Democratic Pres. Primary 2020: The moderator just starts throwing a rock at Sanders

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Democratic Pres. Primary 2020: The moderator just starts throwing a rock at Sanders

«‹›770 »

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

Rectal Death Adept posted:

What you idiots also don't seem to realize, you fools, is that there is a Russia and a russia.

Capital R Russia is the official directives of the kremlin spearheaded by Vladimir Putin.

Lowercase r russia is the unofficial actions of Russian nationals that benefit Russia.

So we have Russian Assets, Russian assets, russian Assets and russian assets.

I for one believe Tulsi is simply an all lowercase russian asset.

There's a Capital R alright...

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 19:26

HootTheOwl: May 13, 2012; Hootin and shootin

Matt Zerella posted:

There's a Capital R alt-Right...

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:18

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

Pingui posted:

Calculated difference between poll (latest poll if no RCP average exists) and actual result, name is bolded where the actual winner and the poll winner differ:

Clinton -3.8% - Iowa - Poll: Clinton +4% / Result: Clinton +0.2%
Sanders +9.1% - New Hampshire - Poll: Sanders +13.3% / Result: Sanders +22.4%
Clinton +3.1% - Nevada - Poll: Clinton +2.4% / Result: Clinton +5.5%
Clinton +20.0% - South Carolina - Poll: Clinton +27.5% / Result: Clinton +47.5%
Clinton +1.7% - Texas - Poll: Clinton +30.3% / Result: Clinton +32.0%
Clinton -5.3% - Massachusetts - Poll: Clinton +6.7% / Result: Clinton +1.4%
Clinton +5.9% - Georgia - Poll: Clinton +37.0% / Result: Clinton +42.9%
Clinton +7.6% - Virginia - Poll: Clinton +21.5% / Result: Clinton +29.1%
Sanders +57.2% - Minnesota - Poll: Clinton +34% / Result: Sanders +23.2%
Clinton +7.7% - Tennessee - Poll: Clinton +26% / Result: Clinton +33.7%
Clinton +10.6% - Alabama - Poll: Clinton +48% / Result: Clinton +58.6%
Sanders +12.4% - Oklahoma - Poll: Clinton +2% / Result: Sanders +10.4%
Clinton +8.1% - Arkansas - Poll: Clinton +28.5% / Result: Clinton +36.6%
Sanders -2.5% - Vermont - Poll: Sanders +75% / Result: Sanders +72.5%
Clinton +8.9% - Louisiana - Poll: Clinton +39% / Result: Clinton +47.9%
Sanders +45.4% - Kansas - Poll: Clinton +10% / Result: Sanders +35.4%
Sanders +22.9% - Michigan - Poll: Clinton +21.4% / Result: Sanders +1.5%
Clinton +22.1% - Mississippi - Poll: Clinton +44% / Result: Clinton +66.1%
Clinton +2.3% - Florida - Poll: Clinton +28.9% / Result: Clinton +31.2%
Clinton -0.5% - Illinois - Poll: Clinton +2.3% / Result: Clinton +1.8%
Clinton +5.8% - Ohio - Poll: Clinton +8% / Result: Clinton +13.8%
Clinton -10.2% - North Carolina - Poll: Clinton +24% / Result: Clinton +13.8%
Clinton +1.2% - Missouri - Poll: Sanders +1% / Result: Clinton +0.2%
Clinton -12.3% - Arizona - Poll: Clinton +30% / Result: Clinton +17.7%
Sanders +66.2% - Alaska - Poll: Clinton +3% / Result: Sanders +63.2%
Sanders +10.9% - Wisconsin - Poll: Sanders +2.6% / Result: Sanders +13.5%
Clinton +4.3% - New York - Poll: Clinton +11.7% / Result: Clinton +16.0%
Clinton -4.0% - Pennsylvania - Poll: Clinton +16% / Result: Clinton +12.0%
Clinton +5.7% - Maryland - Poll: Clinton +24% / Result: Clinton +29.7%
Clinton -0.4% - Connecticut - Poll: Clinton +5.6% / Result: Clinton +5.2%
Sanders +14.2% - Rhode Island - Poll: Clinton +2.5% / Result: Sanders +11.7%
Clinton +13.6% - Delaware - Poll: Clinton +7% / Result: Clinton +20.6%
Sanders +11.8% - Indiana - Poll: Clinton +6.8% / Result: Sanders +5.0%
Sanders 0.0% - West Virginia - Poll: Sanders +6% / Result: Sanders +6.0%
Sanders +25.2% - Oregon - Poll: Clinton +15% / Result: Sanders +10.2%
Clinton -4.5% - Kentucky - Poll: Clinton +5% / Result: Clinton +0.5%
Clinton +10.5% - California - Poll: Clinton +2% / Result: Clinton +12.5%
Clinton +6.1% - New Jersey - Poll: Clinton +20.5% / Result: Clinton +26.6%
Clinton -11.0% - New Mexico - Poll: Clinton +14% / Result: Clinton +3.0%

