|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Counterpoint: she’s proven capable of compromise. Bernie Sanders will have both parties against him in Congress, likely trigger Jimmy Carter levels of gridlock and backlash, and open the door to 4-8 years of GOP rule. Bernie doesn’t know how to compromise, and i don’t think he knows how. He can’t build a coalition of politicians big enough to pass anything meaningful, and I’d cite his entire congressional record heretofore as evidence. quote:And it won’t matter, because he won’t be the nominee.  quote:There are no converts to get. There are no undecided people on Bernie Sanders. Opinions have been drawn, and there’s people like a chunk of this thread who scream at their friends and family about Bernie the way some of these posts scream about Warren as center-right trash, Harris as a cop, and it’s done in a way - much like Bernie - that leaves people cold. And they remember you, and others like you. They remember how you made them feel. They remember the names they were called for supporting Hillary Clinton. Not only did they not understand you then, they don’t want to understand you now, because they remember when you were a dick. quote:You can be right, just as Bernie can be right. You can agree with one another about how right you are, or what you would have accomplished if only people could SEE. But if the average American, the average voter, the casual-to-politics person who’s never read Marx and just wants the loving never ending SCREAM this country has subjected them to stop...if you can’t sell them on your message, and more importantly, they don’t WANT to consume your message, then what? quote:I don’t think there’s a realistic path to the nomination for Bernie Sanders. Not without a whole lot of tactical adjustments that would make him, and the people who advocate for him, Not Bernie Sanders. For the purposes of this thread, for him to win would require him to be, well, Elizabeth Warren. His policies, divorced from his name, poll exceedingly well too.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Bernie cannot be compromised. I don't think he knows how.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Exactly. Warren voters are smart people who Do you have like, a source on this, or
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
ross perot in hell posted:Do you have like, a source on this, or I meant to put a * at the end of it where I said that "Smart meant college educated" as the whole point of my post is that warren supporters have made themselves out to be too smart to just call for good policies. That's for idiots. Smart people propose pragmatic solutions that take 10 years to take effect. It was supposed to be sarcasm. HootTheOwl fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I think you're right about this, but I also think that Warren, offering pragmatic half-measures, will lose to Trump. So your options are four years of executive Bernie followed by a thousand years of darkness, or the thousand years of darkness can start tomorrow. That's possible too. I'm of the belief (source: canvassing) that there's an awful, awful lot of voters who are going to crawl over broken glass to vote for Not Trump, because gently caress This Guy is a motivating factor in a way it hasn't been previously. Past Ain't Predictive™, so it's worth remember just how angry people are about the state of things, how powerless they feel, but hold solace in THAT power, since there's plenty of center / center-left media getting fed into their heads post 11/9/16, post Women's March, post Whatever Atrocity Affected Them. Anger motivates. Anger created the groundswell that got us here, and I think the pendulum of that anger is coming back threefold. Again, I've been wrong before, but the data bears it out. Turnout in off-year, turnout in specials, turnout in primaries, a whole lot of it is upward, and I don't expect that to change now that the chance to slay the dragon is here. quote:This though, isn't correct. Well the bit about the thread is right, but there are converts to get, and opinions on Sanders don't need to be malleable: the data suggests he's immensely popular. In poll after poll he tops out as 'Most Likable Democrat". If he's right about his fundraising numbers, he can win the caucuses by default. In states with open primaries I think he has a huge advantage because I believe he has strong cross-party support, and there's no republican primary to vote in. I'm looking for the poll I pulled that from, and I'll edit it in if I find it, but it was a shocking amount of "have an opinion about" for Bernie in comparison to the rest of the field. People know him, and they know how they feel about him. E: Found it! