|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Failed Imagineer posted:It's a fair point, but let's not kid ourselves here - on election night 2020 Texas is going to go red again and everyone will feel like a huge dumbass for believing the myth of a purple Texas AGAIN Yeah, we're at least another decade away. There's a trend, but 2020 is too soon. It'll probably be even harder for the Senate against anyone not named Ted Cruz. POTUS 2000: R+21 04: +23 08: +11 12: +16 16: +9 Senate Kay Bailey Hutchison 94: +23 00: +33 06: +26 Ted Cruz 12: +15 18: +3 Cornyn 96: +11 02: +12 08: +12 14: +28 (he faced some random dentist, not a serious challenger)
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you're suggesting that none of the questioners disclosed their affiliations because they all just forgot and CNN never asked, and furthermore that CNN has no ethical obligation to perform even the most What? CNN absolutely has an obligation to perform due diligence, but that doesn't mean they did it. CNN doesn't do a lot of ethical poo poo they ought to! I'M NOT DEFENDING CNN. I'm saying we have literally no idea how the identifier came to be. Maybe CNN did a detailed questionnaire and then cherry-picked which information they showed. Maybe the people didn't disclose their affiliations. Maybe CNN let them choose how they wanted to be identified. Maybe they didn't do any due diligence (this would 100% not surprise me fwiw). Maybe a student who is also an intern thinks of herself as a student first, which is a totally normal thing to do tbh. Who the gently caress knows? My whole point is that there are so many obvious irrefutable ways in which CNN sucks, including a basic comparison of questions asked to different candidates, that it makes no sense to zero in on the angle where we don't know how it happened, it involves trying to dig up information on a private citizen, and also makes us all look creepy and weird?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:01
|
|
due diligence like ask potential town hall attendees to disclose any official relationships with political parties or lobbying firms?
|
Harvard/Harris has Biden up 11 in the DNC Primary Morning Consult has 51% of Biden supporters eager to support him while Sanders has 38% eager to support him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:What? CNN absolutely has an obligation to perform due diligence, but that doesn't mean they did it. CNN doesn't do a lot of ethical poo poo they ought to! I'M NOT DEFENDING CNN. Ah I see what happened, we're talking past each other because we have different priorities. I had assumed that because you said it's not worth talking about what happened, that CNN must not have acted unethically, because to my mind a major journalistic institution acting unethically is always worthy of at the very least public comment and discussion. So your position is, we don't know whether CNN was unethical or merely so incompetent that their incompetence was itself unethical, but when an institution is acting unethically no one should notice or discuss it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah I see what happened, we're talking past each other because we have different priorities. I had assumed that because you said it's not worth talking about what happened, that CNN must not have acted unethically, because to my mind a major journalistic institution acting unethically is always worthy of at the very least public comment and discussion. My entire point from the start has been "pick your battles". There are so many myriad ways in which CNN is obviously quantifiably unethical, like giving softballs to one candidate and tough ones to another, that we ought to focus on those and not "a student who is an intern identified as a student and not an intern which I found by scouring the internet for her and blasting her social media handles".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:pretend healthcare is Lockheed Martin and our health is a country full of brown people Right, this isn’t hard but I think Nancy is a true product of the red scare-taking care of your country and citizens versus exploiting them for profit is communism propaganda era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
But Super Predator Lady still got more minority votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:But Super Predator Lady still got more minority votes. So what? Did we miss a Clinton announcement for 2020?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:My entire point from the start has been "pick your battles". There are so many myriad ways in which CNN is obviously quantifiably unethical, like giving softballs to one candidate and tough ones to another, that we ought to focus on those and not "a student who is an intern identified as a student and not an intern which I found by scouring the internet for her and blasting her social media handles". How is that quantifiably unethical. CNN didn't choose those questions, they just organically bubbled up from the everyday citizens who attended CNN town halls, right? "The questions are unfair" is obviously just sore losers whining that the general public doesn't agree with them. Of course if there were some way to prove that these town halls weren't a statistically representative cross-section of Ordinary America... VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
If you work for a dirt bag lobbying firm then it’s open season on flaming you. Nobody has to work for these people and it is ethically unjustifiable. So their social media gets blown up for a day or two, who cares? They can just briefly lock their accounts and then get back to normal in no time. It’s essentially a probation for being a terrible person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
The Catholic Church was right to cover up unethical behavior, think of Cardinal Pell's twitter mentions
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:If you work for a dirt bag lobbying firm then it’s open season on flaming you. Nobody has to work for these people and it is ethically unjustifiable. Yeah, this is honestly my view about it. Some social censure can just be part of the price you pay if you try to enter that sort of career, just like someone might rightfully face negative pressure if they tried to work in the tobacco industry or for a weapon's manufacturer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
It's funny to see libs fishhook around to sound exactly like conservatives when it comes to defending unethical people on their team, "How dare Sarah Huckabee Sanders be attacked so hatefully just for doing her job!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:My entire point from the start has been "pick your battles". There are so many myriad ways in which CNN is obviously quantifiably unethical, like giving softballs to one candidate and tough ones to another, that we ought to focus on those and not "a student who is an intern identified as a student and not an intern which I found by scouring the internet for her and blasting her social media handles". people can do both like im not going to personally look her up, i don't care enough, but now that someone's done it, it seems fine to talk about both. its not like we're talking about her daily schedule Verviticus fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:So what? Did we miss a Clinton announcement for 2020? Please allow me to wallow in my bitterness over the 2016 primary campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
