DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

«‹›271 »

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

The Glumslinger: Sep 24, 2008; Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?; Hair Elf

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 21:22

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

HootTheOwl posted:

Advertising works. Russian bot farms are free advertising. When the election is decided by a tiny fraction of people everything becomes meaningful.

The main issue with this sort of logic is that the amount of actual money spent on these bot efforts was relatively small. It isn't impossible that they employed these bots extremely effectively, such that even a relatively minor operation was able to have a big impact. But your default assumption should be that it probably had an impact relative to the money invested in it and its overall footprint on the internet (which is insignificant compared with that of "regular" US media and corporations).

Also, the "election was close, therefore everything is meaningful" logic is bad because it doesn't give us any useful information about how to act in the future. It's like saying "this election was lost by one vote, therefore it is vitally important that we ensure Jim Smith of Idaho votes for the Democratic candidate in future elections." Basically, it leads to the bad conclusion that we should emphasize everything because everything could hypothetically matter. Regardless of whether the election ends up close, the fact that the most meaningful and influential factors deserve the most focus remains true.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:24

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Ytlaya posted:

I'm actually kinda baffled regarding your opinion on this; I can understand pro-Buttigieg sentiment from some people, since Buttigieg has the type of personality/demeanor that is very appealing to upper-middle class white professionals, but you are not an upper-middle class professional (which is a good thing, just in case that somehow comes off like an insult).

It's because he grew up with him and knows him personally.

I know a lot of people on this forum believe that emotions, family, friends, etc. have no meaning but that's not how human beings work. It ain't rocket science.

Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 2, 2019

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:25

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Charlz Guybon posted:

I know a lot of people om this forum believe that emotions, family, friends, etc. have no meaning but that's not human beings work. It ain't rocket science.

very true. a half-naked indian and jim morrison appeared to me in a series of dreams and that's why i support williamson

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:30

mormonpartyboat: Jan 14, 2015; by Reene

crazy cloud posted:

Lol that the celebrity poster you get probated for criticizing itt just blew through with a "personally i think putin murdered seth rich to frame abuela" take, just amazing, amazing

finally, someone brave enough to admit that putin only taught hillary clinton spirit cooking to trick her into ritualistically splitting open seth rich's physical body to birth the homunculus pete buttigeig. and thank the double turncoat podesta for twisting the babushka magic to ultimately manifest the avatar who will forge the sword of neoliberalism from the wreckage of ten thousand homeless tents and finally silence the horrifying wailing of bernie sanders

save our sons, mayor pete

save our sons

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:33

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html

I keep telling you guys, polls don't matter, votes matter. Bernie supporters are gonna vote

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:34

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Charlz Guybon posted:

It's because he grew up with him and knows him personally.

I know a lot of people on this forum believe that emotions, family, friends, etc. have no meaning but that's not how human beings work. It ain't rocket science.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought he just went to the same high school as him. And even if he was acquaintances with him...it's still dumb to be like "I trust that this guy is good, despite his actions, because I knew him when we were teenagers (as a person who is now in their late 30s)." It's okay for other people to be like "that is a bad and unreasonable opinion you have there about a person who is seeking the power to control the life and death of millions of people and has already caused harm to many in his capacity as mayor."

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:36

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Russia's support for various political factions and parties has tended to be far-right, both in Europe and the US. They're not going to help Bernie win, and the belief that they're some kind of anti-imperialist paragon is mind-boggling when they're visibly a far-right capitalist state.

That's not entirely true; Yanukovych, while a kleptocrat, was hardly far-right, particularly compared to large swathes of the coalition that ended up replacing him. The Kremlin's agenda in the West is to spread chaos and disrupt the neoliberal agenda (albeit for different ends than what you or I are aiming for).

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:38

LinYutang: Oct 12, 2016; NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

This is much better. It shows the significant support for Harris in Detroit for example.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:40

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Chilichimp posted:

I'm sure if you tried, you could get your whole head in that sand.

so you have proof that russia is interfering in the 2020 primaries right now? cause this is the thread about the 2020 dem primary, not for theorycrafting about putin's insidious influence

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:42

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1157360699783483393?s=20

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:45

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

LinYutang posted:

This is much better. It shows the significant support for Harris in Detroit for example.

