2020 Elections

[O Really]

More good politics news...Netenyoohoo appears to be toast.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/monday-netan ... 47745.html

[O Really]

Turnout in San Diego County was 47% overall - Oceanside had 64% - for a Primary!

[Vrede too]

Turnout in San Diego County was 47% overall - Oceanside had 64% - for a Primary!

It's somewhat apples and oranges, but -

IMPOSPOTUS got 1,696,370 CA primary votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Cali ... an_primary

Bernie and Biden got 2,373,845 votes and all Dems got 3,937,740 votes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Cali ... ry#Results

[Vrede too]

This captures some of my feelings:

Democrats Decide That Joe Biden, as Risky as He Ever Was, Is the Safest Bet

Supposedly safer does not mean safe at all with erratic Joe. Otoh, love him or hate him Bernie! has been remarkably steady and consistent his entire life. The prime "unsafe" thing about him relies on red-baiting.

Not arguing with you on the rest of your opinion, but I disagree with this:

... "Remarkably steady and consistent..." also unfortunately applies to the current squatter in the White House....

He may be a "steady and consistent" asshole idiot, but on policy and ideology he's all over the map and largely unpredictable. Hence the ongoing purge of experts and even credentialed cons in favor of ovine sycophants - "cultists".

Let's both hope that I'm not saying, "I told you so," again on Nov 4 .

Hillary Clinton: Biden 'is building the kind of coalition that I had'

Not comforting, Hillary.

[Vrede too]

SIGN YOUR NAME: Call on Presidential Candidates to be transparent with their (financial and medical) records!

[O Really]

Not comforting, Hillary.

Well, she had a pretty good coalition, not counting the population segment that rabidly hated her.

In a continuing effort to expand his following to older Vietnam vets, Bernie! got a rousing endorsement by Hanoi Jane.

(disclosure: I've got no problem with Jane Fonda) - but is putting up a political lightening rod really the right direction?

[Vrede too]

Well, she had a pretty good coalition, not counting the population segment that rabidly hated her.

In a continuing effort to expand his following to older Vietnam vets, Bernie! got a rousing endorsement by Hanoi Jane.

(disclosure: I've got no problem with Jane Fonda) - but is putting up a political lightening rod really the right direction?

I understand what Hillary meant, but she did still lose enough of those White working class males and suburban moms. I still see some irony and wish she would STFU. Whose perspective did she change with that?

I didn't hear about Fonda, thanks. I wonder if her negatives are as high as Hillary's ? What do the Vietnam vets think of President* Bone Spurs, and if it's higher than Fonda aren't they lost to our team, anyhow?

All the news I heard was about Jesse Jackson endorsing Bernie! and Kamala Harris endorsing Biden.

[O Really]

Here's more... https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/03/ ... tance.html

But my point isn't so much whether a Vietnam vet who is still pissed off at Jane would likely be in Bernie!'s demographic, but whether her endorsement might do more harm than good for anyone who might be gained. It may be that Bernie!'s target demo may not even know who Jane Fonda is, but surely he has been disabused of the idea by now that he can write off the geezers and still win.

[Vrede too]

Here's more... https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/03/ ... tance.html

But my point isn't so much whether a Vietnam vet who is still pissed off at Jane would likely be in Bernie!'s demographic, but whether her endorsement might do more harm than good for anyone who might be gained. It may be that Bernie!'s target demo may not even know who Jane Fonda is, but surely he has been disabused of the idea by now that he can write off the geezers and still win.

I'm not finding where Bernie! solicited or has boasted about Fonda's endorsement.
https://www.newsweek.com/jane-fonda-ber ... ge-1491063
https://www.ecowatch.com/jane-fonda-cli ... 22952.html
Did you hear that he did? I found this:
... In addition to Fonda, Sanders also picked up the support of another aging celeb, 94-year-old talk-show icon Dick Van Dyke.
That beats all of the day's endorsements in my book .

[Vrede too]

Worse than liked by Fonda? Maybe.