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/DemPrimaryPollsResults.html

As an average for won states Sanders was +24.8% off
As an average for won states Clinton was +2.62% off (both are plus due to undecideds)

Edit: Hearts and minds to Rhode Island for that injustice.

The change in winner isn't what should be bolded. What matters is whether the poll under or over counted Sanders relative to eventual results. And by how much and in what direction.

The claim is that polls in 2016 and now 2020 are intentionally biased against Sanders as an attempt to diminish his support and electability. If a poll average had Clinton at +40% and she won with +1% that matters a lot less than if Clinton was +3% and Sanders won with +3%. The point I'm trying to make is that state level polls are bad, yes, but the size and direction of error isn't biased against Sanders.

That is why I posted the top 15-20 states that have the most influence on the eventual outcome and therefore lots of polls that feed into an RCP average. It honestly doesn't matter if Alaska had "bad polls" because they wasn't active polling there. Your disparity was based on one poll two months before the election from well known and credible polling outfit Alaska Dispatch News.

You're intentionally cherry picking outliers in states that weren't aggressively polled to try to show that credible polling in IA/NH/SC and other large states is not credible.

KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 20, 2019

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:21

Marxalot: Dec 24, 2008; Appropriator of
Dan Crenshaw's Eyepatch

How are u posted:

Russia contributed to what was already a self inflicted wound. I have never once claimed that Russia stole the election, only that they helped Trump across the finish line. That you and others aggressively deny that Russia had any influence then and isn't going to try again next year I find hugely naive and quite frankly childish. Putin isn't the boogeyman pulling puppet strings and making the United States dance, but he sure as poo poo is actively looking for ways to inflame internal tensions and cause chaos. All of our intelligence agencies agree on this, all of our allies intelligence agencies agree on this. Facebook itself has admitted to it.

I guess you can handwave that away with "neoliberal trickery" if you want.

Good propaganda isn't based on an outright falsehood. It's about emphasis.

A great example of this would be: Never shutting the gently caress up about Russia for 3 straight years while the collective Democratic establishment shoves their head in the sand so that everyone else can only hear the muffled screams of "America -was- already great it's all Trump's fault cheeto small hands orange".

Or waving around some poll screaming about Biden's electability level being too drat high and that's why he's clearly the only way to beat Trump while conveniently not mentioning why he's actually somehow a -worse- candidate than even Hillary.

Marxalot fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Oct 20, 2019

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:23

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

KingNastidon posted:

The change in winner isn't what should be bolded. What matters is whether the poll under or over counted Sanders relative to eventual results. And by how much and in what direction.

The claim is that polls in 2016 and now 2020 are intentionally biased against Sanders as an attempt to diminish his support and electability. If a poll average had Clinton at +40% and she won with +1% that matters a lot less than if Clinton was +3% and Sanders won with +3%. The point I'm trying to make is that state level polls are bad, yes, but the size and direction of error isn't biased against Sanders.