No, it actually doesn't. Are you thinking of Chicago?

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:47

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

I think this is a reasonably good breakdown (coming from a pro-establishment site) of why Biden's the front runner:

Talking Points Memo posted:

Obama Looms over the Primary in Invisible Ways

By Josh Marshall
August 1, 2019 2:44 pm

Let me share a few more thoughts on last night�s debate. It was a bit jagged. Biden�s closer was cringey. But there�s a more salient point about the whole thing put together, and here I include both debates combined. There is a small but highly vocal minority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who see Barack Obama�s presidency as a failure. I don�t mean simply that he screwed up or wasn�t a good leader but more specifically that the policy premises and political strategies of his presidency were simply and fundamentally wrong. I have a friend/acquaintance. Over the years he�s drifted far away from my take on politics and that of many mainstream or middle of the road Democrats. He repeatedly presses the point to me that Obama�s presidency was a disaster and that Democrats can�t fix things, either substantively or politically, until they recognize that fact.

For the purposes of this post, whether my friend is right or not isn�t really relevant. What is relevant is that this is very, very much a minority position. Indeed, the vast majority of Democrats don�t feel that way at all. Some of that is partisan tribalism. Some of that may be that people tend to like Obama on a personal level, even if they disagree with his politics: the bar is admittedly pretty low these days. But Obama seems like, and I think is, a decent guy. But mostly this is because the great majority of Democrats think he did a good job and advanced a mix of policies they agree with.

I should add in brief that I think anyone who thinks seriously about policy will recognize a good number of mistakes, things that in retrospect should have been handled differently and some things that it was clear at the time should have been done differently. There are a lot of particulars about the management of the financial crisis and the home foreclosure crisis. There are basic strategic questions about Obamacare and the lack of a public option. There were years of trying to get Republicans to have good faith grand bargain negotiations about the federal debt and �entitlement reform� � something that was never going to happen and really shouldn�t have happened in the first place.

It is also worth noting that there�s basically no Obama administration official or anyone associated with it who says, �The ACA was awesome. Leave it exactly as is!� Even the most �centrist� candidates are proposing fairly dramatic expansions of the federal role in health care provision, though some are more robust implementations of the �public option� which the White House at least nominally (if perhaps not wholeheartedly) supported in 2009 and 2010.

Probably the biggest thing that Democrats think negatively about Obama is that he banked too much and for too long on Republican good faith. He wasn�t sufficiently partisan. He brought knives to gun fights and all that. But these views are largely tied to Democratic partisans. And they don�t always line up with differences on policy.

My particular take isn�t really the point. I put these critiques out there only to note that this isn�t a matter of hero worship or making Obamaism into some kind of doctrine. It�s simply that the great majority of Democrats think Obama had good policies, was a good guy and did a pretty good job. Polls leave little question about this basic verdict.

When Bernie Sanders got into the race in 2016 in many ways his campaign was premised on the idea that Obama had gotten most things wrong. Perhaps his presidency wasn�t a disaster, as my friend argues. But the premises of Sanders� campaign was that Democrats needed to move in a dramatically different direction and that Obama�s policies and presidency were � while better than the GOP alternative � fundamentally misguided. Sanders was pretty straightforward about this before getting into the race. And he didn�t really hide it once he got in. But in the nature of things, since Obama was a popular incumbent, it wasn�t a point he emphasized during his campaign.

We also know that the entire country has moved left on a number of issues over the last decade (LGBTQ issues and marijuana legalization are just two examples). Democrats, meanwhile, have moved significantly to the left on a much broader range of issues. Some of this is an on-going trend. Some of it is in reaction to Trump, having his extremity lead to a reevaluation of practices that most Democrats didn�t focus much on. Maybe the best example of this is on immigration. As immigration advocates were saying very clearly at the time, the Obama administration deported lots and lots of people. It�s hard to see that in quite the same light after what we�ve all been exposed to about the mechanics of ICE, detention, deportation and everything that goes with it.