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LqfkQsESsQYMT7dpYqsRX4RRcJoX_uTjq-WgUOJPVh8/edit#gid=0 It's Crooked Media, so you've got literate, and you've got center-leftish, not as left as this forum, certainly not as left as this thread. People have formed their opinion. He's not dead with those numbers, but considering these are pre-debate numbers, I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that he's in the top three or four of every Democratic primary voter. But this isn't ranked choice. quote:If you're talking to someone who won't respond to a message, then the whole point is moot, innit? Well, there it is, isn't it? If you've got an army of volunteers, but nobody's consuming your message, the ground game can only get you so far. And ground game is the rocket fuel. You wanna fly? You gotta have people who can make this message, WITH Bernie Sanders' name on it, palatable to the people you're targeting. And Bernie's never gotten the full on cannon from the right wing media the way others have. That favorability would die on the vine by August. Also, and let's just marinate in the majesty of this, you're basing a distressing amount of your theory on courting Republicans. You know who else did that? Hillary Clinton in 2016. And if you're right, Biden's right, and you're doomed up THAT alley as well. *looks at avatar bought in ten minutes* Oh neat, I'm a Biden guy now. I wonder when I started liking that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Yeah the ground game rocket fuel cannon isn't being consumed, so how is the pendulum going to marinate the court without dying on the vine. Completely doomed up that alley
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Irony - boy, I don't know. unfortunately a lot of people dont ""get"" Bernie Sanders, or ""get"" M4A or ""get"" tuition free college and see Elizabeth Warren as a compromise because she promises numbers and data and that she's still working within this framework of fiddling around which makes her seem meritorious and substantive but the problems are clear as day which doesn't go towards contributing to actually solving it in a fundamental way that transforms american society from top to bottom such as the New Deal and Social Security, so you can't sit there and say it can't be done when it has been done before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Counterpoint: she’s proven capable of compromise. Bernie Sanders will have both parties against him in Congress, likely trigger Jimmy Carter levels of gridlock and backlash, and open the door to 4-8 years of GOP rule. Bernie doesn’t know how to compromise, and i don’t think he knows how. He can’t build a coalition of politicians big enough to pass anything meaningful, and I’d cite his entire congressional record heretofore as evidence. This is a lot of words to say "my gut feeling that Warren has some nebulous, evidence-less electoral advantage (despite polling universally indicating her base is limited to well-off educated whites) is more important than the substantive differences in policy and ideology between the candidates." In a primary like this there is no good reason not to just support the candidate who is actually best on the issues, particularly in a situation like this where the best candidate is competitive and usually polling second. If you think Warren is better on the actual issues, you should make that argument instead. This "Bernie can't get things done" is ahistorical nonsense (given his actual legislative career is very productive), so you'll have to come up with something better than that. And some vague gut feeling that he'll face more opposition than Warren also isn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:E: Found it! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LqfkQsESsQYMT7dpYqsRX4RRcJoX_uTjq-WgUOJPVh8/edit#gid=0 It's Crooked Media, so you've got literate, and you've got center-leftish, not as left as this forum, certainly not as left as this thread. People have formed their opinion. He's not dead with those numbers, but considering these are pre-debate numbers, I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that he's in the top three or four of every Democratic primary voter. But this isn't ranked choice. lol at your choice of a poll from the PSA morons, the same people who advised elizabeth warren to get a DNA test. the same company did a poll after the debate. quote:We polled 1261 Democratic voters from June 29 to July 4, after the two-night debate, about their candidate preferences and how the debate had shaped their thinking about the race. i guess bernie has no choice but to drop out after this dismal showing (he's only tied for first after a single debate!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:unfortunately a lot of people dont ""get"" Bernie Sanders, or ""get"" M4A or ""get"" tuition free college and see Elizabeth Warren as a compromise because she promises numbers and data and that she's still working within this framework of fiddling around which makes her seem meritorious and substantive but the problems are clear as day which doesn't go towards contributing to actually solving it in a fundamental way that transforms american society from top to bottom such as the New Deal and Social Security, so you can't sit there and say it can't be done when it has been done before. But ah, I guess this thread just went a little above my posting pay grade, these past few pages. I don't even understand half of what you're saying about MW and I fully don't get why I'm supposed to give a poo poo. But go off 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:lol at your choice of a poll from the PSA morons, the same people who advised elizabeth warren to get a DNA test. the same company did a poll after the debate. You misunderstand my point. My point isn't where he's polling. My point is that there's nobody undecided on him. They know him. They have an opinion. And that poll data tells me you're far closer to the ceiling than the floor. Ytlaya posted:This is a lot of words to say Coming from you of all people
