|
Fulchrum posted:Will leftists accept reality if they lose this time, or will they continue to scream that the party letting black people vote is a thousand times worse than committing treason? Neither major american party allows black people to vote if they can avoid it
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
bernie will win a plurality because of the clownshow, get hosed over by his own superdelegate rules change (jeez i wonder why the leadership accepted any revision to superdelegates) and i will cry/laugh as trump pulls a reagan in '84 over whoever the establishment coalesces behind
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bernie will win a plurality because of the clownshow, get hosed over by his own superdelegate rules change (jeez i wonder why the leadership accepted any revision to superdelegates) and i will cry/laugh as trump pulls a reagan in '84 over whoever the establishment coalesces behind I assume you're imagining he would win a plurality, allowing the superdelegates to vote in the second round and throw it to an establishment candidate. I don't see how the rules change is to blame though because if the superdelegates have the numbers to do this they would just do it in the first round under the 2016 rules (also they were more numerous under the 2016 rules). It's kind of to blame because it didn't eliminate this possibility but that's hardly Bernie's fault since he wanted them gone (right? Unless the new rules were all his idea?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
i figure that under the old rules the superdelegates would be more fractured in the first round which might allow bernie to pick up enough to put him over the top in the first round. now that they have to wait for round two i believe theres a higher chance of them offering a unified front to throw it to someone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Will leftists accept reality if they lose this time, or will they continue to scream that the party letting black people vote is a thousand times worse than committing treason? Have you gotten around to accepting the reality that your supposedly inevitable and popular queen was a goddamn dumpster fire that handed the country over to a right wing apocalypse? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Have you gotten around to accepting the reality that your supposedly inevitable and popular queen was a goddamn dumpster fire that handed the country over to a right wing apocalypse? there's 50 posts, how do ya'll miss the warning  
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
I feel like Bernie will almost certainly get a larger percent of the "left-leaning Democratic" vote than Warren, which is a large reason I'm concerned about Warren as a "spoiler" of sorts. Normally I would give him the best odds of winning overall, but I can't help but feel like the party might unify behind someone early enough to turn the tides against him. The worst case scenario would likely be something where the more mainstream/"establishment" Democratic organizations/media unify behind someone pretty early while Warren still stays in the race (or the person they unify behind is Warren herself). This is the situation that I see having the highest chance of a Bernie Sanders primary loss. Then again, it's possible that unifying against Bernie could backfire on them. One thing I haven't mentioned is Avenatti. While I put Avenatti definitely above most Democrats and definitely below Bernie, I'm not sure how I'd compare him with someone like Warren. I feel like Warren is definitely more reliable on the specific topics she tends to focus on than Avenatti would be, but Avenatti also has his unique advantages (like being willing to mention stuff like stacking the court, and tossing aside decorum against Republicans). I don't trust Avenatti in the slightest, though, so I don't really feel comfortable forming any strong opinions about him one way or the other. Someone also mentioned Duckworth. Duckworth is pretty bad, but fortunately doesn't have a realistic chance of actually winning. I'm not sure if she's split the vote in a way favorable to the left or not, though. Jaxyon posted:Him being just about 80 upon entering office is a big problem for me because that is old as poo poo, as much as I like the guy. This (basically a combination of the age thing plus vague concerns about minority engagement) seems to be the go-to opinion for people who don't really want Bernie Sanders to be president but don't feel comfortable actually making an policy/ideology-based argument against him. The age thing in particular is only relevant in a "if everything else was equal, this should be considered" sort of way, but given the absence of any comparable younger candidates it's not really worth consideration. It does make his choice of running mate more important, but it's not an argument against him specifically. I feel like arguments like this are sort of the prelude to a more overt opposition; sort of like how before the 2016 primary started up most liberals expressed positive sentiment towards Sanders (but not outright active support), which then shifted into opposition as people unified behind Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bernie will win a plurality because of the clownshow, get hosed over by his own superdelegate rules change (jeez i wonder why the leadership accepted any revision to superdelegates) and i will cry/laugh as trump pulls a reagan in '84 over whoever the establishment coalesces behind I think the Dems were more than happy to pair a meaningless superdelegates rule change with a reduction in the number of caucuses, and a more generous absentee ballot process for states that keep their caucuses. Caucuses reward candidates with smaller more enthusiastic followings, and that'll hurt Bernie. It looks like MN, CO, ID, NE, and ME are all flipping from caucus to primary, and UT and WA might as well. Bernie got a combined ~120 delegate margin from those states, flipping them from caucuses that he won 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 to places that are a lot closer is going to have a big negative effect on his math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This (basically a combination of the age thing plus vague concerns