But with all of this, there�s a shift that has taken place that manages to be both all but invisible and yet very obvious. Part of it is Sanders deep imprint on the 2020 policy conversation � especially on health care and student debt but on other issues as well. Part of it is the wave of left activism that predates Trump but has intensified under his presidency. But taken together they�ve created a 2020 campaign policy conversation which at least implicitly gives a pretty negative verdict on Obama and his presidency. Perhaps not a disaster as my friend puts it but in many regards a mistake rather than something to build on. That, I think, is the root of Biden�s continuing strength, even with all the bobbles, flubs, the archaic policy histories and all the rest. It�s not just because he was Obama�s Vice President and people like Obama. It�s because the terms of the policy debate are in conflict � when forced together � with where the great majority of Democrats are, which is holding Obama and his presidency in very high regard. If your premise is that Obama sucked, even if that�s somewhat confined to thee footnotes, that�s going to create some real channel conflict if you�re running in an electorate which still largely thinks he was great.

This is also part of Warren�s strength versus Sanders. In policy terms, they are not at all far apart. But Warren presents her message as building upon Obama�s legacy, even if it�s in many ways a dramatic departure. Put differently, Sanders� message invites or even requires you to recant your Obama enthusiasm to sign on with Sanders. If it even comes out in seemingly trivial ways in Sanders� refusal to actually become a member of the Democratic party. Warren�s message and presentation makes no such requirement. That�s why Warren has purchase on a broader share of the Democratic electorate.

All of this means that Obama looms very large, even as he remains silent and in ways much of the pundit class � left, right and center � fails to grasp.

I would argue that this is why Bernie is the best candidate - he has done more in less time to tarnish Obama's legacy and refute his theory of politics than anyone else except Trump himself - but it also explains why he faces such an uphill climb in a Democratic primary.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:48

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

Syracuse and it's surrounding areas are exactly what I expected: almost entirely for Bernie, with the area around the airport and attached air Force Base for Pete and the one neighborhood of people with money Liz

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:49

Reverend Dr: Feb 9, 2005; Thanks Reverend

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

This map is legit amazing. I looked over the areas of my state where I'm familiar with the demographics and it really confirms a lot of what I expected.. Butti gets the boigie centrists. Warren gets the bougie more left leaning. Harris gets the republican leaning areas with a white population and large minority population that has been oppressed for decades. Biden gets the republican leaning areas with a little white population and large minority population that has been oppressed for decades. Sanders gets everything else. Every area that doesn't make life absolute poo poo (so people remain ignorant of political options b/c they got to spend all day getting rent), goes Sanders. The worst the the media is doing (and they know what they are doing) is keeping the currently oppressed areas in the dark that there is even an alternative to lovely establishment dem grift.

I like trying to find counties where a succ candidate has raised only $1

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:52

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Helsing posted:

I think this is a reasonably good breakdown (coming from a pro-establishment site) of why Biden's the front runner:

I would argue that this is why Bernie is the best candidate - he has done more in less time to tarnish Obama's legacy and refute his theory of politics than anyone else except Trump himself - but it also explains why he faces such an uphill climb in a Democratic primary.

I don't disagree overall. I think Bernie has done a good job this time around of threading a difficult needle as well, though, ie:: "Obama is good. A lot of the things that happened under Obama weren't good." He and other Dems need to keep separating Biden from Obama's legacy; I think they've already started doing so. Booker certainly seemed to be of this mindset at his debate. The mantra needs to be, "I know Barack Obama, Mr. VP. You are no Barack Obama."

# ? Aug 2, 2019 20:59

Sheng-Ji Yang: Mar 5, 2014

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

this map is tremendously ugly though

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:05

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

the dude saying seth rich was murdered by putin and is stalking random people on the street for being Russian SockPuppets accusing someone of being a conspiracy theorist

gently caress off. You're deliberately misrepresenting Uglycat to make them sound insane.

Uglycat noted that there were trolls stirring up trouble on South Bend twitter, facebook pages, and other social media spaces. So Uglycat took photographs of every citizen of South Bend to develop a comprehensive database. Those trolls, saboteurs and ne'erdowells whose profile pics didn't match any of the faces in the database, were thus outed as Russian sockpuppet accounts. Not, like, literal androids or whatever, out walking around.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:09

Finicums Wake: Mar 13, 2017; Can't post for 8 years!

Charlz Guybon posted:

It's because he grew up with him and knows him personally.

