|
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 | ||
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Legit criticism about Bernie is that as far as I know he hasn't called for supporting ihlan, which I would be happy to hear I'm wrong about. You are wrong there, actually: https://twitter.com/danielmarans/status/1103403512631881734?s=19 His statement came before Harris, Warren, and others made similar ones, even.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Yeah, Biden's going to get buried by this stuff if he runs. Like Hillary got buried on 3-strikes and the Super-Predator stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, my whole point is that a Biden meltdown is certainly possible (just like any other candidate), I don't think it's inevitable which 99% of this thread seems to be insisting on No one is saying it's inevitable, just that it seems awfully likely. The fact that your arguments aren't convincing to anyone here is on you, not on us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No one is saying it's inevitable, just that it seems awfully likely. someone said the probability that biden winning is the same as asteroid hitting the earth quote:The fact that your arguments aren't convincing to anyone here is on you, not on us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:You are wrong there, actually: Harris’ statement was nothing in comparison. Just more typical “maybe islamophobia is bad but tropes!” horseshit. Bernie’s statement still wasn’t strong enough imo but it at least goes beyond that and offers Omar support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Yeah Biden is a monster and I hope it goes down like Harris in that every lovely position he's ever held is exposed to the cleansing power of 2019. But unlike Harris, Biden doesn't even pretend to be woke or progressive or otherwise give any indication that he has any idea what year it is. It's going to be immensely satisfying to watch him implode, and anyone worrying about his chances in the primary needs to log off and chill out. He's Brexit. He's the Titanic. He's the Hindenburg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Like Hillary got buried on 3-strikes and the Super-Predator stuff? No, because while Hillary gave poor responses to those old quotes, her responses were in the general neighbourhood of palatable answers. Biden never misses the opportunity to gently caress it up again. As has been posted, old quotes by themselves aren't killing anyone but the response to their reappearance might/will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Typo posted:someone said the probability that biden winning is the same as asteroid hitting the earth That is actually not what I said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Typo posted:No, my whole point is that a Biden meltdown is certainly possible (just like any other candidate), I don't think it's inevitable which 99% of this thread seems to be insisting on A Biden meltdown is incredibly likely. Let us count the ways:
Don't get me wrong - I think it's certainly possible for someone in Joe Biden's situation to be a powerful figure in the primaries. But I don't think it's possible for Joe Biden himself to be that powerful figure. He has the Obama factor, sure, but the playing field is fundamentally much worse for him than it was in 2008, in ways that are much more concrete and lasting than any star power he might have absorbed from standing next to Obama. Maybe you disagree, sure. But there's tons of historical and modern evidence suggesting he's going to bomb, and the only thing that looks good for him is that he ranks high on name recognition alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/432926-sanders-on-omar-cant-equate-anti-semitism-with-legitimate-criticism-of heck yeah
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Like Hillary got buried on 3-strikes and the Super-Predator stuff? poo poo changes, we're not at the end of history, and I'd love for Hillary to run again just to prove the point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Typo posted:someone said the probability that biden winning is the same as asteroid hitting the earth saying people disagreeing with Typo online is worse for the left than drugging and killing civil rights leaders: reasonable discourse "I find your arguments unconvincing": struggle session
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Like Hillary got buried on 3-strikes and the Super-Predator stuff? Half the voters stayed home (a fact that was handwaved away as meaningless and then it happened again in the general) People have more choices this time around than just "racist Dixiecrat", "stay home", or "someone I've never heard of". There is a reason she had to buy out the DNC to make sure no one with any national standing ran against her. E: and then almost lost anyway to an unknown old dude who didn't even take his own candidacy seriously until New Hampshire VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
in conclusion:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:This is self-serving, but there's probably just a higher likelihood that those people are more interested/invested in how all those programs are implemented. Partly because the implementation will determine how much they're "threatened" relative to someone with low income where any outcome is better than the status quo. Partly because earning >100k is probably somewhat correlated with more analytical/technocratic way of viewing the world or policy. Not that poors are naive, but >100k income with post-graduate degrees lends itself to STEM/finance/economics and greater buy-in for the type of norms fostered in these industries or the mindset in these areas of academia. The main part where you're wrong is that what you perceive as "analytical" is actually "blindly believing a bunch of stuff but thinking it's some sort of rational/scientific conclusion." The vast majority of these people aren't any more rational or intelligent than anyone else; they've just been given the false confidence that they are. They (and you) might tell themselves that it's because they think there are "better" ways to do these things, but the real reason is that they're personally invested in a self-image of them being smarter and more rational/pragmatic than the leftists. This causes you to start with the conclusion that the left must be wrong and attempt to retroactively come up with some reason to justify that conclusion. KingNastidon posted:Some of the resistance to Sanders from those earning over $100k is because they're afraid socialists will take their money. Some of it are reasonable concerns that Sanders is no wonk and his most vocal supporters are more interested in moral condemnation and less in nuance because they can only see it as bad faith obfuscation. Basically the issue here is that you seem to perceive being a "wonk" as actually having meaningful expertise, when this is not the case. Nearly all of these people are arguably worse than laypeople, because they're operating under the false impression that they're experts. