WTF Community

2020 Primary Election


When the major primaries and caucuses are happening – and how they work

Here’s the schedule for the earliest significant primary and caucus contests:

  • Monday, Feb. 3 — Iowa caucuses (49 delegates)
  • Tuesday, Feb. 11 — New Hampshire primaries (33 delegates)
  • Saturday, Feb. 22 — Nevada Democratic caucuses (48 delegates)
  • Saturday, Feb. 29 — South Carolina Democratic primaries (63 delegates)
  • Super Tuesday, March 3 — Alabama primaries (59 delegates), Arkansas primaries (36 delegates), California primaries (495 primaries), Colorado primaries (80 delegates), Maine primaries (32 delegates), Massachusetts primaries (114 delegates), Minnesota primaries (91 delegates), North Carolina primaries (122 delegates), Oklahoma primaries (42 delegates), Tennessee primaries (73 delegates), Texas primaries (262 delegates), Utah primaries (35 delegates), Vermont primaries (23 delegates), Virginia Democratic primary (124 delegates)
  • Tuesday, March 10 — Idaho primaries (25 delegates), Michigan primaries (147 delegates), Mississippi primaries (41 delegates), Missouri primaries (178), North Dakota caucuses (18 delegates), Washington primaries (107 delegates)
  • Tuesday, March 17 — Arizona Democratic primary (78 delegates), Florida primaries (248 delegates), Illinois primaries (184 delegates), Ohio primaries (153 delegates)

The final primaries take place in June. The Democratic convention is slated for July 13-16 in Milwaukee.


Arizona Senate Race: Democratic challenger leads Republican incumbent by 4 points. YBYSA, we’re flipping this seat!

Democratic candidate Mark Kelly is leading Republican Sen. Martha McSally among Arizona voters, according to a new poll.

Kelly, a former astronaut and U.S. Navy captain, has a 4-point lead over the incumbent Republican, according to a poll by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

The survey found that 46 percent of polled voters said they would vote for Kelly and 42 percent said they would vote for McSally. An additional 12 percent said they were not sure. …

Multiple polls show Kelly pulled ahead in August and has been leading since then



Who is your best guess? Got a gut feeling?

I think it’ll be either Biden or Sanders. I have a gut feeling this will be an old man fight. :woman_shrugging:t2:


I really like Booker, he’s honest, compelling, authentic, all my favorite things but he’s polling at less than 4% in Iowa 30 days before the caucus starts. :grimacing: Does anyone else find it annoying when candidates complain that their jobs get in the way of campaigning or just me. Not a good look. :woman_shrugging:t2:


Marianne Williamson Drops Out Of Presidential Race

(David Bythewood) #490

I am sure many teardrops will be shed… then hung on cords.


Omg, right?! New Age mysticism is the worst, to me it’s just disguised corporate cultural appropriation and nonsense buzzwords packaged to sell as a “spiritual lifestyle”. It is ok to like crystals without a fictional mythology about secret healing powers—they are really pretty. :joy:

(David Bythewood) #492

I make jewelry. I’ve loved crystals and gems most of my life and have quite the collection. My mother bought into the mystical aspects, though, and that frustrated me. I get cultural nuances and symbolism, but when you start relying too much on them… argh.



U.S. Probes if Russia Is Targeting Biden in 2020 Election Meddling


Chris Strohm

January 10, 2020, 8:55 AM PST

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump, according to two officials familiar with the matter.

The probe comes as senior U.S. officials are warning that Russia’s election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in the 2016 presidential race or the 2018 midterm election.

Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his son worked for an energy company there.

Trump was impeached by the House and faces a trial in the Senate over his pressure on Ukraine’s president to investigate Biden, the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, as well as an unsupported theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election.

A Kremlin strategy to undermine Biden would echo its work in 2016, when American intelligence agencies found that Russia carried out a sophisticated operation to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton and ultimately help Trump, according to the officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the sensitive matter.

A signature trait of Russian President Vladimir Putin “is his ability to convince people of outright falsehoods,” said William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, while declining to comment on whether U.S. intelligence is investigating a possible Russian campaign to undermine Biden.

“In America, they’re using social media and many other tools to inflame social divisions, promote conspiracy theories and sow distrust in our democracy and elections,” Evanina said in a statement. “As we look ahead to 2020, one thing I can guarantee is they’ll keep up their influence campaigns and utilize new vectors of disinformation.”

Russian operations this year represent a continuation of interference in the U.S. and other countries that’s been going on for years as Putin tries to undermine and destabilize western democracies, said John Demers, head of the Justice Department’s national security division.

”I don’t think we were tested in 2018 in the way that we’re going to be tested in 2020,” Demers said in an interview about Russian foreign interference in general where he declined to discuss any matters related to Biden or other candidates. Putin has scoffed at assertions of Russian interference in other nations’ elections.

It’s a delicate issue for U.S. agencies because they came under criticism for being too slow to react to and publicize what Russia was doing in 2016.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to discuss specifics but said its 2019 assessment of Russia still stands.

‘Aggravating’ Tensions

“Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,” according to that assessment. “Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits – such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and leak operations, or manipulating data – in a more targeted fashion to influence US policy, actions and elections.”

Russia’s campaign interference in 2016 resulted in a multiagency investigation that led to a highly classified intelligence assessment, part of which was made public in January 2017. Trump has questioned the finding of Russian meddling and has asserted that government agents biased against him conducted a “witch hunt” into whether his campaign conspired with Russia.