I know a lot of people on this forum believe that emotions, family, friends, etc. have no meaning but that's not how human beings work. It ain't rocket science.

it's fine and normal to factor those things into your political beliefs and decisions. but making extremely long posts that boil down to nothing but those things doesnt make a lot lf sense in a forum focused around debating and discussing, imo

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:11

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

I�ve mentioned Congressman Horsford in the past because he�s in my region, but more importantly a big powerful union easily pushed him to the top over every progressive group endorsing his opponents.

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1157302058501804032

Horsford�s union buddies are probably still mad that Obama didn�t let them �double dip� and get tax credits for their plans that were too loaded up with benefits to qualify for them. So now you�ll maybe get a public option or nothing.

I swear that unions will be the biggest opposition to ever getting a single payer system in America. gently caress em.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:12

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

Thanks for making my see my place in a sea of Biden so deep I could barely read major street names. How much do I have to give Bernie to make myself feel safe again?

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:12

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

Gyges posted:

Thanks for making my see my place in a sea of Biden so deep I could barely read major street names. How much do I have to give Bernie to make myself feel safe again?

I'm apparently surrounded by Buttigieg donors but I think that's the result of his husband coming here and gladhanding during Pride.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:16

Mr E: Sep 18, 2007

Most of my area is Bernie, but the gated communities and such are all for Buttigieg :thunk:

What a mystery.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:29

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Helsing posted:

I think this is a reasonably good breakdown (coming from a pro-establishment site) of why Biden's the front runner:

quote:
This is also part of Warren�s strength versus Sanders. In policy terms, they are not at all far apart. But Warren presents her message as building upon Obama�s legacy, even if it�s in many ways a dramatic departure. Put differently, Sanders� message invites or even requires you to recant your Obama enthusiasm to sign on with Sanders. If it even comes out in seemingly trivial ways in Sanders� refusal to actually become a member of the Democratic party. Warren�s message and presentation makes no such requirement. That�s why Warren has purchase on a broader share of the Democratic electorate.

this is pure drivel

sanders' message didn't require anyone to "recant their enthusiasm for obama", whatever the gently caress that's supposed to mean. lots of people became disillusioned with the promise of his candidacy all on their own after he took office and repeatedly showed himself to be an ineffective centrist more concerned with appeasing the same republicans calling him a commie muslim kenyan monkey every day than advocating for things democratic voters wanted. he lost 4 million votes between 2008 and 2012 because of this

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:29

punk rebel ecks: Dec 11, 2010; A shitty post? This calls for a dance of deduction.

Groovelord Neato posted:

https://twitter.com/freedaaron/status/1157327369608343552

That's a VERY good voting base for not only Bernie, but the American Left movement in general.

Remember how liberals kept saying that even the Democrats in the rural areas would never vote for someone who is on the POC inner city team?

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:35

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

The Muppets On PCP posted:

this is pure drivel

sanders' message didn't require anyone to "recant their enthusiasm for obama", whatever the gently caress that's supposed to mean. lots of people became disillusioned with the promise of his candidacy all on their own after he took office and repeatedly showed himself to be an ineffective centrist more concerned with appeasing the same republicans calling him a commie muslim kenyan monkey every day than advocating for things democratic voters wanted. he lost 4 million votes between 2008 and 2012 because of this

Surely you realize this is not a mainstream position within the Democratic primary electorate.

In the context of the Democratic primary most voters still like Obama and consider him the best President of their lifetimes. If you accept the basic premise of Bernie's argument that the country requires a political revolution to move forward then Obama is arguably one of the worst Presidents in American history. He took the best / last chance the country had to make a hard pivot and used his substantial power and influence to make absolutely sure nothing would fundamentally change, and he probably doomed the human species in the process. Plenty of Bernie supporters are in varying degrees of denial about this but it's a hard to avoid conclusion if you take Sanders' own rhetoric at face value.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:42

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

https://twitter.com/FlyingWithSara/status/1157294576593514497?s=20

https://twitter.com/FlyingWithSara/status/1157294890356826117?s=20

they're playing my song..