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Mar 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:They (and you) might tell themselves that it's because they think there are "better" ways to do these things, but the real reason is that they're personally invested in a self-image of them being smarter and more rational/pragmatic than the leftists. This causes you to start with the conclusion that the left must be wrong and attempt to retroactively come up with some reason to justify that conclusion. Notice how there's no actual justification given for why some other candidate would be better at hiring people to write proposals than Sanders, nor even any attempt to engage with the bills currently in congress, in fact he earlier he made up a strawman version of M4A that would be bad to try to make the case that Bernie hadn't though of the problems in that proposal, problems which are already addressed in the Medicare 4 All that actually exists. He also asserts without any evidence at all that Warren would be better at creating a healthcare bill even though she is running without any serious concrete health care proposal whatsoever. Reminds me of a conversation I had with this dude who said he was supporting Beto for president because Bernie doesn't have a healthcare plan, when I pointed out that he does, he said it wasn't ready early enough and that shows Bernie isn't ready to be president. When I asked for Beto's superior healthcare plan he said Beto didn't need one because the election is still a ways away. For a certain type of person they just emotionally assign the adjectives "competent and reasonable" to people they like, and the adjectives "incompetent and unreasonable" to the people they don't like, and come up with after-the-fact justifications that are unprovable and often inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A Biden meltdown is incredibly likely. Let us count the ways: Yup. I'll also throw in that IMO he doesn't fit in well with any of the natural Dem voter bases: - Leftists don't like him for obvious reasons - "Identity politics" voters don't like him because he's an old white man - Party loyalist voters won't follow him because the party establishment is backing Harris - Gender-motivated suburban women don't like him because he comes off pretty creepy post #MeToo
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:You are wrong there, actually: This is good and consistent with his stated beliefs. Bravo comrade Sanders
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Yup. I'll also throw in that IMO he doesn't fit in well with any of the natural Dem voter bases: I think point 2 is just a subset of point 3. If the establishment backed him all the "no more old white men" people would find a way to justify voting for him, remember when Bill Clinton was anointed First Black President.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Here's the interview with Neera Tanden on the Young Turks. She introduces a groundbreaking new idea from the Center for American Progress for fixing our healthcare system, "Medicare EXTRA for All"! It's like Medicare for All, but it's EXTRA!!! short version: "We still want to shovel truckloads of government money to private insurers."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Yeah there is literally no way the vast majority of the people complaining about Bernie's age actually give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Notice how there's no actual justification given for why some other candidate would be better at hiring people to write proposals than Sanders, nor even any attempt to engage with the bills currently in congress, in fact he earlier he made up a strawman version of M4A that would be bad to try to make the case that Bernie hadn't though of the problems in that proposal, problems which are already addressed in the Medicare 4 All that actually exists. He also asserts without any evidence at all that Warren would be better at creating a healthcare bill even though she is running without any serious concrete health care proposal whatsoever. It's basically people who have adopted "intelligent, pragmatic person" as an identity, while still being just as irrational and biased as anyone else. It kinda reminds me of atheists who use some bizarro version of logic/rationalism to attack feminism or other social justice issues. They're taking random opinions and just asserting that they're logical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Their appeal to voters is "we'll add more adjectives if you want, what about Medicare EXTRA for All PLUS? Or Medicare EXTRA PLUS for All? Or Super Mega Ultra Medicare Extra Plus for All 9000?!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can't help but notice all these posts whining that legitimate criticism is being ignored while pointedly...not presenting any legitimate criticisms whatsoever. There are plenty of criticisms of Bernie published over the past few years. If you don't know of any of them or can't observe them on your own you're either being disingenuous or just ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think point 2 is just a subset of point 3. A whole lot has changed culturally since the early 90s, and there are a lot of people who are actually very sincere about the "no old white men" thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Complaining that people aren't discussing things in a thread and then when asked to discuss those things saying that it's up to everyone else to read outside the thread sure is something else. Like post these critiques it's literally what the thread is for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Harris’ statement was nothing in comparison. Just more typical “maybe islamophobia is bad but tropes!” horseshit. Bernie’s statement still wasn’t strong enough imo but it at least goes beyond that and offers Omar support. Oh yeah, I almost expanded on the quality of their respective statements, but I was phone-posting and thus lazy about it. Bernie and Warren's statements, while not quite strong enough, were both good, Harris's was empty, and Booker's was actively bad. Point was that he did defend her, and he did it before the others and his statement might have even been what prompted the others to release their own and/or a factor in the resolution they were thinking of passing breaking down. Not perfect, but it was good and may have had good effects.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:There are plenty of criticisms of Bernie published over the past few years. If you don't know of any of them or can't observe them on your own you're either being disingenuous or just ignorant. So the complaint has shifted from "criticism of Bernie is being ignored itt" to "other people aren't going out and finding the criticisms I want to see and posting them for me!" Anyway someone did post a good criticism of Bernie that got some general agreement so stfu The Muppets On PCP posted:his foreign policy doesn't fundamentally challenge the imperial state and at the end of the day he's by his own admission a return to fdr style liberalism rather than a radical leftward shift, and only seems like the latter due to the ludicrously narrow spectrum of "serious" political discourse in america