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:You misunderstand my point. My point isn't where he's polling. My point is that there's nobody undecided on him. They know him. They have an opinion. And that poll data tells me you're far closer to the ceiling than the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:
I agree, just look at this thread for how this could work, just a few month ago Warren was popular here and there were probably even some Biden supporters. Thanks to a coalition of bernie supporters and self-declared trump voters, this thread have already defeated the Warrenist posters, defeated the Bidenist posters, and have forged unprecedented unity lined up behind the best candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
They're even trying to destroy the Marianne stans. The purity test grows more strict with each passing day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is a lot of words to say "my gut feeling that Warren has some nebulous, evidence-less electoral advantage (despite polling universally indicating her base is limited to well-off educated whites) is more important than the substantive differences in policy and ideology between the candidates." Typo posted:I agree, just look at this thread for how this could work, just a few month ago Warren was popular here and there were probably even some Biden supporters. Thanks to a coalition of bernie supporters and self-declared trump voters, this thread have already defeated the Warrenist posters, defeated the Bidenist posters, and have forged unprecedented unity lined up behind the best candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:You misunderstand my point. My point isn't where he's polling. My point is that there's nobody undecided on him. They know him. They have an opinion. And that poll data tells me you're far closer to the ceiling than the floor. *Assuming no change in the primary electorate between 2016 and 2020, since that's what underlies the likely primary voter screens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:*Assuming no change in the primary electorate between 2016 and 2020, since that's what underlies the likely primary voter screens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Isn't it still mostly people with landlines who answer unknown numbers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Isn't it still mostly people with landlines who answer unknown numbers? Depends on the poll, but what they’ll do is take out their table of “expected voter % by demographics” so if they got 1/5 of the “white men under 30” expected they’ll just weight the answers they get by 5x. This of course means that their expected turn out model is massively influential to the result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Depends on the poll, but what they’ll do is take out their table of “expected voter % by demographics” so if they got 1/5 of the “white men under 30” expected they’ll just weight the answers they get by 5x. This of course means that their expected turn out model is massively influential to the result. Also white men under 30 with landlines who answer unknown numbers are exclusively the young Republicans from the Onion article about the GOP's lock on young men who look like old men: https://politics.theonion.com/gop-maintains-solid-hold-on-youth-that-already-look-lik-1819595704
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I fully don't get why I'm supposed to give a poo poo. But go off yer not supposed to, which is the biggest irony here. people don't give a poo poo about her, even the ironic stanning, but people that actually do and direct their scorn at the lowest hanging fruit makes it easy pickings to ridicule them just by their insanity alone which is even more ironic because they've taken themselves to performatively scorn her as if they were personal crusaders of aids victims who all have wildly unique experiences, life choices, and faith systems that some may have looked to her for comfort, or genuine belief, or just out of impoverished desperation. We don't know and can't attest to that and instead weaponize them to direct our scorn which by itself is more hosed up on a profoundly fundamental level than taking aim to knocking the system that put them in this situation, because its easier to feel good about checking off a moral checklist to validate and vindicate ourselves in an immoral and unethical system that exploits people. It's more sad to me, to be honest that they missed the point, so gently caress off I guess~ I hope this clarifies why the meme candidate, who has like one or two good viewpoints and has some pretty good philosophical inquiries when it comes to human connections which makes for interesting consideration, if people weren't smug and condescending in their dismissal and also if we could luxuriate in it, but we don't have the time, resources, or energy to expand our consciousness beyond combating "gently caress you, got mine" at the moment and why she obviously won't be president or make for a good one in this time and age despite if some of her stances which are good, such as reparations and criticism of US foreign policies which makes her a much better candidate than 99% of the neoliberal emptsuits who actively wish to harm you but in the back first because that is the sad state of affairs of US politics and it makes it easier to scorn and ridicule those candidates objectively within a contextual framework, yes