|
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 | ||
|
joepinetree posted:And Jon Favreau is on the board of United States of Care, a position he shares with several HMO CEOs and also like Bill Frist. i've never listened to their pod (which should be "pod bless america" goddammit) but the chapo episode where two of them went to a live show was dreadful. i couldn't believe thousands of people would line up to see these boring milquetoasts dudes.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Typo posted:
just gonna try to forget you said PA, huh but yes as I said above when I looked it up, she won rural OH by a 3-point margin, and lost rural PA, MI, WI, IA, IL, IN so calling the rural rust belt a mixed bag is not accurate
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i've never listened to their pod (which should be "pod bless america" goddammit) but the chapo episode where two of them went to a live show was dreadful. i couldn't believe thousands of people would line up to see these boring milquetoasts dudes. I used to listen to them back when Lovett made a pretense of being more left wing, but then he got owned by a black woman when he tried to push the vote blue no matter who, edited out everything that Felix said in the one he was invited to, and then started having guests about how Medicare 4 All was racist really, because so many black people work for the health insurance industry that i gave up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:And it’s incredibly telling that saying “Bernie can’t win, his supporters are assholes and his message gets lost in the belligerence” triggers a chorus of FOOL! CENTRIST! BIDEN LOVER! MSNBC WATCHER! This is my point. The majority of the last day in this thread was a parade extolling the virtues of the vaccine-skeptic self-help-for-profit joke candidate, because at least she was never a Republican at some point. Prester Jane could write a whole chapter in her book on cults on the compaction cycle that went on here. Y’all made mcmagic sound reasonable. You said a bunch of people were assholes and think that it was "incredibly telling" that people responded with hostility. Wow, that sounds like a really significant data point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You said a bunch of people were assholes and think that it was "incredibly telling" that people responded with hostility. Wow, that sounds like a really significant data point. It's great when all the pretense of talking about pathways to the nomination, coalition building, etc. all end up boiling down to "people are not nice to me, personally." It exemplifies the ethos of the white comfortable lanyard class (or in this case lanyard wannabe class). Funny how in all that talk about pathways to the nomination and coalitions this person didn't feel like replying at least once to anyone who used any data to prove him wrong. All of that is secondary to centering the needs of the lanyard class. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
I don't care what anyone says, people being rude to me on the internet is a matter of world historic significance. In fact the entire nomination process and indeed election most likely hinges on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
open question: "but how will we pay for it?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:open question: "but how will we pay for it?" Follow up: but would it solve racism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
While poster "your boy fancy" have certainly committed many errors in this thread, I would like to remind the thread of his working class background, and urge posters to guide rather than berate him in rejecting false consciousness and coming to the correct conclusions about the primaries
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:While poster "your boy fancy" have certainly committed many errors in this thread, I would like to remind the thread of his working class background, and urge posters to guide rather than berate him in rejecting false consciousness and coming to the correct conclusions about the primaries Want to be the change you want to see here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
You know, to some extent at least the Biden campaign is honest. They may attack M4A in a completely dishonest way, but he is very upfront about his "better things aren't possible" take. He gladly and publicly takes corporate money, health insurance money, etc. Because on the other side you have these campaigns that are deeply dishonest, that everyone knows are dishonest, but we can't say it out loud lest the public know about it. So Biden attacks Medicare for all and all reporters only ask Bernie to answer to it, despite the fact that nominally several other candidates support it. Or people talk about how Bernie doesn't know how to compromise, unlike Warren or Harris, and everyone knows that they are not talking about past performance (because it's not like Harris and Warren have gotten a bunch of stuff through the republican senate either). It's the secret that everyone knows that push comes to shove only Bernie will actually try to pass M4A. It's knowledge that is baked into every pundit conversation about the race (that Bernie cares about these policies and the rest are being strategic trying to win a primary without going against the base) but that we can't say out loud. That is why the conversation ends up devolving into who is mean to whom. Because we can't talk about the actual issue. So people can crash into this thread, talk a lot of poo poo about compromise and getting things done and all of that, and then when there's push back at all, ignore all the substantive points and just focus on who is nice to whom. As if politics doesn't exist past the performative element of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