These Town Halls are being presented as open meetings of the general public. Complaining that the questions to Harris are softer than questions to Bernie is, essentially, accusing the entire public of being involved in a vast conspiracy to get Harris elected. It's considerably more insane and paranoid (and also completely nonsensical) to posit a vast 300 million person conspiracy, than just to point out "hey most of the questions at these supposedly public-driven events are coming from lobbyists and party operatives and here's the proof"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:My entire point from the start has been "pick your battles". There are so many myriad ways in which CNN is obviously quantifiably unethical, like giving softballs to one candidate and tough ones to another, that we ought to focus on those and not "a student who is an intern identified as a student and not an intern which I found by scouring the internet for her and blasting her social media handles".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:These Town Halls are being presented as open meetings of the general public. Literally everyone knows CNN vets the questions beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Literally everyone knows CNN vets the questions beforehand. Really, you think the public that has been purposefully undereducated and miseducated is equipped to deal with a coordinated propaganda machine? Most people can't even filter out advertising. also, 'everyone knows!' is just a classic way of absolving someone from guilt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Literally everyone knows CNN vets the questions beforehand. That's not the same thing. Vetting the questions for sanity "no asking if Gillibrand eats child hearts" and slanting the questions "no hardball questions for Harris" are two different things, and it's easier to make the argument that the latter is happening when you have proof that the audience is stacked with lobbyists and political operatives
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Sanders should be more open to tax credits for media companies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Ah, gently caress off, Nancy. quote:“All I want is the goal of every American having access to health care,” Pelosi said. “You don’t get there by dismantling the Affordable Care Act.” Better things than $7,000/year deductibles aren't possible!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's not the same thing. What are you talking about? Everyone prepares and presents their questions to the producers beforehand. CNN producers decide which ones get asked. The producers decide that Harris gets the softballs and Bernie gets the harder ones. This isn't complex?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Sanders is going to continue getting more challenging questions. Partly due to media/party bias, sure, but largely because he's running on the most ambitious policy platform and the greatest departure from status quo thus likely drawing more questions and scrutiny. Do you really think your average voters are feverishly watching every town hall a year before the election and drawing strong conclusions from them? Or are under the pretense that these screened questioners with the free time and interest to attend a town hall represent the full diversity of the american experience? As long as they're not professional political operatives opposed to the candidate who cares? I don't think most people, right or wrong, operate on the belief that any random, individual lobbyist or cop or lockheed employee should have to make a full professional disclosure any more than a teacher or union rep or climate scientists should need to. They were likely asked something like "Who are you?" in context of how they think about and want to present themselves on TV and that's that. Bernie got a couple challenging questions and did fine if not quite well. If this is an appropriate reaction to a fairly innocuous town hall, n-size=1 for MSM controlled events, uhhhh you're in for a world of pain (and identifying a whole lot of mortal enemies) the next 18 months. Sanders will win if people like his ideas and policies in spite of institutional barriers. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Please probe whoever dared post The loving Hill in this thread, tia I'm not going to defend Nancy Pelosi (this isn't the right thread for that anyway), and her view on the matter is, frankly, irrelevant. She's not going to be speaker by the time we get single payer and universal coverage on the table together. Anyway - it's nice of CNN to throw down their cards this early when they're not going to reach anyone who isn't extremely online and his campaign can move to counter them when they come back up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:What are you talking about? Everyone prepares and presents their questions to the producers beforehand. CNN producers decide which ones get asked. The producers decide that Harris gets the softballs and Bernie gets the harder ones. This isn't complex? If you're agreeing that CNN only decides among the questions that are submitted, then you've conceded the argument to anyone who says "well nothing CNN can do if the public submitted a bunch of hardballs for Bernie and softballs for Kamala, how do you know what questions were submitted" Unless of course there were some way to prove that the people whose submissions were selected weren't just a representative cross-section of the general public...