including Elizabeth Warren, who was a republican until she was 50, for chrissakes. Get a fkn grip~ Joke about her, stop wringing hands and take her seriously and stan for Bernie, bing bong so simple. Lastgirl fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is a lot of words to say "my gut feeling that Warren has some nebulous, evidence-less electoral advantage (despite polling universally indicating her base is limited to well-off educated whites) It's very strange how the people clucking their tongues about Bernie losing the black vote in 2016 and fretting about his "problem" with black people despite him winning the black youth vote in 2016 and having one of the most diverse support bases in the field are magically okay with Warren only winning the support of well off whites. I just can't explain why they are suddenly cool with the candidate of affluent whites, so strange
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:yer not supposed to, which is the biggest irony here. people don't give a poo poo about her, even the ironic stanning, but people that actually do and direct their scorn at the lowest hanging fruit makes it easy pickings to ridicule them just by their insanity alone which is even more ironic because they've taken themselves to performatively scorn her as if they were personal crusaders of aids victims who all have wildly unique experiences, life choices, and faith systems that some may have looked to her for comfort, or genuine belief, or just out of impoverished desperation. We don't know and can't attest to that and instead weaponize them to direct our scorn which by itself is more hosed up on a profoundly fundamental level than taking aim to knocking the system that put them in this situation, because its easier to feel good about checking off a moral checklist to validate and vindicate ourselves in an immoral and unethical system that exploits people. It's more sad to me, to be honest that they missed the point, so gently caress off I guess~
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:bit annoyed at reading this many words about marianne williamson but this all sounds pretty reasonable to me well u asked for clarity and this is the c-spam mindset for people who don't "get" it when its pretty obvious that she's a good bludgeon for the lovely neolibs compared to Bernie who has practically set the legislative agenda for democrats to feebly copy and half--heartedly parrot off on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:27
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's very strange how the people clucking their tongues about Bernie losing the black vote in 2016 and fretting about his "problem" with black people despite him winning the black youth vote in 2016 and having one of the most diverse support bases in the field are magically okay with Warren only winning the support of well off whites. Why can't both be true that Sanders has good polling among racial minorities, especially young folks, but simply not enough to win South Carolina? It's the state that people are focusing on along with NH and Iowa so everyone is exposed to more polling there. Bernie doesn't have a black voter problem, he just isn't capturing as much as Biden/Harris and is unlikely to do so because they tend to lean more moderate. Warren doing well with affluent whites is a completely unrelated point. I think if she were to win the primary that she'd do worse with minority voters (and non minority voters too!) in the general than Bernie would, but that's not her appeal or hypothetical path to victory in primary or general.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Coming from you of all people Haha, fair enough, though at least I can make a fairly straight-forward argument for who I support based upon actual policies/history. You're basically acting on a bunch of subjective assumptions with no real evidence backing them. Even if you assume that some of the things you're assuming about Sanders are true (which is dubious enough), there's no reason to think that Warren will perform better in this regard, given how limited her base seems to be. You (and other Warren supporters) have basically put yourself in an awkward situation where you need to argue in favor of your candidate despite her having a worse history and set of policies. But the evidence for her somehow being more electable (or capable of accomplishing more if elected) doesn't really exist (and to some extent is impossible to even acquire, which is why it makes more sense to judge a candidate on their policy and ideological merits). MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yeah that's the other thing: a lot of posters who usually seem particularly tuned in to what the polls say and extremely good at spinning a narrative around them, seem to toss all that poo poo out the window when it comes to Bernie. No one else consistently polling in second place both in important states and nationally, no one else with the staying power in the polls that he has, would be the subject of this tongue-clicking "well yeah I just don't see a path to the nomination" *nods sagely* People like Your Boy Fancy are basically operating under the assumption that a lot of the stuff repeated in the media is just obviously true. So when people talk about Bernie having a ceiling to his support, it's just obvious to them, in a way that doesn't really need to be supported by