... Devil's advocate re Joe's baggage:

Ukraine still. Not that there was actual corruption especially involving Joe, but it sure looks like Hunter was trading on his last name.
Black only by association with Obama.
Lies like about Stop-and-Frisk and arrested in South Africa.
Creepy handsy Joe.
Iraq War vote.
Countless verbal gaffes like 'lying dog-faced pony soldier'....

Fake Biden Campaign Website Being Run Secretly By Trump Campaign Operative: Report

A fake Joe Biden campaign website is being run by an operative on President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, according to a new report Saturday.

The New York Times tracked down the owner of a site with the URL JoeBiden.info, a "parody" campaign website featuring out-of-context quotes from the former vice president and leading 2020 Democratic candidate. The site also includes GIFs of him touching women in ways that others alleged made them uncomfortable....

"Uncle Joe is back and ready to take a hands-on approach to America's problems," the site's header reads, an allusion to allegations related to the former vice president's inappropriate touching of numerous women. "Joe Biden has a good feel for the American people and knows exactly what they really want deep down."

Indeed, the inappropriate touching scandal that cast a pall over the early days of the Biden campaign is a main theme of Mauldin's fake website. Multiple women came forward earlier this year to allege that Biden displayed excessive closeness when interacting with them, including touching their shoulders or kissing them platonically when they did not feel that level of intimacy was appropriate. None of the allegations involved sexual abuse or misconduct.

The Mauldin website displays a handful of GIFs that show Biden interacting with women over the years in ways that reflect the nature of these allegations. However, the women featured in the GIFs are not necessarily the same women who complained about Biden's behavior, and blurring this line between real allegations and implied allegations is a way the site has capitalized on the de-contextualized approach to its political messaging....

Despite its unintended status as a campaign hub, Mauldin's site has performed remarkably well. The Times reported that his parody site garnered nearly 400,000 unique visitors over a two-and-a-half month period this year, compared with just over 300,000 for Biden's official campaign site....

As always with negative campaigning, it doesn't have to be fair or even accurate, it just has to be effective.

[O Really]

I don't know that Bernie! solicited or boasted about Jane's endorsement, but I haven't seen anybody say he denounced it, either. But the Dick Van Dyke endorsement is fun.

If Biden (or whoever the nominee was) didn't have any baggage, Trump would think up some for them, and it might even be worse. He and his campaign can be counted on to lie, create false narratives, and generally trash him. Expect it. Prepare for it. Get people who know what they're doing to respond to it.

[Vrede too]

I don't know that Bernie! solicited or boasted about Jane's endorsement, but I haven't seen anybody say he denounced it, either. But the Dick Van Dyke endorsement is fun.

If Biden (or whoever the nominee was) didn't have any baggage, Trump would think up some for them, and it might even be worse. He and his campaign can be counted on to lie, create false narratives, and generally trash him. Expect it. Prepare for it. Get people who know what they're doing to respond to it.

He would never denounce Jane's endorsement. That would only lose him supporters without regaining any. It doesn't even sound like she was making a huge deal out of it, just something she mentioned as part of her climate campaigning.

I agree re Biden. I was just predicting and now confirming what the actual smears will look like based on real and "Trumped-up" ( ) baggage.

[neoplacebo]

I say anybody who bases who they vote for solely or even minutely on who Jane Fonda supports (or who anybody else supports) does not deserve to be allowed to vote. That's the kind of juvenile sophomoric bullshit trump peddles. His latest greatest tweet at top now asserts "The Obama Administration (sic) is the most corrupt Administration (sic) in the history of our Country (sic)." This lame whine is for the ignorant and gullible cult members in an effort to convince them Democrats are bad......same with the incessant "do nothing Democrats" whine when it's actually the do nothing Mich McConnell who is doing nothing. You can't fix stupid.

[Vrede too]

I say anybody who bases who they vote for solely or even minutely on who Jane Fonda supports (or who anybody else supports) does not deserve to be allowed to vote....

It sounded to me like she wants people to vote based on climate policy, which I do think is a valid factor in deciding.