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Sanders is going to continue getting more challenging questions. Partly due to media/party bias, sure, but largely because he's running on the most ambitious policy platform and the greatest departure from status quo thus likely drawing more questions and scrutiny. and pointing out some of those institutional barriers are PR flacks trying to disguise themselves as "former biology teachers" is a useful tool to overcome them among the politically engaged. it is important to remember, KingNastidon. people loving -hate- you. they despise you, and they despise your kind. they rejoice when they hear bad things have happened to marketing people, because you are (with some justification!) viewed as someone who profits off actively making the world a worse place. a good sales strategy harnesses that, where available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Do you really think your average voters are feverishly watching every town hall a year before the election and drawing strong conclusions from them? Or are under the pretense that these screened questioners with the free time and interest to attend a town hall represent the full diversity of the american experience? As long as they're not professional political operatives opposed to the candidate who cares? Obviously someone cares or is expected to care, or hiding their professional party and lobbyist affiliations wouldn't have been necessary. Also lol at professional lobbyists being assumed to not have policy/candidate preferences just lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're agreeing that CNN only decides among the questions that are submitted, then you've conceded the argument to anyone who says "well nothing CNN can do if the public submitted a bunch of hardballs for Bernie and softballs for Kamala, how do you know what questions were submitted" Do... do you think, like, 10 questions get submitted and then they just have to read those 10? Obviously a huge amount of different questions are submitted and they curate the list?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Malah posted:Please probe whoever dared post The loving Hill in this thread, tia I don't really give a poo poo if she's going to be speaker then, having the current speaker now twice poo poo on major progressive policies that are winning issues and things the party should be pushing is bad. She's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Do... do you think, like, 10 questions get submitted and then they just have to read those 10? Obviously a huge amount of different questions are submitted and they curate the list? The counterargument would be that it's not CNN's job to provide false balance, maybe 90% of the questions for Bernie were hardballs and 90% of the questions for Harris were softballs so CNN was just respecting the priorities of the public. I, personally, think "well even then CNN should elevate the tiny minority of pro-Bernie questions, and the tiny minority of anti-Harris questions into 50% of the runtime to provide false balance" is a worse argument that the situation was unfair than "the audience was stacked with lobbyists and professional political operatives pretending to be ordinary unaffiliated people and here's the proof" E: Also, if what you say is true, and the huge number of submissions gave CNN ample opportunity to choose the most hostile questions for Bernie from the general public, then they wouldn't have had to use plants to get those questions in would they 😂 VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1101219608726593537 Lets make wild assertions from a poll of 240 Dems
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1101219608726593537 240 is roughly the population of NH so it's an encouraging result.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
You shouldn't make any assertions based on a single poll but 240 respondents is statistically just fine for state polling
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
yea don't make massive statements based on ANY single poll but for a state like NH 240 is actually very firmly in the 'yea that's plenty fine' side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
we're gonna loving win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Guys he's JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, not DEFENDING SOMEONE, please don't GET THESE TWO CONFUSED. They are very powerful and different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:11
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:it is important to remember, KingNastidon. people loving -hate- you. they despise you, and they despise your kind. they rejoice when they hear bad things have happened to marketing people, because you are (with some justification!) viewed as someone who profits off actively making the world a worse place. Well good, hopefully Sanders follows your lead and demonizes individuals that fall under the very miniscule umbrella of "sales and marketing" among other typically apolitical professions. To the point of his most fervent supporters digging up personal information and targeting specific private individuals. Certainly the media or other candidates would be off base to point out that's a bit abnormal and creepy. VitalSigns posted:Obviously someone cares or is expected to care, or hiding their professional party and lobbyist affiliations wouldn't have been necessary. Again, I doubt this intern is intentionally hiding her affiliations. She probably moreso identifies as a student and hey, maybe will even take a full time job offer in a different field. Regardless, is it unfair for someone to ask a critical question if their professional or personal interests are potentially impacted by the candidate's policies? Would you feel Booker was wronged if he was asked about his beliefs on public education by a teacher?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
It's amusing how you're constantly contradicting and talking over yourself Z Autobahn. Up above you argued that maybe most of the audience were lobbyists and out-of-state party officials who all conveniently forgot to disclose this fact/weren't asked so it's not weird that they composed almost all of the selected questions for Bernie, now you're arguing that CNN had so many questions to choose from that they could engineer any result they wanted (so therefore the composition of professional politicos they ended up with was definitely weird). If you have to constantly reverse yourself, isn't that a clue that your position is fundamentally unsound and you should just give up on this fight? "Pick your battles" one might say?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:E: Also, if what you say is true, and the huge number of submissions gave CNN ample opportunity to choose the most hostile questions for Bernie from the general public, then they wouldn't have had to use plants to get those questions in would they 😂 They weren't plants, you loving goof troop. The pool of "people who live in DC and are going to go a CNN town hall" is a self-selecting group that is going to skew towards political insiders and folks involved in party politics. They were real people who went to a town hall and asked their questions. If your issue is "hey, why did tough questions get picked for Bernie and not for Harris?" then your issue is *rightly* with the CNN producers who pick the questions. VitalSigns posted:It's amusing how you're constantly contradicting and talking over yourself Z Autobahn. This really isn't difficult. 1) A CNN town hall for a party primary in DC is going to be disproportionately attended by political insiders. This is true for all town halls. 2) Exactly *two* of them 'failed to disclose' their affiliation. One of those was a student who had the SHEER AUDACITY to identify as a "student" and not an intern, which is what almost all college students would do 3) CNN producers probably picked harder questions for Bernie Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 22:14
|
|