evidence. They perceive Bernie's support base as being the sort of people posting in this thread, when in reality it's far more diverse than that. VitalSigns posted:It's very strange how the people clucking their tongues about Bernie losing the black vote in 2016 and fretting about his "problem" with black people despite him winning the black youth vote in 2016 and having one of the most diverse support bases in the field are magically okay with Warren only winning the support of well off whites. If I had to guess, they probably perceive Warren's competence, electability, and general "goodness" as being self-evident, so all the arguments against Bernie or in favor of her aren't really what drives their own opinion, but are just their attempts to persuade other people. When they argued about Bernie being unpopular with black people, it was because they "knew" that Bernie was actually bad on race issues, but this doesn't concern them with Warren because they like Warren and trust that other people will too. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Why can't both be true that Sanders has good polling among racial minorities, especially young folks, but simply not enough to win South Carolina? Because there is literally no way to know at this point beyond speculation, because for some reason polling doesn't cover what might be Bernie's potential voting base. We can't say either way with any kind of surety and the real test will come with the results. That is if they aren't ratfucked hard by the party on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Counterpoint: she’s proven capable of compromise. Bernie Sanders will have both parties against him in Congress, likely trigger Jimmy Carter levels of gridlock and backlash, and open the door to 4-8 years of GOP rule. Bernie doesn’t know how to compromise, and i don’t think he knows how. He can’t build a coalition of politicians big enough to pass anything meaningful, and I’d cite his entire congressional record heretofore as evidence. This is substance free nonsense by someone who has had their brain fried by MSNBC. Like, it's hard to overstate how absolutely nonsensical all of this is. Point by point: - I can point to evidence of Bernie's compromise: his joint bill on VA benefits with John McCain, the fact that the National Housing Trust Fund that was his idea was signed into law in 2008 by a Republican president, and funded in 2016 by a republican senate. Of course, what we're really talking about here isn't compromise, because I am pretty sure you're at least smart enough to realize that there is no compromising with Republicans. What you are talking here is acquiescence. Your "compromise" really is referring to knowing that Warren isn't going to really push her policies. Because contrary to what self interested talking heads who like to pretend to be pundits think, asking nicely isn't what is going to get you the wealth tax or medicare for all. So let's be clear here, compromise isn't really signifying working with other people. It's signifying "giving in for a less ambitious platform." We should at least be honest here. - The second point is also substance free gut feeling from white highly educated people who can't tell apart their gut feeling from reality. There isn't a single poll where Warren is substantially behind in name recognition. In every single poll that tracks it, the percent who have never heard of Warren is in the single digits. And here's the thing: even in the one recent poll where Warren is ahead of Bernie (economist/yougov), Bernie has higher favorability. This shouldn't be a surprise, after all, in pretty much every single general election poll Bernie does better versus Trump than Warren. And of course there is a very clear path to the nomination. The most common second choice for Biden voters is Bernie. Not to mention that since Bernie's base is young and rare voters, it is entirely possible that by motivating new voters he will severely out perform the polls. Not that uncommon: in 2016 Bernie outperformed polls by at least 8% in all the states that he won. - Meanwhile, even in the most favorable poll to all to Warren (economist/yougov) it is clear that Warren's base is rich white people. She ranks 1st among white voters, is tied with Bernie and Harris in second among Black voters (the only poll she polls even with Bernie in that category) and is 3rd among Hispanics. Same deal for income: she is fist among those who make more than 100k, 2nd for 50-100k, and 3rd for less than 50k. In other words, the only reason Warren is anywhere close Bernie in the polls is because she is dominant among white wealthy voters. It's unlikely that you can expand that base for a primary. Her base is easily the least diverse of the 4 leading candidates right now. - It is also ridiculous to complain about "screaming" because people dunk on you on twitter on the same week that the biggest liberal cable network was saying that Bernie makes their skin crawl. None of your post is backed by an iota of data, other than the personal feelings of a comfortable person. But you know what is really tiresome? This constant need to discuss politics exclusively through this meta bullshit. It's the unspoken secret here. People can't admit the truth that M4A, GND, etc. aren't as important to them, so they have to engage in this obfuscation. "Oh, Warren is just as big a M4A supporter as Bernie, but she is willing to compromise