|
VitalSigns posted:
Nice.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Butt is almost definitely getting a couple delegates and Klob might actually swing a couple as well if she's lucky in some districts. Yang and Steyer are potentially out. But will they clear the polling threshold in Nevada? Edit: nm I finished reading the article. You’re probably right. fridgraidr fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:they changed the donor requirement to a delegate requirement Nope quote:The Democratic National Committee is drastically revising its criteria to participate in primary debates after New Hampshire, doubling the polling threshold and eliminating the individual donor requirement, which could pave the way for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to make the stage beginning in mid-February. They straight up eliminated the donor requirement, the added a delegate threshold as an option to qualify without meeting the polling (or now-removed donor) threshold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
fridgraidr posted:But will they clear the polling threshold in Nevada? No but it's polls OR get a delegate to qualify for the debate. Butt will probably do well enough in Iowa to keep him in the debates through Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nope When i said requirement i meant... i dunno, something. Based on delegates now instead of donors, I think that's fine. What better way to demonstrate grassroots support than getting votes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:No but it's polls OR get a delegate to qualify for the debate. Butt will probably do well enough in Iowa to keep him in the debates through Super Tuesday. Righto, I missed that “or”
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
I get everyone hates Bloomberg, but it is actually weird that he's been excluded so far. A candidate polling as well as he is would not be excluded in any year other than this one. The donor requirement was always arbitrary and existed solely to try and make the debates watchable by removing some chaff. It doesn't make any sense post-NH when the stage will be much smaller anyway. Bloomberg is rising because he can spend millions in positive ads while never facing any remotely hostile questions or scrutiny. Him being in a debate isn't a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
fridgraidr posted:Righto, I missed that “or” Yeah the "or" is important because that's the distinction that makes it clear this is set up to try to keep Butt in and to try to let Bloomberg on the stage. If it was an "and" we'd be down to three candidates on the stage. They probably want to lower the requirements even further but then they run the risk of too many centrists talking over each other while Bernie dunks on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Giving Bernie an actual thin-skinned billionaire to riff on during the debates is chum in the tank. We’re gonna be eating real good. “I believe abortion is a woman’s choice, though Mike here thought he had so much control over women who worked for him he ordered one to get an abortion, ‘Kill it,’ was I think how it went, Mike?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
NPR interviewed some Iowa Caucus voters today and let me tell you that was some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
I think CC is right but lmao at the optics of changing the requirements after all the minorities have dropped out so a guy who 100% bought his percentage in the polls can get on the stage This plays into Sanders hands so much, they're so stupid lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
rscott posted:I think CC is right but lmao at the optics of changing the requirements after all the minorities have dropped out so a guy who 100% bought his percentage in the polls can get on the stage Yeah, it sucks what they're trying to do, it owns that they are terrible at it
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Eminai posted:TBH it should just be a delegate requirement, but then they wouldn't be able to give Bloomberg free publicity. Anyone with delegates should get in for sure, or anyone who looks likely to win delegates in NV or SC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
rscott posted:I think CC is right but lmao at the optics of changing the requirements after all the minorities have dropped out so a guy who 100% bought his percentage in the polls can get on the stage yea I actually like the change, it SHOULD be entirely poll/support based and not money, but big lols to be had at them doing it now just to benefit the wealthy freak no one likes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I get everyone hates Bloomberg, but it is actually weird that he's been excluded so far. A candidate polling as well as he is would not be excluded in any year other than this one. The donor requirement was always arbitrary and existed solely to try and make the debates watchable by removing some chaff. It doesn't make any sense post-NH when the stage will be much smaller anyway. He excluded himself by choosing not to compete in the race for whatever reason. He always has the option of not attending any debate he qualifies for, so I'm not sure how much I buy into the "ACTUALLY, this is a negative for Bloomberg" narrative. He could choose to show up at a debate and just suicide bomb the progressive candidates, for example, with no regard for his own viability. He shouldn't have that opportunity unless he's really competing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I get everyone hates Bloomberg, but it is actually weird that he's been excluded so far. He's sitting out the first four state races, and seems more interested in playing the spoiler for Bernie than in actually beating Trump. Also he was a Republican until pretty much last week. The fact that people haven't been taking him seriously has been the sane position to take. That said, I like that he'll be on the stage to be a billionaire punching bag for Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
https://fair.org/home/corporate-media-are-the-real-sanders-attack-machine/ - a recap of some of the recent media attacks on Bernie. It's an incomplete list obviously, and already out of date since it doesn't include them trying to call him a loving segregationist
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