I just think it's hilarious that the same people who've been dead wrong about everything for years by now still have their heads so far up their own arses that they think they have any credibility whatsoever when it comes to predicting how the primary will go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Turns out many people do not want their health insurance taken from them, yes. Too bad, you selfish idiots. Marxalot posted:And they're free to go vote Republican like the rest of the FYGM conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Turns out many people do not want their health insurance taken from them, yes. Turns out you can get whatever answer you want if you're willing to lie to people with push polling. It remains to be seen whether those lies will be successful in actually moving the electorate rather than just getting the answer you want to a poll, but it's weird to gloat about how successful lying will be at pulling the wool over people's eyes. Like if I found myself bragging about how my campaign is so good at lying we're going to trick people into serfdom and premature death in order to enrich insurance companies I would start to wonder if I might possibly be a bad person because that sounds kind of evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I'm not talking about courting Republicans, though. I'm saying it's a bad idea to say "If you don't like my policy you can go to hell." Forget Republicans, you've got to get Democrats on board, both ik the primary and in the general, and part of that means dealing with people who aren't on board with Sanders Medicare for All policy right now. You have to win them over, not just call them idiots. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:You do all of that because of course you do, but after that people still disagree with you, what's left to be done other than tell them to gently caress off? Use them as the excuse for why you can't fulfill your campaign promises, then collect a check from your plutocrat bosses. This is called bipartisanship, and the biggest danger to America is we might elect someone who doesn't do that and all that money spent buying politicians is suddenly a wasted investment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
The Democratic leadership's obsession with pleasing the imaginary centre-right Republican leaning independent voter base was a primary factor in their decision to completely throw ACORN under the bus over a manufactured scandal. ACORN was dedicated to registering voters and increasing turnout among exactly the groups of people the Democrats desperately need to show up in huge numbers. Though it was eventually concluded that ACORN hadn't actually violated the law the Democrats allowed them to get defunded and they filed for bankruptcy. There's a whole body of research demonstrating that focusing on registration and turning out your own voters is vastly more effective in most cases than trying to win over undecided voters, and that door knocking tends to be much more effective than television ads. But those are techniques that require motivated volunteers and enthusiastic voters which means raising expectations and then occasionally delivering on those expectations (maybe even giving your supporters something extra to turn out and defend next time) and that completely gently caress up the Democratic pitch to their wealthy donors. Besides which there would be no sense whatsover in making a career as a Democratic consultant if you couldn't redirect contracts to your friends so the idea that you'd do fewer expensive television spots just because they're not very effective is madness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Also consultants get a 5-10% kickback on every dollar spent on TV ads but don’t get any kickbacks from money spent knocking on doors. Big shocker which one they tell campaigns to spend millions on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The Democratic leadership's obsession with pleasing the imaginary centre-right Republican leaning independent voter base was a primary factor in their decision to completely throw ACORN under the bus over a manufactured scandal. ACORN was dedicated to registering voters and increasing turnout among exactly the groups of people the Democrats desperately need to show up in huge numbers. Though it was eventually concluded that ACORN hadn't actually violated the law the Democrats allowed them to get defunded and they filed for bankruptcy. "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:28
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yes, obviously. Marxalot posted:Also yes. whiggles posted:yah, they are responsible Can this ever not be true until Sanders and every other furthest-left candidate wins their primary and the general? Don't you feel it's bit presumptuous to believe your personal politics are so objectively superior such that the only reason other people don't arrive at them is because of an establishment/media conspiracy? Why can't people arrive at moderate/centrist politics due to legitimate disagreements over leftist social or economic policy goals?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:lol, now do the same graph showing how many people are in each of those categories. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Someone was just arguing that Clinton had higher support among higher income people. Your Boy Fancy posted:They don’t care if you begrudgingly pulled the lever. They care that you’re a loving rear end in a top hat. If you came to my door selling Bernie like this, I’d tell you to get hosed and vote for anyone but Bernie. Normal people don't have this perception you have. You and people like you are a very small minority. The vast majority of people are not turned off from supporting Bernie due to being annoyed by leftists on the internet. There is no evidence supporting any of this, and choosing who to support for president on the basis of "some people were mean to me on the internet" doesn't exactly reflect well on you. Though at least you're honest enough to admit that your choice is motivated by being annoyed at Sanders supporters (since that's what's really going on most of the time in these discussions). joepinetree posted:But you know what is really tiresome? This constant need to discuss politics exclusively through this meta bullshit. This is really the worst thing. On some level everyone in these discussions seems to realize that Sanders is the best on the issues, so they end up having to come up with various strange talking points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Can this ever not be true until Sanders and every other furthest-left candidate wins their primary and the general? there's a chomsky book you need to read.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Why can't people arrive at moderate/centrist politics due to legitimate disagreements over leftist social or economic policy goals? it's possible, but for the uses we're talking about. like take health insurance: it is not profitable to comfortably insure someone from cradle to grave while only charging an amount that even a 75k/year white collar american can reasonably pay that sole point means there is no organization of free market elements that enables beneficial for-profit basic health insurance to exist so the question is only one of how to best abolish for-profit basic health insurance, a question moderates/centrists refuse to even acknowledge
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
I'll always enjoy this thing where the left is supposed to accept sole ownership of any and all of its failings and completely ignore the incredible amount of resources that have been spent and continue to be spent in making those failures happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:There's a whole body of research demonstrating that focusing on registration and turning out your own voters is vastly more effective in most cases than trying to win over undecided voters, and that door knocking tends to be much more effective than television ads. Yeah but those voters are "unreliable", by which I mean they stop voting for you if you turn out to be a liar who reneges on campaign promises for donor cash, so building a coalition based on them is obviously insane. But if you can get embarrassed Republicans to vote for you one time, well they might go right back to the GOP next cycle but they won't care that you didn't do Medicare For All so you can try to win them back for another cycle once Republicans gently caress up enough. Thus they are "reliable" voters, not because they always vote for you but because they vote based on how embarrassed they are by Republicans lately and it's irrelevant to them whether you're a corporate tool or not so they reliably let you keep the gravy train coming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:I'll always enjoy this thing where the left is supposed to accept sole ownership of any and all of its failings and completely ignore the incredible amount of resources that have been spent and continue to be spent in making those failures happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
and to follow on from the health insurance post, you very quickly see that poo poo like M4A is centrist cuck bullshit because of how many pricing/accessibility issues arise from the private for-profit health care system due to inelastic demand, and that warbling about insurance misses the point
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Can this ever not be true until Sanders and every other furthest-left candidate wins their primary and the general? No, left-wing policies are massively popular among the electorate, but we get endless pointless wars and austerity and the plundering of the working and middle classes instead because even though those policies are massively unpopular and hated, American democracy is a sham and the reality is we live under an oligarchy which manages the two parties to ensure the illusion of choice between largely identical administrators wearing different colored ties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Don't you feel it's bit presumptuous to believe your personal politics are so objectively superior such that the only reason other people don't arrive at them is because of an establishment/media conspiracy? Pembroke Fuse posted:"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin." KingNastidon posted:Why can't people arrive at moderate/centrist politics due to legitimate disagreements over leftist social or economic policy goals? More to the point: go piss up a rope. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Can this ever not be true until Sanders and every other furthest-left candidate wins their primary and the general? Oh, people can arrive at centrist positions due to legitimate disagreements over leftist policy goals. But right now in this race we have: - Biden openly lying about Medicare for All, implying that it first removes everyone from their insurance to just add something later on, down the road. - Warren/Harris etc who alternate between "I'm totally for M4A" and "sure it's a good plan down the road, but not right now" - Pundits who just so happen to make money from health insurance companies (PSA bros, Andy Slavitt, CAP) saying that "yeah, medicare for all is the best policy, it's just not politically feasible, so take this medicare for america instead and ignore the several bads of money im getting from aetna" - Bernie If someone wants to argue that M4A is not the best policy, in policy terms, let's have that discussion. It's much better than this meta bullshit where we talk about everything but the policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Radicalising Calibanibal into a Hickenlooper stan by rudely suggesting that redneck nazgul is a better poster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:I'll always enjoy this thing where the left is supposed to accept sole ownership of any and all of its failings and completely ignore the incredible amount of resources that have been spent and continue to be spent in making those failures happen. The best part is how apparently these "failings" are a reason to not support the left. It's basically an argument that the left isn't worth supporting until it's already won. KingNastidon posted:Don't you feel it's bit presumptuous to believe your personal politics are so objectively superior such that the only reason other people don't arrive at them is because of an establishment/media conspiracy? Why can't people arrive at moderate/centrist politics due to legitimate disagreements over leftist social or economic policy goals? This is funny because it's a thing that is just obviously true (that the opinions of the public are heavily influenced by media/society). It isn't some tin-foil conspiracy thing to believe that the media has a huge impact on peoples' opinions/ideology, and that its opinions/ideology are determined by the people who own and run media organizations. It isn't somehow smart to pretend that we live in some magical world where everyone is a perfectly independent and rational thinker. edit: The funny thing about arguments like the one KingNastidon is making here is that the only possible conclusion they can lead to is "you should never support significant change," because, by their reasoning, the change in question would have already happened if it had enough support. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:
Yes, it absolutely does, because they've correctly decided that the dem establishment doesn't give a poo poo about them
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:If someone wants to argue that M4A is not the best policy, in policy terms, let's have that discussion it sucks rear end abolish health insurance
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That’s not what he said. He told you exactly what he was going to do. If anything, it is remarkable that he has not gone further and that is largely due to his own incompetence. KingNastidon posted:Can this ever not be true until Sanders and every other furthest-left candidate wins their primary and the general? Even the environment is objectively telling you that capitalism is bad. The furthest left candidate is the best candidate. Judakel fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
When you can't debate the merits of various policies themselves, you resort to "ah but someone else (not me) might disagree so how do you convince them." At this point you're completely free of facts and empirical reality. I can say "well policy P is the best because of reasons X, Y, and Z". If these reasons are true and we're discussing the merits of policy then you're in a real pickle because you have to formulate an argument against them and you can't (or you can, but they'll be arguments that make you look bad like "qq but poor people will get health care that I don't think they should have" or "but my profits qq"). But if you shift to a discussion about the thought processes of imaginary people who aren't present and don't have to answer for their own views then you can say "ah but maybe someone else has legitimately come to a different conclusion, somehow, for vague other reasons that I have no responsibility to articulate" then you don't have to address any facts whatsoever. The burden to rebut X, Y, and Z is shifted away from you and back onto your interlocutor and you can just demand that they come up with your argument for you and if they don't it's a failure of imagination on their part to come up with ways to rebut the argument they made that you can't rebut. The right uses this all the time when empirical reality is against them. Can't disprove the mountain of evidence of climate change? No problem! Just say "excuse me it's v rude of you to dismiss opposing views as ignorant or unscientific, isn't it possible someone else might have good reasons to disagree with you, anything is possible so if you don't come up with my argument for me then you're intolerant and close minded" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
tedneck nazgul is absolutely a 'better' poster than I. I have no patience for stans or bros at all
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Even the environment is objectively telling you that capitalism is bad. The furthest left candidate is the best candidate. An actual radical on the world stage would be demanding, for example, that the US immediately withdraw its forces from nearly everywhere and stop burning 12-13 million gallons of fuel every single goddamned day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Yeah, I should have added that in any version of "moderate, centrist" politics that don't have brainworms, Sanders is the moderate centrist Nastidon's looking for. An actual radical would be calling for the nationalization of the finance industry. Maybe of "backbone" internet companies like google and facebook also.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
An actual radical would implement a modified version of Orwell's six points and add guillotines to the end.
Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 20:42
|
|