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:46

Ubiquitous_: Nov 20, 2013; by Reene

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

Eugene, Oregon and nearly all of the surrounding area is heavily Sanders, which makes sense given that his rally in 2016 was massive.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 21:54

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

The Glumslinger posted:

LA Times did a better version of the donation map, breaking it down by ZIP code, and showing how much each candidate got

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1157370312675213317

Since I am in Atlanta for the DSA convention, I decided to look at how the area breaks down (my own home area is far less interesting) and I think it is a very good summary of the race so far:

Donations:

Race/Ethnicity:

Income:

So Biden dominates the very rich, very white area inside the perimater to the northeast. Buttgieg dominates the new money area immediately to the east of that. Warren dominates the Decatur area, which looking at the contrast by income is a rapidly gentrifying area becoming mostly white area. Bernie dominates the Emory area, the Georgia Tech area, the lower income, inner city mostly African American area and the Northeast, heavily Hispanic area. Harris dominates the mostly African American middle class area suburbs to the southwest. But because of the very nature of his base, the areas that Bernie wins contribute relatively little. So he "wins" zip codes 30310 and 30341 with about 3k in donations from each. Meanwhile Harris "wins" 30331 with 26k in donations, Biden "wins" 30327 with 36k in donations, and Warren "wins" 30030.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:02

redreader: Nov 2, 2009; I am the coolest person ever with my pirate chalice. Seriously.; Dinosaur Gum

joepinetree posted:

Since I am in Atlanta for the DSA convention, I decided to look at how the area breaks down (my own home area is far less interesting) and I think it is a very good summary of the race so far:

All of your images 404'd for me.

Also everyone, I know I post 'all my friends love not-bernie and it's strange to hear that people in the whole DO like him' but that's for real true. Seeing the donation map made me feel a whole lot better. Regardless of the polls and even the outcome of the primary, it shows me that way more people than I thought, have opinions I agree with.

edit: I can click the images and they 404, but I just changed my preference in SA to 'show images' and now they load.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:16

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Helsing posted:

I think this is a reasonably good breakdown (coming from a pro-establishment site) of why Biden's the front runner:

I would argue that this is why Bernie is the best candidate - he has done more in less time to tarnish Obama's legacy and refute his theory of politics than anyone else except Trump himself - but it also explains why he faces such an uphill climb in a Democratic primary.

A lot of that, to me, seems to be unsupported assertions based on Marshall's personal opinion, as well as a number of cases of conflating different things because he's not really familiar with the arguments being made and apparently isn't paying much attention when his "friend" attempts to explain them to him. There's a lot of individual claims in that article that really just don't make any sense and are certainly too specific to be anything more than his own personal feelings. And a lot of it is just plain incoherent because he's mixing stuff up so much.

For an example of dodgy unsupported assertions, he claims that only "Democratic partisans" thought that Obama wasn't partisan enough and relied too heavily on the expectation of GOP good faith and cooperation. That's presumably based on the liberal establishment myth that all non-Democrats are right-wingers, but it doesn't really make any sense if you stop and think about it. I can't think of anyone except dedicated GOPers who loved the years of partisan gridlock while Obama obsessed over bipartisan cooperation. Similarly, he explicitly mentions Obama's attempt to slash Medicare and Social Security as part of a "grand bargain" on "entitlement reform", but appears to think that this was just fine on a policy level and that the only problem was minor strategy mistakes in his particular approach to it. And claiming that Warren has support from a broader chunk of the Dem electorate than Sanders seems to fly in direct contradiction to all available evidence.

As for conflating things, the more I read it, the more I think this is the part that's really crucial to his entire piece. At first, he says that people think Obama's policies were great, even if they think were a number of "basic strategic questions" about his approach and "a lot of particulars" about his management of individual programs. But later on, he's flat-out asserting that people think "Obama did a pretty good job", and all talk of mistakes and poor approaches evaporate from his mind. He dismisses criticisms of Obama's conciliatory approach toward the GOP as the sole premise of "Democratic partisans", suggesting that he's focusing more on independents or moderates rather than diehard Dems, but in the rest of the article he talks exclusively about Democrats and the Dem electorate with no other mentions of independents.