That is why I posted the top 15-20 states that have the most influence on the eventual outcome and therefore lots of polls that feed into an RCP average. It honestly doesn't matter if Alaska had "bad polls" because they wasn't active polling there. Your disparity was based on one poll two months before the election from well known and credible polling outfit Alaska Dispatch News.

You're intentionally cherry picking outliers in states that weren't aggressively polled to try to show that credible polling in IA/NH/SC and other large states is not credible.

Let me get this straight: posting the results for every primary we had polls for is cherry picking, "15 or 20 states that have the most influence, which I decided is based on population and not, say, on how early it is in the cycle" not cherry picking?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:28

Matt Zerella: Oct 7, 2002; Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

How are u posted:

Russia contributed to what was already a self inflicted wound. I have never once claimed that Russia stole the election, only that they helped Trump across the finish line. That you and others aggressively deny that Russia had any influence then and isn't going to try again next year I find hugely naive and quite frankly childish. Putin isn't the boogeyman pulling puppet strings and making the United States dance, but he sure as poo poo is actively looking for ways to inflame internal tensions and cause chaos. All of our intelligence agencies agree on this, all of our allies intelligence agencies agree on this. Facebook itself has admitted to it.

I guess you can handwave that away with "neoliberal trickery" if you want.

The Clinton campaign literally told union workers in Wisconsin to stay home and not go canvassing as they got towards the finish line. Russia had gently caress all to do with that.

Bill goddamn Clinton was screaming that they should be paying attention to the Midwest/working people instead of focusing on major cities they already had locked up.

It was a campaign of utter contempt for non rich elites that was too busy thinking they're the smartest people in the room vs actually campaigning for people's votes.

It's not handwaving as neoliberal trickery or whatever snarky bullshit you guys come up with. She was a lovely candidate who ran a lovely technocratic campaign and when they got the rug pulled out from under them their brains short circuited and flailed about pointing at Russia, Bernie, and Jill Stein. Anything to deflect the blame from themselves.

This ain't me rehashing 2016 it's how things happened. But since the Trump Time Continuum has warped how we perceive things it's easy to forget them.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:32

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

joepinetree posted:

Let me get this straight: posting the results for every primary we had polls for is cherry picking, "15 or 20 states that have the most influence, which I decided is based on population and not, say, on how early it is in the cycle" not cherry picking?

I previously posted the relative bias in IA, NH, and SC. It wasn't unidirectional. Then posted the other states with top 20 population that had many polls + RCP averages given their outsized influence on the eventual result.

What would you have done differently to be more honest?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:34

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

KingNastidon posted:

I previously posted the relative bias in IA, NH, and SC. It wasn't unidirectional. Then posted the other states with top 20 population that had many polls + RCP averages given their outsized influence on the eventual result.

What would you have done differently to be more honest?

Again, why is posting every state that had polls "cherry picking" but "top 20 by metric that i pulled out of my rear end" not?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 00:50

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

KingNastidon posted:

The claim is that polls in 2016 and now 2020 are intentionally biased against Sanders as an attempt to diminish his support and electability. If a poll average had Clinton at +40% and she won with +1% that matters a lot less than if Clinton was +3% and Sanders won with +3%. The point I'm trying to make is that state level polls are bad, yes, but the size and direction of error isn't biased against Sanders.

Why is a poll that was biased 39 points in favor of Hillary less of an indicator of anti Sanders bias than one that was biased just 6 points in favor of Hillary?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 01:19

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

joepinetree posted:

Again, why is posting every state that had polls "cherry picking" but "top 20 by metric that i pulled out of my rear end" not?

Again, because early states like IA, NH, SC have lots of polls by credible institutions. States like NY and CA and TX and FL do too because they are large and contribute many delegates, thus the accuracy in their polling has a larger influence on the eventual result.