The potential for Russia to spread falsehoods – and to develop increasingly sophisticated techniques to do so – is one of the bigger concerns that U.S. officials have as the 2020 election approaches, Demers said.

”It’s possible that you will see the creation of false documents,” Demers said. “They could be mixed in with real information, which would make it very difficult to discern the difference. I worry about that as the next evolution of some of their means.”

Officials also expect Russia to continue trying to hack organizations, release embarrassing information and carry out malign social media operations.

Leading the Charge

There’s a big difference in 2020 that’s working to the Kremlin’s advantage. In 2016, Russia had to hack documents, covertly leak them and manufacture a social media operation to damage Clinton. This time around, the narrative about Biden and Ukraine is already well-publicized and being advanced by Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and the president’s Republican allies in Congress.

“Biden is to 2020 what Clinton was to 2016,” said Clint Watts, a former FBI agent who has been tracking Russia’s foreign influence operations.

“The difference is that you have Trump in the White House who is also leading that charge and also trying to dig up dirt in Ukraine,” said Watts, who’s now a distinguished research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Another difference compared to previous years is that the Kremlin is much more overt in carrying out its influence operations. Russia has been openly promoting the controversy over Biden and Ukraine, feeding information back into the U.S. where there is an audience that’s receptive to it, Watts said.

Russia has been using its state-run media RT and Sputnik News to selectively promote favorable and unfavorable information about presidential candidates, according to an analysis by the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Foreign Influence Election 2020. …

(David Bythewood) #494

Trump always saves his worst insults for women. It’s “Sleepy Joe” and “Mini Mike” and “Crazy Bernie.”

But Elizabeth Warren is “Pocahontas”.

And this time he even botched that up as “Pocahontus”, despite using this horribly racist slur against Native Americans CONSTANTLY.


Booker is out :unamused:


People need to stop saying Women can’t win when we still have three female candidates running for President. It’s self defeating.

My twitter feed was literally hundreds of people explaining the nuances of either side to each other all day but really what the argument boils down to one question. Is this honest criticism of the playing field as Bernie saw it or is this a sexist comment said in secret? My guess, it’s a little of both. Discouraging a competitor is not unheard of in politics. Sometimes folks just punch down.

(David Bythewood) #497

Big attacks lead to little attacks.

Republicans spread lie that Democrats ‘mourn’ Iranian general

Trump is busy lying about the ACA while quietly putting its efforts to strike down Obamacare and leave millions without insurance on the back burner.

Trump Administration Says Obamacare Lawsuit Can Wait Until After the Election


How to watch tonight’s Democratic presidential debate

What time is the debate?

The debate will air live at 9 p.m. ET on CNN.

How can I watch it?

The debate will air exclusively on CNN, CNN en Español, CNN International and CNN Airport Network and will stream live in its entirety, without requiring log-in to a cable provider, exclusively to’s homepage, across mobile devices via CNN’s apps for iOS and Android, and via CNNgo apps for Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Chromecast and Android TV. The debate will also air live at and, and can be heard on CNN’s SiriusXM XChannels and the Westwood One Radio Network.

Who is debating?

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden
  • Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  • Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
  • Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
  • Businessman Tom Steyer
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Who is moderating?

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip as well as The Des Moines Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel will moderate.

Who didn’t make the cut?

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

Businessman Andrew Yang


This piece from Rebecca Traister is exactly what I was trying to say about this whole incident. :raised_hands: :raised_hands: :raised_hands:

My favorite passage,

Engaging in a he-said-she-said back-and-forth doesn’t often redound positively to the woman, especially since the defense from Sanders’s team is that she is outright lying. That’s a charge that’s particularly perilous for Warren, for reasons not coincidentally related to some of the particular hurdles faced by female candidates. Charges of dishonesty or inauthenticity can stick effectively to women and have already been made to stick harder to her than to any of the other candidates in the race, even those with spottier track records.

But the charges of lying being thrown around by both sides seem not only potentially self-destructive and counterproductive but well beside the point. Because what Sanders himself said, in his denial, that “what I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” is not at odds with what Elizabeth Warren may well have heard.

Women, especially those running for office, hear predictions about the kinds of bias that could be effectively wielded against them all the time , not just from sexists or blowhards but from friends and allies and progressives and feminists. As a journalist who covers women in politics, I have heard that a woman can’t win the presidency from feminists, colleagues, family members, from people who believed with all their hearts, back in 1972 and in 1987 and in 1988 and in 2008 and in 2016, that of course a woman could win the presidency but who, they tell me sadly, no longer believe that that is true. This belief — the lack of belief in the possibility of a woman president — is at the heart of the “electability” narrative that has been Elizabeth Warren’s biggest roadblock so far in a primary season during which she is broadly popular and provokes a lot of enthusiasm but in which people are really scared to fully throw themselves behind a female candidate again. They’re scared because, as Bernie Sanders himself says he discussed with her, if she’s the candidate, she will be running in the general against a hateful misogynist and that presents a real-life, genuine set of challenges for a female candidate.

That lots of people feel this way doesn’t mean it’s true that a woman can’t win; I don’t believe for a second that it’s true.

(David Bythewood) #500

(David Bythewood) #501

(David Bythewood) #502


New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren


(David Bythewood) #504

This endorsement has been lambasted by many as the NYT just picking the two female candidates despise them having drastically different political views, though I’ve seen a few noting that if you see it as picking the best candidates from the two streams, moderate and progressive, it makes more sense. I am inclined to agree with those who see the NYT as trying to be inoffensive and thus offending.