and work together to get things done!" Because in the minds of the centrist, asking MConnell nicely is a more realistic solution than trying to create permanent mobilization for change. Your Boy Fancy posted:You misunderstand my point. My point isn't where he's polling. My point is that there's nobody undecided on him. They know him. They have an opinion. And that poll data tells me you're far closer to the ceiling than the floor. Politico/Morning Consult is the only one of the recent polls to measure "never heard of" and "no opinion." Among democratic voters, Bernie is at 8% no opinion and 2% never heard of. Warren is at 14% no opinion, 9% never heard of. So she is hardly an unknown. And here's the thing: she is 10 points behind Bernie on the favorability, and only 4% better on the unfavorables. She would have to outperform her current numbers to catch up to Bernie (13% fewer people have heard of or have opinons on her compared to Bernie, and she would need those to break 10 favorable, 3 unfavorable to match Bernie's numbers). The only people who think that Bernie is hated or with a low ceiling are people who like to play the role of pundits online. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:53
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Because there is literally no way to know at this point beyond speculation, because for some reason polling doesn't cover what might be Bernie's potential voting base. We can't say either way with any kind of surety and the real test will come with the results. That is if they aren't ratfucked hard by the party on the ground. Well, yeah, polling is first choice preference. I'm sure any candidate has or will have 85%+ primary voters say "I'd vote for them" but that doesn't really matter in SC given it's one of the first primaries. All we have to go on is current polling and that shows that Sanders is definitely top 3 or 4, but he hasn't made much ground. Griping about sampling methodology doesn't matter if he's not winning any cross tab demographics where a reasonable resampling would change the end result. Of course that could change, and I still feel he has the best chance out of Biden/Harris/Warren because he has a solid vote floor. But he's clearly not in the lead and that's not because of racial minorities or women or old folks in particular, it's that people haven't bought into him or his policies.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
Sorry to roll back on this again but did Bernie cut staff hours to reach the $15 an hour goal? All sources I google are just "Bernie DESTROYED by reality of capitalism" or opinion pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Sorry to roll back on this again but did Bernie cut staff hours to reach the $15 an hour goal? All sources I google are just "Bernie DESTROYED by reality of capitalism" or opinion pieces. They're loving salaried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Sorry to roll back on this again but did Bernie cut staff hours to reach the $15 an hour goal? All sources I google are just "Bernie DESTROYED by reality of capitalism" or opinion pieces. Limited the hours of salaried employees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:dangerous ground for kamala, given biden's strong history of being lovely to black people gently caress Biden, but Kamala’s policing record wrt to black people is just as bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Sorry to roll back on this again but did Bernie cut staff hours to reach the $15 an hour goal? All sources I google are just "Bernie DESTROYED by reality of capitalism" or opinion pieces. It may shock you to hear this, but this attack line is disingenuous. I know, I know, it's hard to believe, since we know that the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, man of the people, has the struggle of the worker at the center of their reporting, but bear with me. Here's a quick play by play: -Bernie's campaign offered the lowest paid staff $36k and full medical benefits, with the understanding that this would result in a $15/hr equivalent wage. -However, staff ended up working more hours than expected. Possibly a failing on campaign management's part, but regardless, since the staff are salaried and earn $36k no matter how many hours they do or don't work, working more hours decreased the wage calculation as low as $13/hr for some staff. -The union started negotiating with the campaign. The campaign offered a $6k pay hike in May but the union rejected the offer because it altered the medical benefit calculations. -As a stopgap solution pending an agreement, the campaign cut working hours for staff to bring up their wage. This works because the staff are salaried; regardless of how many hours they work they get the same pay, so less hours worked plus same pay scale equals higher hourly wage equivalent. -An agreement between union and management was reached: pay raises to $42k for lowest paid staff, who still receive full medical coverage at no additional cost to them. The campaign also adjusted the expected schedule so employees are generally capped at 50 hours of work a week, which should prevent the problem of some poor sap putting in a 70 hour work week which would lead to WaPo asking why Billy from Iowa is only getting paid $14.57/hr. Long story short, this is a picture of a positive relationship between union-represented employees and management, with the union properly