Including states like Alaska, with one two month old poll by a lovely unknown outfit, can be dumb. To put the delta in poll vs. result in Alaska on equal footing/weighting with that in IA/NH/SC or any other well polled, high population state I provided is intentionally disingenuous.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 01:21

John Wick of Dogs: Mar 4, 2017; A real hellraiser

Is it Kosher for Calibanibal to just constantly make ad hominem attacks and accusations against a candidate? Would it be capricious to report those posts?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 01:49

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

Gyges posted:

Why is a poll that was biased 39 points in favor of Hillary less of an indicator of anti Sanders bias than one that was biased just 6 points in favor of Hillary?

That's my point? What matters is absolute delta from polling average, not whether the delta resulted in a change in Hillary/Clinton prediction.

The bold in that post is based on switch of Clinton/Sanders result relative to polling. That's dumb and misleading. It's about whether whether the eventual result skews one way such that we could believe polling companies were intentionally skewing samples to be wrong in one direction. It's the +/- and by what amount that matters, not the arbitrary cut-off at 50% that matters. Statistical inference isn't based around the 50% threshold.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 02:03

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.

overmind2000 posted:

In this case Klob is beating Bernie due to Walter Mondale's 10 point endorsement

The most shocking part of this is learning that Walter Mondale is still alive. Modern medicine has cursed us with hordes of undying centrists ghouls, though on the plus side the Silent and Boomer gens lingering on has completely deprived the Gen Xers of any political power which is pretty lol.

AlBorlantern Corps posted:

Is it Kosher for Calibanibal to just constantly make ad hominem attacks and accusations against a candidate? Would it be capricious to report those posts?

I suppose you could try to get Calibanibal probated but I'm not sure why you want to make the thread worse than it already is.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 02:14

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

KingNastidon posted:

Again, because early states like IA, NH, SC have lots of polls by credible institutions. States like NY and CA and TX and FL do too because they are large and contribute many delegates, thus the accuracy in their polling has a larger influence on the eventual result.

This doesn't follow at all. Results in early states have a significant impact on the outcome for later states (that is difficult/impossible to measure but definitely exists), and there's no reason to think that people are influenced by the specific polls of their states (rather than the general gist they get from polling in general of who is "electable").

I get what you're attempting to argue here, but it's just kinda wrong.

KingNastidon posted:

Including states like Alaska, with one two month old poll by a lovely unknown outfit, can be dumb. To put the delta in poll vs. result in Alaska on equal footing/weighting with that in IA/NH/SC or any other well polled, high population state I provided is intentionally disingenuous.

You're grasping at straws and not making any sense. People are contesting the usefulness/accuracy of primary polling. You don't get to selectively exclude the states where polling tends to do worst and blindly assert that the ones where it does better at clearly more impactful because their states have higher populations. That literally makes no sense. It is not like the people of Texas or whatever look only at the Texas primary poll and say "ah, clearly this candidate is the one to vote for because they're doing better in Texas specifically."

If one was going to make any argument along these lines, it would be one that heavily weighted the earlier states, since those are the ones where the public is bombarded for months by polls (and their results heavily color the tone of the rest of the race).

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Oct 20, 2019

# ? Oct 20, 2019 03:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Also remember that delegates are proportioned not just by population, but by number of Democrats. So California gets far more than Texas, for example.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 03:09

Mantis42: Jul 26, 2010

Bernie is going to win therefore any poll to the contrary is 100% wrong.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 03:28

Evrart Claire: Jan 11, 2008

The problem with talking about polls just in how they compare to final results is that polls have been shown to be a narrative shaping tool more-so than they attempt to be predictive.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 04:12

Streak: May 16, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

polls lmao. get the gently caress outta here with that poo poo

# ? Oct 20, 2019 05:04

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

Streak posted:

polls lmao. get the gently caress outta here with that poo poo

# ? Oct 20, 2019 05:31

Endymion FRS MK1: Oct 29, 2011; I don't know what this thing is, and I don't care. I'm just tired of seeing your stupid newbie av from 2011.

AlBorlantern Corps posted:

Is it Kosher for Calibanibal to just constantly make ad hominem attacks and accusations against a candidate? Would it be capricious to report those posts?