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:There are plenty of criticisms of Bernie published over the past few years. If you don't know of any of them or can't observe them on your own you're either being disingenuous or just ignorant. then present one
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think point 2 is just a subset of point 3. "First black president" was not a cynical play by the establishment to get black voters to support the white guy, it was a statement by Toni Morrison where she opined that Clinton being publicly shamed and torn down in front of America for adultery, a sin so many of his detractors were guilty of, was reminiscent of what happens to so many in the black community. quote:African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear: “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and—who knows?—maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.” You're not wrong that it was cynically adopted following the end of Clinton's presidency, though I've heard it used more often as a punchline than as a positive statement. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:then present one Bernie's handling of sexual harassment allegations in 2016 was loving terrible and he's going to spend the next 18 months responding to criticisms that never should have happened in the first place. Thankfully he appears to have learned from the mistake of having his campaign run by his idiot bros from Vermont.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:There are plenty of criticisms of Bernie published over the past few years. If you don't know of any of them or can't observe them on your own you're either being disingenuous or just ignorant. Don't do the "do your own research" thing in the discussion forum idiot. Post evidence of you have it or don't post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Bernie's handling of sexual harassment allegations in 2016 was loving terrible and he's going to spend the next 18 months responding to criticisms that never should have happened in the first place. Thankfully he appears to have learned from the mistake of having his campaign run by his idiot bros from Vermont. Nobody cares about this. He was not personally accused of harassing anyone and has corrected the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Nobody cares about this. He was not personally accused of harassing anyone and has corrected the problem. I can guarantee you it will come up at every debate and there will be a subset of voters who become only tangentially aware of the issue and think Bernie has been personally accused of harassment. But whether or not it will matter is an open question and my crystal ball has been on the fritz ever since the 2016 election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Yup. I'll also throw in that IMO he doesn't fit in well with any of the natural Dem voter bases: I think it's even simpler than that. Just imagine Biden's answers to questions like: * Do you support the GND? * Do you support high marginal tax rates and/or a wealth tax? * Do you support M4A? * Do you support free education and/or student loan forgiveness? * BLM or ALM? Reparations? Forget his being on the wrong side of history for decades, he's on the wrong side of right now. He's running as a Lieberman Democrat in 2019. It's going to be an amazing spectacle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
If people bring up the Sanders campaign sexual harassment stuff repeatedly it's going to have the affect that this story will get more prominence. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kamala-harris-aide-sexual-harassment-settlement_us_5c096958e4b0de79357ad57d It's very good he corrected it, but his campaign isn't the only organization to have these issues so it won't be as specifically bad for him as it might if that wasn't the case. I'm not sure which other candidate it really helps outside of maybe normalizing Biden's creepiness. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Mar 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Bernie's handling of sexual harassment allegations in 2016 was loving terrible and he's going to spend the next 18 months responding to criticisms that never should have happened in the first place. Thankfully he appears to have learned from the mistake of having his campaign run by his idiot bros from Vermont. agreed. artifact of a slapdash campaign forced to scale up from Message to Actual Campaign way, way too fast. the question is who's best positioned to hit him on it, and that ain't gonna be Harris or Biden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A Biden meltdown is incredibly likely. Let us count the ways: Right now Sanders has a slight edge, last month it was Harris. He's right there w/ Beto in the current 1b-tier along w/ Harris. Brown from OH isn't running (maybe VP), and maybe his base pushes Biden through the Rustbelt. Biden has SC as of now and it looks like IA & NH split. Haven't seen NV polled but Harris would seem the slight-favorite there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Don't do the "do your own research" thing in the discussion forum idiot. Post evidence of you have it or don't post. "Post your map." (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:42
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Basically the issue here is that you seem to perceive being a "wonk" as actually having meaningful expertise, when this is not the case. Nearly all of these people are arguably worse than laypeople, because they're operating under the false impression that they're experts. We're really going with the "Actually, Warren is less of an expert in bankruptcy law, consumer protections, and various other public/private financial topics than the internet socialist layman"? You don't have to think that will necessarily translate into better policy, but it's not unreasonable to think there is a segment of the population that will believe that. People will generally be more receptive to political candidates that have similar experiences/backgrounds and can talk about issues in a way they would. Maybe Warren's pro-markets framing is more relevant to folks in the >$100k income tier than Sanders even if their policy proposals aren't that much different. You can think it's dumb or a misguided reading, but I wouldn't be so reductive to purely attribute it to "socialists gonna take my money."
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:12 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:agreed. artifact of a slapdash campaign forced to scale up from Message to Actual Campaign way, way too fast. Gillibrand could probably make it her only goal and ensure a lifetime of riches and power even as she loses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 00:45
|
|
