. You walked into Elizabeth Warren’s NDA question buzzsaw and got flattened. Those answers were, and I’ll use a technical term here, disastrous. Thankfully, you cleaned that up Friday afternoon, which was smart. In the era of #MeToo, it would be malpractice to be as unprepared as you were for those questions. How much are you paying those consultants again?
Second, you need to kill off Bernie Sanders before you can fight Donald Trump. With all your resources and all your assets, I know it’s tempting to look at this race as an exercise in which you’re just going to numerically game the system and roll it up by winning states where no one else can afford to compete. After all, you’re kind of a quant, a numbers guy.
This isn’t a system that responds only to financial inputs. It’s twitchy, dumb, and weird. It responds more to emotion than logic.
Sanders is racing ahead of the field right now borne on a tidal wave of stupid, short-term thinking on the part of the Democratic electorate. You know — as do most sane people — that Trump is salivating to run against Red Bernie. Unfortunately, the Democratic primary electorate isn’t most people. They live in a land of magical realism where imaginary armies of progressive rural Wisconsin voters can’t wait to march the aristocrats off to the metaphorical guillotine.
In 2016, every Republican in the field played a stupid game regarding Donald Trump. Their mental argument went something like this: “Well, I’ll just wait for Trump to take out Marco” or “I’ll just take a wait for Trump to take out Jeb” or “I’ll just wait for Trump to take out Ted Cruz.” Even though the field was considered chock-full of smart, able candidates, in the end none of them survived because they failed to go after the main enemy right away.
The other players in the field went after you, not Bernie, because they’re afraid of Sanders’ oh-so-Trumplike Bro and bot army. They think attacking him will “depress turnout” or that it will “divide the party” or that they’ll “need his voters later.” Hillary Clinton thought that and didn’t do what needed to be done. She believed to the last he would help her campaign, and he didn’t.
There’s nothing he has in terms of support that you can’t buy, build or substitute with other voters.
Here’s the irony: You’re the only one in the party who can stop him, and you’re the worst possible candidate to do it. Everyone else who was snapping at you on that stage was conscious of the fact that Bernie is the real target, but you were the tempting target.
You need to educate Democratic voters to the hard fact that Sanders will lose to Trump, giving you two bites of the same apple: purging the Democratic Party of its poison while also keeping up your brand image as the Trump slayer.
You also need to communicate that Sanders will cause the Democrats to be unable to recapture the Senate because the states where the Senate race is being played out this year are not woke progressive hotbeds but rather moderate and reddish states. If they understand the stakes, even the wokest Democrats might — slowly — start to get it.
Make the case that with Bernie, the race isn’t a referendum on Trump, but a contest of competing economic systems, one that Americans generally believe in, and one that they fear and hate. Americans like their socialism rebranded and disguised as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, not fiery revolution.
Don’t fall for the bogus logic that attacking Bernie will depress Democratic turnout in the fall. Sanders’ voters aren’t loyal Democrats anyway. They are fanatics, they are cultists, they are the other side of the ideological and political horseshoe from Trumpers. The fact that about 12% of his voters went for Trump in 2016 is a permanent screw-you to the establishment Democratic Party.
Hillary Clinton learned this lesson four years ago: You can’t negotiate with political terrorists. You can’t placate the implacable. Nothing you ever do will make Sanders and his people happy. The only thing you can do is win. There is no progressive uprising in the wings, and Trump motivates your base more powerfully than Bernie’s campaign of Free Stuff and revolutionary babble, but first you have to do the work.
You can get back to hitting Trump soon enough. A quick reality check on Trump’s political fortunes has a balance sheet with a lot of deficits. His polling is still largely upside down — if not outright negative — in many of the swing states both sides need to win this fall.
Heck, Trump’s barely beating even the lowest-polling Democrats in Texas, according to the new Texas Tribune poll. His administration is a rolling sea of corruption stories, with this week’s heavy-handed attempt to save Roger Stone from prison time and the DOJ’s brand-new attempt to save Mike Flynn from the same fate were demonstrations that the rule of law is dead.
As a pro-Iraq-war billionaire who plays lots of footsie with China and has a well-earned reputation as a nanny nag, you’re not a great messenger. But you’re probably the best one Dems have got.
Ask yourself why Donald Trump is working so hard to pick Bernie as his opponent. Trump’s staff recognizes that the imaginary movement exists in Bernie’s head of a proletarian wave of progressive voters throughout the Midwest swing states is an utter illusion. There is no there there. There’s no outcry in the heartland or another in swing states like Florida and Arizona for Medicare for All, or whatever collectivist fantasy motivates Red Depends baby Bernie Sanders.
After South Carolina, you’ll have a very, very brief window to reset the playing field. You have a moment to get Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg on board. There are six cars in the center lane and one in the left. You can do the math.
The Daily News Flash Newsletter
Catch up on the day’s top five stories every weekday afternoon.
Burn him down. The fate of your campaign, and the fate of the Democratic presidential campaign in the fall depends on it. You can always either win those voters back or and expand your voter pool in other places and other ways. Worry about that later. Right now, you have one job.
Body found hanging from tree in Central Park Border protection officer kills wife and two children after family trip to Disney’s Animal Kingdom 42-year-old Zamboni driver plays 28 minutes as Hurricanes’ emergency goalie, makes eight saves in historic win I know this all sounds harsh, and I know this all sounds off the agenda for the campaign your people thought you could run. You cannot shortcut this. You cannot escape your destiny.
The stakes are enormous, and existential.
The Democratic Party as an institution is a shambolic mess. It is broke, incompetent, dangerous to itself and others, and led by people who don’t have the will and the skill to do this job. They’re whistling past the graveyard and pretending this is going to be an easy lift in the fall. This is madness, and must be addressed by competent adults outside of the existing party structure. If not you, who?
Not just for your campaign, but for the Democratic Party and for America.
Wilson is a Republican strategist and author of “Running Against The Devil.”
An interesting, if insidious, side effect of Bloomberg's completely unprecedented ad buying is that his interests and the media he's paying naturally then align. He's their best customer, aside from maybe the Big Pharma ghouls, right now and the media's commercial incentive will be to keep the gravy train going as long as possible. This naturally corrupts the media and will inevitably skew their coverage to favor their best customers. I don't think the media will report damaging news about Bloomberg, no matter how news-worthy it may be. They obviously don't want the hundreds of millions of money to stop, and won't be playing any role in causing that to happen. It's also why "news" companies that take millions in Big Pharma money will never be remotely objective towards Bernie. Single payer kills that revenue stream. The mainstream media, floating on pharma and Bloomberg money, cannot reasonably be considered impartial enough to reliably report on either the 2020 election or on M4A. They are literally being bribed not to be. It's an obvious conflict of interest.
If you see Bloomberg ads or ads for prescription drugs on the channels you watch for news, know that you will be watching outright propaganda, not impartial political reporting.