Wait do people not have them on ignore?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 06:04

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

Endymion FRS MK1 posted:

Wait do people not have them on ignore?

Why would you ignore the best poster in the thread?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 06:08

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

joepinetree posted:

This is incredibly stupid, but let's go along with this rationale.

Yes, 2016 was a very close election, and any number of different things changing would have led to a different result. A substantial number of these things were under control of Hillary's campaign. Decisions regarding campaigning in the midwest, messaging, letting a known creep like Weiner be anywhere near the campaign, etc. Another substantial number of these things were in the hands of establishment organizations, like the media. How the NY Times, CNN, etc. decided to cover the race. Yet another good chunk of this was in the hands of the FBI and how they decided to treat the emails case. And then you have minor players in this story, like Tulsi, who merely endorsed Bernie last time around and has some fairly sui generis foreign policy views this time.

Now, ask yourself: why is it that no one ever wonders if Hillary, or Weiner, or the NY Times and CNN, or Comey, etc. were Russian assets? Ask yourself what makes Tulsi fair game but none of a dozen people in the campaign, the media or the FBI? If you do that, you'll see that the answer why is pretty clear. It's deviation from the establishment view of foreign policy.

This really hits the nail on the head.

Hell, at least the idea that Hillary or someone high up in her campaign (and here Robby Mook would be a promising candidate) was secretly compromised and tried to lose is a) interesting and b) means that the Russians actually did something effectual that doesn't rely in the idea that the wily Ivan used his Slavic cunning to foresee that the election would be so close that loving Jill Stein would be relevant in any way.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 07:34

Bald Stalin: Jul 11, 2004; Our posts

Gyges posted:

Why would you ignore the best poster in the thread?

They don't realize its comedy.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 07:37

Grapplejack: Nov 27, 2007

Wicked Them Beats posted:

I would like to take this opportunity to once again remind people about the endorsement tracker.

The endorsement tracker, which is Nate Silver, in his infinite wisdom, gifting us a view of the race that guarantees Biden will always be ahead because every governor, senator, or DNC bigwig is counted for 8, 6, and 5 points respectively, regardless of whether or not anyone has ever heard of them or their endorsement carries any weight whatsoever. Whoah, Biden secured the ever crucial Ned Lamont endorsement! Eight points! Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie? Eh, three points.

10 points
Former presidents and vice presidents
Current national party leaders

8 points
Governors

6 points
U.S. senators

5 points
Former presidential and vice-presidential nominees
Former national party leaders
2020 presidential candidates who have dropped out

lmao what the gently caress, why would governors be ranked under presidents and above senators??

e: Booker's 59 points are literally from the entire state of New Jersey, all the state-level people.

Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Oct 20, 2019

# ? Oct 20, 2019 07:37

zetamind2000: Nov 6, 2007; ~~I'm an alien.~~

Grapplejack posted:

10 points
Former presidents and vice presidents
Current national party leaders

8 points
Governors

6 points
U.S. senators

5 points
Former presidential and vice-presidential nominees
Former national party leaders
2020 presidential candidates who have dropped out

lmao what the gently caress, why would governors be ranked under presidents and above senators??

e: Booker's 59 points are literally from the entire state of New Jersey, all the state-level people.

Warren is only ahead of Klob in points because she scored that sweet sweet Michael Dukakis endorsement

# ? Oct 20, 2019 07:45

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Cerebral Bore posted:

This really hits the nail on the head.

Hell, at least the idea that Hillary or someone high up in her campaign (and here Robby Mook would be a promising candidate) was secretly compromised and tried to lose is a) interesting and b) means that the Russians actually did something effectual that doesn't rely in the idea that the wily Ivan used his Slavic cunning to foresee that the election would be so close that loving Jill Stein would be relevant in any way.

It's way easier admitting that pretty much the entire centrist liberal apparatus has been built, taught and trained specifically to do everything wrong.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 07:58

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

Grapplejack posted:

lmao what the gently caress, why would governors be ranked under presidents and above senators??