And the core premise of his whole argument - that Warren treats Obama with reverence while Sanders requires all supporters to surrender their good feelings about Obama at the door - is outright false in the first place. Warren has publicly called out Obama by name in her condemnations of Democratic centrism, openly accusing him of being out of touch with the American people. Even during his presidency, she often clashed with the administration, such as loudly accusing the Obama White House of throwing families under the bus to protect bankers. She's stopped personally calling out Obama for his awful policies since the official launch of her presidential campaign, but all it takes is a simple Google search to find that Warren was an open opponent of many of Obama's policies. The premise of Marshall's article may seem to fit well into the media's spin on Bernie and Warren, but it doesn't line up very well with reality. If you ask me, it's nothing more than the product of a brain that's a little mushy from too many decades spent in the Washington media bubble.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:23

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Main Paineframe posted:

If you ask me, it's nothing more than the product of a brain that's a little mushy from too many decades spent in the Washington media bubble.

marshall got the brainworms real bad during 2016 along with charlie pierce

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:25

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Reverend Dr posted:

This map is legit amazing. I looked over the areas of my state where I'm familiar with the demographics and it really confirms a lot of what I expected.. Butti gets the boigie centrists. Warren gets the bougie more left leaning. Harris gets the republican leaning areas with a white population and large minority population that has been oppressed for decades. Biden gets the republican leaning areas with a little white population and large minority population that has been oppressed for decades. Sanders gets everything else. Every area that doesn't make life absolute poo poo (so people remain ignorant of political options b/c they got to spend all day getting rent), goes Sanders. The worst the the media is doing (and they know what they are doing) is keeping the currently oppressed areas in the dark that there is even an alternative to lovely establishment dem grift.

Yeah, it's really interesting. In Memphis (where I live) it seems like Sanders leads in all the diverse-but-not-super-poor* parts of the city. The heavily black/poor segments lean Harris, but have almost no money coming out of them so it's almost more accurate to evaluate them as just "no donations" (like, I'm talking $500 and $300 for two separate zip codes representing like a third of the city's area). The expensive parts like East Memphis or Germantown) are Biden.

My area interestingly seems like the most Warren-heavy place. Honestly not sure why that is, though Warren doesn't have a big lead here. I should suddenly donate $2000 to Sanders and turn my zip code green.

* this kinda ranges from lower-middle class (like my friend's neighborhood where homes go for like $70-90k) to midtown which I think is kinda middle-class? Not sure what incomes are like there.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:28

No Safe Word: Feb 26, 2005

"Oh hey these maps are cool, let me see how my area breaks down--"

*is in Texas*

"oh... yeah..."

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:38

punk rebel ecks: Dec 11, 2010; A shitty post? This calls for a dance of deduction.

Why do Texans like Beto so much? I mean...he loving LOST!?

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:53

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

punk rebel ecks posted:

Why do Texans like Beto so much? I mean...he loving LOST!?

I mean, clearly they don't like him that much...

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:54

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

punk rebel ecks posted:

Why do Texans like Beto so much? I mean...he loving LOST!?

it turns out offering people a hope for something better is a hell of a drug

Beto was in a position to be that guy in Texas. unfortunately, literally nowhere else.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:55

No Safe Word: Feb 26, 2005

punk rebel ecks posted:

Why do Texans like Beto so much? I mean...he loving LOST!?

He'll clearly have huge name recognition throughout the state because he just spent millions over the last year-plus on his failed Senate run. Why he was that successful (he made up like 12+ points compared to the last US Senate race) is twofold: one, demographics and opinions are shifting Texas from super deep red to "still pretty red but maybe purple soon" and two, Ted Cruz is a terrible unpopular shitlord even in Texas.

And name recognition plus the contacts/mailing lists/general campaign infrastructure still being spun up and running just gives him a huge leg up here.

# ? Aug 2, 2019 22:58

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

punk rebel ecks posted:

Why do Texans like Beto so much? I mean...he loving LOST!?

name recognition and he DID come close to beating the dude we all hate. Most of us here were really hoping he'd stay in Texas and work on seats because of that popularity even with his loss

BUT WELP, THANKS FRANCIS

# ? Aug 2, 2019 23:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 21:22

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

I hate a lot of the dem candidates but I'll genuinely never forgive Beto for eating his own hype and skateboarding out of Texas to try to run for a cabinet spot with President Warren. At least when Wendy bounced she had gotten her rear end beat embarrassingly badly. We had hope because of Beto :argh:

# ? Aug 2, 2019 23:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DNC Primary: Biden: Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

«‹›271 »