about minority engagement) seems to be the go-to opinion for people who don't really want Bernie Sanders to be president but don't feel comfortable actually making an policy/ideology-based argument against him. The age thing in particular is only relevant in a "if everything else was equal, this should be considered" sort of way, but given the absence of any comparable younger candidates it's not really worth consideration. It does make his choice of running mate more important, but it's not an argument against him specifically. I voted for Bernie in the primary. I was into Bernie when he was a representative. These are concerns that are valid and should be addressed. Instead of saying "these concerns mean they don't really support Bernie-San" consider that maybe people care about that. Minority engagement isn't a vague concern, it's a documented problem he has especially among older folks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
The superdelegates will never cast a determinative vote, they are mostly being retained because the people with that status love the elite recognition. It was still criminally stupid of the DNC to retain them at all as now we can look forward to another 2 year cycle of process stories about what the superdelegates are up to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
until bernie actually displays some sign of infirmity all this talk about his age is going to strike me as concern-trolling. although i am willing to concede i might be hyper-partisan
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:until bernie actually displays some sign of infirmity all this talk about his age is going to strike me as concern-trolling. although i am willing to concede i might be hyper-partisan I can't see how being in the most stressful job in the world for the decade when many people get serious health issues, dementia, and die would be a concern to anyone who isn't trolling or a mega partisan, yes. I mean, it's not as if we have had a younger president have exactly that problem. Or currently have that problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The superdelegates will never cast a determinative vote, they are mostly being retained because the people with that status love the elite recognition. It was still criminally stupid of the DNC to retain them at all as now we can look forward to another 2 year cycle of process stories about what the superdelegates are up to. They say this, we'll see what happens if/when someone the DCCC doesn't approve of threatens to win the primaries. This is similar to how the electoral college didn't matter because the person who won the popular vote was always elected historically (since 1888) anyway prior to 2000. We should eliminate them before it's a problem, since they serve absolutely no positive purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
yeah but trump's brain was clearly melted before he even won and reagan's probably was as well although it was less apparent if so
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think the Dems were more than happy to pair a meaningless superdelegates rule change with a reduction in the number of caucuses, and a more generous absentee ballot process for states that keep their caucuses. Caucuses reward candidates with smaller more enthusiastic followings, and that'll hurt Bernie. It looks like MN, CO, ID, NE, and ME are all flipping from caucus to primary, and UT and WA might as well. Bernie got a combined ~120 delegate margin from those states, flipping them from caucuses that he won 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 to places that are a lot closer is going to have a big negative effect on his math. Maybe maybe not. In 2016 he suffered from two huge handicaps in primaries: a lack of name recognition due to media blackout of a non-corporate-dicksucker candidate and the public perception of competence and inevitability around Clinton. Neither of those exist anymore: he's the most popular politician in the country and the establishment folk have been indisputably exposed to the public as the bumbling frauds they always were. Jaxyon posted:Minority engagement isn't a vague concern, it's a documented problem he has especially among older folks. This is not a concern that should affect your personal support. If he lacks minority engagement he won't win Democratic primaries in key states and you don't have to worry, if he wins then his minority engagement is obviously fine now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:yeah but trump's brain was clearly melted before he even won and reagan's probably was as well although it was less apparent if so It's pretty well established that Reagan was dumb in 1980 but not senile, while post '86 or so he was pretty bad. Trump's mushbrain probably started before he was in office but it has clearly accelerated. edit neither of those guys was even in LATE 70's when it hit. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:until bernie actually displays some sign of infirmity all this talk about his age is going to strike me as concern-trolling. although i am willing to concede i might be hyper-partisan I am not 100% comfortable with the risk of a Sanders-BadDem unity ticket, and would at least consider voting for someone with slightly worse leftist bona fides in the primary as a result. There may or may not be a candidate that is good enough to qualify for that, and I don't think anyone in this thread can say with confidence whether that will be the case. It's also a concern that could be very easily alleviated with a somewhat unusual but (edit: probably) non-catastrophic decision on Bernie's part (declaring a running mate early). I think I've been pretty clear about all of this but am stating it, uh, more clearly, and I don't think it's a particularly irrational position to hold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
i'm trying to figure out when reagan's brain melted and i recall a website that was a great collection of primary source news articles on reagan's various crimes, ineptitude, and scandals while president but i'm having no luck finding it. anybody remember it by any chance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am not 100% comfortable with the risk of a Sanders-BadDem unity ticket, and would at least consider voting for someone with slightly worse leftist bona fides in the primary as a result. AOC isn't eligible and everyone else is more than slightly worse