representing the interests of the workers. In a campaign that didn't have a union, it's very likely these issues would have remained invisible or unspoken until well after the election was over. But instead the issues were raised and addressed in a timely fashion and seem to have been addressed in a way that is satisfactory to all involved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:It may shock you to hear this, but this attack line is disingenuous. I know, I know, it's hard to believe, since we know that the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, man of the people, has the struggle of the worker at the center of their reporting, but bear with me. Sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Sorry to roll back on this again but did Bernie cut staff hours to reach the $15 an hour goal? All sources I google are just "Bernie DESTROYED by reality of capitalism" or opinion pieces. He limited the hours of salaried employees so that their pay worked out to 15/hr at like 43 hrs/week max instead of 13/hr at 60/week
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:Sounds reasonable. I do mean it: keep this stuff coming it's nice to hear the bullshit they're dreaming up and watch it get swatted down. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:And it won’t matter, because he won’t be the nominee. There are no converts to get. There are no undecided people on Bernie Sanders. Opinions have been drawn, and there’s people like a chunk of this thread who scream at their friends and family about Bernie the way some of these posts scream about Warren as center-right trash, Harris as a cop, and it’s done in a way - much like Bernie - that leaves people cold. And they remember you, and others like you. They remember how you made them feel. They remember the names they were called for supporting Hillary Clinton. Not only did they not understand you then, they don’t want to understand you now, because they remember when you were a dick. Good. We don't need a bunch of busted rear end #stillwithher neolibs who keep losing elections. We're not going to get anywhere by trying to cater to rich center-right white people who are more worried about optics and whether or not someone called them an rear end in a top hat at a party 4 years ago because they wouldn't shut up about how Clinton was right about us really needing "regime change" in Libya. Trying to pander to these people has led to nothing but poverty and war for anyone who can't be described as "Professional Managerial Class", and consistently trying to triangulate with their class interests during primaries is why everyone keeps losing their rear end in the general. Your Boy Fancy posted:You can be right, just as Bernie can be right. You can agree with one another about how right you are, or what you would have accomplished if only people could SEE. But if the average American, the average voter, the casual-to-politics person who’s never read Marx and just wants the loving never ending SCREAM this country has subjected them to stop...if you can’t sell them on your message, and more importantly, they don’t WANT to consume your message, then what? It's incredibly telling that you seem to think the only way people can understand why they don't want to pay $500/mo in employer subsidized healthcare premiums is if they've read Marx. You don't have to read 19th century German politics nerds to know that cutting welfare and giving your boss greater freedom to fire you isn't exactly ideal if you want to see 50. joepinetree posted:But you know what is really tiresome? This constant need to discuss politics exclusively through this meta bullshit. It's the unspoken secret here. People can't admit the truth that M4A, GND, etc. aren't as important to them, so they have to engage in this obfuscation. "Oh, Warren is just as big a M4A supporter as Bernie, but she is willing to compromise and work together to get things done!" Because in the minds of the centrist, asking MConnell nicely is a more realistic solution than trying to create permanent mobilization for change. Yeah it really shouldn't shock anyone that "affordable access to healthcare outcomes" sounds identical or even superior to "Medicare for All" to the upper class. Worrying about $500/mo insurance premiums isn't in their vocabulary, and Medicare is that thing that one of their older uncles living on a fixed income (poors) use. They only fight as hard as they do for the ACA because they realize that, even with their 6 figure income, they're probably going to die if their insurer screams "preexisting condition" at them when the cancer comes back. Ghost Leviathan posted:Isn't it still mostly people with landlines who answer unknown numbers? Nah, a lot of them (but not all) now do cellphone users who answer unknown numbers at 3pm on a workday. e: https://twitter.com/Hickenlooper/status/1154530463769419778?s=20 
Marxalot fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 09:26
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:A woman made a game about depression and it started a tantrum so large it elected a clown as the President. Now that's the sort of smooth brain analysis I live for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Now that's the sort of smooth brain analysis I live for. What does it say when angry nerds can destroy your entire political institution
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 10:01
|
|