[billy.pilgrim]

I say anybody who bases who they vote for solely or even minutely on who Jane Fonda supports (or who anybody else supports) does not deserve to be allowed to vote. That's the kind of juvenile sophomoric bullshit trump peddles. His latest greatest tweet at top now asserts "The Obama Administration (sic) is the most corrupt Administration (sic) in the history of our Country (sic)." This lame whine is for the ignorant and gullible cult members in an effort to convince them Democrats are bad......same with the incessant "do nothing Democrats" whine when it's actually the do nothing Mich McConnell who is doing nothing. You can't fix stupid.

No one should base their vote on what ones person says, but what's wrong with Fonda pushing her opinion?

[O Really]

Jane's been a climate activist for quite a while. She sees Bernie! as the best Presidential candidate for her priority causes. Nothing wrong with that. But totally from a standpoint of campaign strategy, I'd wonder if the coverage of Jane's comments helped, harmed, or had no effect on Bernie!'s vote count. Probably no effect in the big picture.

[neoplacebo]

I agree that Jane's endorsement is worth what it and a dollar will do toward a cup of coffee. My point is that a lot of voters will base how they vote on her endorsement of a candidate and nothing else. The media abets this type of thing and attempts to make it seem somehow significant. A good example of what I'm getting at is the Dixie Chicks; a decade or so ago they came out critical of baby Bush and his nutjob Iraq war. Just yesterday i saw a story in which members of the band assert that their former criticism of Bush has ruined their career and that they "don't think we're part of country music anymore." This type of irrational behavior in which important choices are made for sophomoric reasons is what pisses me off. If you are FOR or AGAINST a candidate for office it should not matter what ANYONE else thinks of that candidate, much less cause you to change an opinion you previously held.

[Vrede too]

IMO, based on zero evidence:

Almost everybody that would vote against Bernie! because of "Hanoi Jane" outrage is already a Trumpette.

Most but not all climate voters know that Bernie! is better, but even they may not be sure of it. Bernie! will gain marginally, not because Jane, but because climate.

[neoplacebo]

IMO, based on zero evidence:

Almost everybody that would vote against Bernie! because of "Hanoi Jane" outrage is already a Trumpette.

Most but not all climate voters know that Bernie! is better, but even they may not be sure of it. Bernie! will gain marginally, not because Jane, but because climate.

I had not read of why Fonda endorses Sanders; if it's solely on his global warming stance, I was not aware of that. And, for me, it does not matter WHY Fonda endorses Sanders any more than the fact that she does. My point is that the endorsement of a famous person, or an infamous person, is irrelevant, or should be, to one's own personal choice. There are people who threw away their Ted Nugent records because of his wingnut political views and there are people who now hate Jon Voight or De Niro solely because of their political stance.......the salient concept here is that the Nugent music or the Voight or De Niro movies are no better or worse than they always were because of the political views of the artists. And if a person bases their "like" or "dislike" of a candidate on what some other person thinks, this, to me, makes them no better than a trump cult member. By the way, I have no Ted Nugent records and never did. And I think Fonda and Voight both starred in the "Coming Home" movie. By the sophomoric logic of following your idols, NOBODY would like the "Coming Home" movie. That movie won three Academy Awards when it came out.

[O Really]

I think with the celebrity endorsements, whether a commercial product or a political product, it's mostly that people want to see them as somebody they know - or at least know something about. If you've watched Alex Trebec for years on "Jeopardy," you're likely to believe him when he says something is a good insurance company. And with the music, I can understand that if you think the artist is scum, you may not like the music anymore because it reminds you of the scum artist. If you found out Sting was a stalker, you might not hear "Every Step You Take" the same as before.

But what I find strange are incidents like the Milli Vanilli "scandal." You've got a decent song, people like it, then find out somebody else sang it and the titular performers are just a couple of prettyish faces. To me, it's still a decent song, who cares who sang it. Didn't happen to the Monkees, who had several records out being hits before they learned much about actually playing their instruments. But I suppose there are some who would find fault with "Addicted to Love" because the background chicks are faking their playing.