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is not a concern that should affect your personal support. If he lacks minority engagement he won't win Democratic primaries in key states and you don't have to worry, if he wins then his minority engagement is obviously fine now. I have always liked Bernie, that doesn't mean I can't raise his minority support as a question when discussing him as a national candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i'm trying to figure out when reagan's brain melted and i recall a website that was a great collection of primary source news articles on reagan's various crimes, ineptitude, and scandals while president but i'm having no luck finding it. anybody remember it by any chance? The Clothes Have No Emperor is what you're thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I have always liked Bernie, that doesn't mean I can't raise his minority support as a question when discussing him as a national candidate. If it's bad he will lose the primary to someone else with better minority engagement so I don't really see the point in worrying about it, unless you're managing his campaign/advising someone who is
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it's bad he will lose the primary to someone else with better minority engagement so I don't really see the point in worrying about it, unless you're managing his campaign/advising someone who is Because this is a thread talking about prospective 2020 presidential candidates? Or is this a No Being Mean To Bernie zone?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Or is this a No Being Mean To Bernie zone? No I'm just telling you why I don't think it's worth being concerned about (esp since he got better on that as the primary went on, he's had years to improve, he won minority primary voters under 30 anyway so it probably had more to do with name recognition and a corporate media blackout than him actively pissing off minorities and his name recognition is no longer a problem, all of which has been discussed before but is always ignored in favor of a vague unfalsifiable feeling). A feeling that even if correct would be irrelevant as the problem would take care of itself when he's wiped out on Super Tuesday again. Be as mean to Bernie as you like for actual good reasons, even if it's reasons I personally disagree with like opposing him ideologically or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bernie will win a plurality because of the clownshow, get hosed over by his own superdelegate rules change (jeez i wonder why the leadership accepted any revision to superdelegates) and i will cry/laugh as trump pulls a reagan in '84 over whoever the establishment coalesces behind
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The Clothes Have No Emperor is what you're thinking of. thank you quote:11/10/80 lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
From watching the primary, the "Sanders is bad with minorities" narrative was 100% propaganda that really had little relation to what was happening, if any at all. Did Sanders have some problematic votes and statements in the past, sure, but his opponent's were as bad or worse (superpredators) yet the criticism didn't apply to her. Did he make some missteps in the campaign sure but he worked to correct them and when say BLM crashed his rally he let them speak. His opponent openly insulted and dismissed minorities on the campaign trail "well why don't you run for something then", a prominent campaign surrogate (Bill) got in a shouting match with BLM accusing them of defending murderous drug dealers, and when BLM crashed her event she had them hauled out by security. And yet, the media narrative was that her campaign was better at minority outreach. Since the facts didn't support this narrative, exit polls were bandied about ("she won the African American vote") but when you look into it, she won the older vote like she did with all demographics and lost the younger vote like she did with all demographics so again the evidence points to other factors (name recognition, media blackout of Sanders and therefore support of Sanders localized to younger people who got their news from online sources that aren't subject to corporate media censorship, voter suppression to keep younger/poorer/first time voters from participating in Democratic primaries) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:thank you it's been available for free/paywhatyouwant for quite a while: http://www.theclotheshavenoemperor.com/index.php/download/ my favorite gimmick of it is continually giving nancy reagan's actual age every year quote:7/6/81 quote:7/7/81 edit: lol how times have changed:   
Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
gently caress Goldwater and everything he stood for, but also goddamn the days when any Republican would tell fundies to shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:it's been available for free/paywhatyouwant for quite a while: i threw the guy 5 bucks because this is absolutely perfect for a thing i'm working on
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I have always liked Bernie, that doesn't mean I can't raise his minority support as a question when discussing him as a national candidate. It's something that should be kept in mind, but even if we accept the premise that he was particularly bad with minority voters in 2016 (which he really wasn't - Clinton just had some old, deep ties to minority political leaders and organizations, and utilized those well), he seems to have gotten quite a bit better since then. Look at his recent campaigning in the Deep South, in states that are deep red but have large minority populations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I'm just telling you why I don't think it's worth being concerned about (esp since he got better on that as the primary went on, he's had years to improve, he won minority primary voters under 30 anyway so it probably had more to do with name recognition and a corporate media blackout than him actively pissing off minorities and his name recognition is no longer