The governor is the most important politician in a state. Obviously they should get more points than a senator. There's just one governor and they have more direct impact on their constituents than their two senators have.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 11:04

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

he deleted his account lol

https://twitter.com/WhiteSoxSlater/status/1185742444807249921

# ? Oct 20, 2019 12:19

Ither: Jan 30, 2010

DC Murderverse posted:

i can't believe that there's a politician who has cited Project Veritas in their tweets and shown up on Fucker Carlson's Must Nazi TV and we're complaining about some dumb thing Hillary Clinton said about them instead

This.

Tulsi Gabbard is bad. Whether or not she's a Russian asset is irrelevant.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 13:15

John Wick of Dogs: Mar 4, 2017; A real hellraiser

They're both bad

# ? Oct 20, 2019 13:47

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Tulsi Gabbard is poo poo, but can be useful when attacking even shittier people, such as Hillary Clinton.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:05

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

I have a friend who is really hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket in the general. Pretty sure she still sees Tulsi as one of the only other candidates besides Bernie to actually be pro-LGBTQ, and that's the big sticking point for her.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:13

GoutPatrol: Oct 17, 2009; *Stupid Babby*

AlBorlantern Corps posted:

They're both bad

but i thought there was no difference between good and bad things

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:13

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

the_steve posted:

I have a friend who is really hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket in the general. Pretty sure she still sees Tulsi as one of the only other candidates besides Bernie to actually be pro-LGBTQ, and that's the big sticking point for her.

What the gently caress?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:19

skylined!: Apr 6, 2012; THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

the_steve posted:

I have a friend who is really hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket in the general. Pretty sure she still sees Tulsi as one of the only other candidates besides Bernie to actually be pro-LGBTQ, and that's the big sticking point for her.

My condolences for your friends terminal brain worms.

Maybe share with her tulsis willingness to boost ratings for Known Homophobic Nazi Tucker Carlson, if, you know, her biography doesn�t do the trick.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:31

Nail Rat: Dec 29, 2000; You maniacs! You blew it up! God damn you! God damn you all to hell!!

the_steve posted:

I have a friend who is really hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket in the general. Pretty sure she still sees Tulsi as one of the only other candidates besides Bernie to actually be pro-LGBTQ, and that's the big sticking point for her.

Yeah the gay guy probably isn't pro-LGBTQ, for starters.

She's one of the most centrist candidates, no way he would choose her as a running mate especially because in a two term presidency whomever he chooses is very possibly president at some point.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:32

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

Nail Rat posted:

Yeah the gay guy probably isn't pro-LGBTQ, for starters.

Does Buttigieg have a good record on the TQ part?

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:36

Ague Proof: Jun 5, 2014; they told me
I was everything

the_steve posted:

I have a friend who is really hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket in the general. Pretty sure she still sees Tulsi as one of the only other candidates besides Bernie to actually be pro-LGBTQ, and that's the big sticking point for her.

Oh my God. Tell them to look up "homosexual extremists"

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:44

nearly killed em!: Aug 5, 2011

Being of a group doesn't make you good on any of the issues that group card about. Black wealth saw it's biggest decline in decades under Obama. Warren didn't even show at Standing Rock.

If you aren't for m4a and national rent control, you're bad on LGBTQA issues.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 19:26

Gresh: Jan 12, 2019

Cerebral Bore posted:

Tulsi Gabbard is poo poo, but can be useful when attacking even shittier people, such as Hillary Clinton.

And Tulsi doesn't really have any power, Hillary Clinton and her ghouls still have a poo poo ton of it. That blistering attack on Hillary was even better than her cancelling Kopmala last month. If she's gonna torch these loving cretins in ways Bernie or Warren won't and help the progressive left(intentional or not) in the process then I'm 100% for it.

# ? Oct 20, 2019 14:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Democratic Pres. Primary 2020: The moderator just starts throwing a rock at Sanders

«‹›770 »