a problem, all of which has been discussed before but is always ignored in favor of a vague unfalsifiable feeling). A feeling that even if correct would be irrelevant as the problem would take care of itself when he's wiped out on Super Tuesday again. VitalSigns posted:From watching the primary, the "Sanders is bad with minorities" narrative was 100% propaganda that really had little relation to what was happening, if any at all. Dude Bernie polled bad among non-white voters during the primaries. That's just polling, you can look it up. It's not a conspiracy to bring Bernie down, he literally was just doing bad. He closed the gap among younger non-white voters but never really did among the over-45. That's a valid concern. It's not insurmountable, but writing paragraphs how an established fact is not real and in fact just people who hate your boy is really something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Dude Bernie polled bad among non-white voters during the primaries. That's just polling, you can look it up. It's not a conspiracy to bring Bernie down, he literally was just doing bad. It's weird that you suggest what I'm saying is a conspiracy, but then go on to admit that I'm 100% right that his polling with minorities reflected an age gap after all and the polling data you're vaguely appealing to doesn't support your narrative of 'established fact'. quote:But an analysis of 25 states that held primaries and where exit polls were conducted by NBC News showed that one of Sanders’ challenges is that younger blacks are not voting in large numbers. Sanders, according to the exit polls in these states, received 52 percent of the votes of African-Americans under 30, compared to 47 percent for Clinton. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
It's also weird to dismiss as baseless conspiracy a well-documented campaign to smear Sanders as a racist, when those same people also executed a well-documented campaign eight years earlier to smear Obama as a sexist with the same lovely nickname styles even (and incidentally also ran a hosed-up racist Southern Strategy campaign against Obama implying he's a Muslim and a terrorist)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's weird that you suggest what I'm saying is a conspiracy, but then go on to admit that I'm 100% right that his polling with minorities reflected an age gap after all and the polling data you're vaguely appealing to doesn't support your narrative of 'established fact'. VitalSigns posted:It's also weird to dismiss as baseless conspiracy a well-documented campaign to smear Sanders as a racist, when those same people also executed a well-documented campaign eight years earlier to smear Obama as a sexist with the same lovely nickname styles even (and incidentally also ran a hosed-up racist Southern Strategy campaign against Obama implying he's a Muslim and a terrorist) Here's my post: Jaxyon posted:Dude Bernie polled bad among non-white voters during the primaries. That's just polling, you can look it up. It's not a conspiracy to bring Bernie down, he literally was just doing bad. So since we both have agreed I'm right, we can move on I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Here's my post: No because you're not right, it's not an established fact that he "polled badly among minority voters" the way you mean it, it's established fact that he polled well with younger voters and badly with everyone else regardless of ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think there are decidedly nontrivial odds that Bernie suffers meaningful impaired physical or mental capacity by 2028. As such, I'd like it best if he pre-declared a (good) running mate before the primaries. This is what worries me. He's going to be an eighty-year-old man trying to run a national campaign. Surely his torch can be carried by someone who won't blow away in a stiff breeze?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No because you're not right, it's not an established fact that he "polled badly among minority voters" the way you mean it, it's established fact that he polled well with younger voters and badly with everyone else regardless of ethnicity. No, he polled much better with whites way quicker and his polling among older whites was much closer. He was only pulling up next to Hillary by much later the primaries among non-white youth while whites got on board quick.  I'm not even saying this is an insurmountable problem for him but it is a real problem that really existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, he polled much better with whites way quicker and his polling among older whites was much closer. He was only pulling up next to Hillary by much later the primaries among non-white youth while whites got on board quick. one candidate had long-standing inroads with the older people in black communities. one candidate did not. unless you're aware of a similar patronage network that Cory Booker's gonna be able to tap into it kind of strikes me as a non-issue for 2020, tbh. a similar dynamic was at play in Bernie's similarly devastating loss in the "democrats who think black people are inferior to white people" demographic. hillary carried them by a tremendous margin. i suspect this was not due to some deep and abiding fear among their number that Bernie would show untoward favor to black people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
It's a problem that existed but was also almost entirely unique to the circumstances of the 2016 primary in thatMajorian posted:Clinton just had some old, deep ties to minority political leaders and organizations, and utilized those well Bill and Hillary Clinton are pretty much the only national politicians to have the kinds of ties that drove voting a particular way in 2016. Absolutely no one running in 2020 has that level of political investment in southern black communities going for them. Speaking currently, Bernie seems to be enjoying very high favorables among minorities. Probably the most relevant factor for 2020 will be "will the Clintons try to leverage their connections and favors - whatever is left of them, anyway - on the part of another candidate." And even if they did, who knows how effective it'd be. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:51
|
|