There's a nonzero chance that Yang gets at least one delegate in Iowa and Tulsi polls pretty well in New Hampshire so she might get a delegate as well. A maximum of nine people could be at the February debates which is basically the most appropriate way this primary could wind down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He's sitting out the first four state races, and seems more interested in playing the spoiler for Bernie than in actually beating Trump. Also he was a Republican until pretty much last week. The fact that people haven't been taking him seriously has been the sane position to take. Yeah CC is dumb, its obviously a desperate bid to push the lovely billionaire who's trying to buy the election to make something bad for bernie maybe? It's not as though the media will be tough on him, good chance they'll softball him. It's just that it'll probably backfire handing bernie a literal punching bag billionaire trying to buy the election on a debate stage, who only has a lovely past on top of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Anyway, I think the new debate rules are insipid from the perspective of fundamental fairness, BUT I also think they may be a tactical win for Sanders. Yang is effectively forced off stage and Bloomberg presents an ideal punching bag, plus Pete and maybe even Klobuchar can continue splitting the moderate vote if they notch even a single delegate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1223334811986776064 this sums it up best, it's dumb to change rules midway after the minority voices have dropped out and all but Bloomberg was actually benefiting WAY more from not being in the debates than he will getting in them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
holy poo poo it's dusty in here https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1223342032413962240?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1223334811986776064 Krystal Ball please stop tweeting my posts without attribution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1223334811986776064 totally agree he should be on the stage, he's a perfect target
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Bloomberg attending the DNC's "Nevada Debate" without campaigning there or even bothering to get on the Nevada ballot is some hellworld poo poo. Thankfully, Bernie has hellfire immunity and a yuge damage multiplier against billionaires.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:holy poo poo it's dusty in here https://twitter.com/sean_antrim/status/1223342249641201664?s=20 every loving sanders tweets is dozens of this guy i hope they all are able to enjoy not dying because of a lack of income in their future once sanders is president
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:He excluded himself by choosing not to compete in the race for whatever reason. He always has the option of not attending any debate he qualifies for, so I'm not sure how much I buy into the "ACTUALLY, this is a negative for Bloomberg" narrative. He could choose to show up at a debate and just suicide bomb the progressive candidates, for example, with no regard for his own viability. He shouldn't have that opportunity unless he's really competing. I don't think "really competing" is measured by whether you take donations or compete in the first four. His campaign staff is a massive, extremely well-paid army. He's spending millions on ads and he's a solid 4th in the polls - and rising. That seems like competing by any standard. I think he's like a 1% chance of winning the nomination but he's going to rack up delegates which is more than you can say about Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Yang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I don't think "really competing" is measured by whether you take donations or compete in the first four. His campaign staff is a massive, extremely well-paid army. He's spending millions on ads and he's a solid 4th in the polls - and rising. That seems like competing by any standard. I think he's like a 1% chance of winning the nomination but he's going to rack up delegates which is more than you can say about Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Yang. Wow folks stop disparaging the guy spending upwards of 300 million so far to buy an election who isn't even on the ballot for the first four races this is democracy you savages. Glad you're here to set folks straight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:https://twitter.com/sean_antrim/status/1223342249641201664?s=20 That fucker lives in the UK lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Wow folks stop disparaging the guy spending upwards of 300 million so far to buy an election who isn't even on the ballot for the first four races this is democracy you savages. do you think anyone here is saying that's ok? The point is he's 'really competing' regardless, you only do him a favor by ignoring him and letting him carry on unchallenged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
'I think it's hosed up the billionaire buying easy name recognition poll numbers is getting functionally a free pass for his entire campaign just as long as he ONLY self funds with his own billions' 'wow so you love bilionares, hosed up, imo'
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Wow folks stop disparaging the guy spending upwards of 300 million so far to buy an election who isn't even on the ballot for the first four races this is democracy you savages. I get that it's easier to just attack imaginary arguments but you can at least try to pretend you aren't just trolling. I'm not telling people to not disparage him, Bloomberg loving sucks. But he has a real campaign and should be on the debate stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:holy poo poo it's dusty in here A true posting comrade
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:When i said requirement i meant... i dunno, something. Based on delegates now instead of donors, I think that's fine. What better way to demonstrate grassroots support than getting votes? Because it's not a delegate requirement. Read it again, you can get in by meeting the polling threshold without a single delegate, because they eliminated the donor requirement. Or you can get in regardless of polling or donors if you get at least one delegate. Adding the delegate option was announced months ago and is fine. Eliminating the donor requirement for candidates without any delegates is new and is bullshit cheating (luckily, incompetent cheating, but cheating nonetheless)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I don't think "really competing" is measured by whether you take donations or compete in the first four. His campaign staff is a massive, extremely well-paid army. He's spending millions on ads and he's a solid 4th in the polls - and rising. That seems like competing by any standard. I think he's like a 1% chance of winning the nomination but he's going to rack up delegates which is more than you can say about Amy Klobuchar or Andrew Yang. It's the Nevada Debate and he's not on the ballot there. If you polled Democrats nationwide about Michelle Obama she would also hit a 10% cutoff, but that doesn't mean she's "really competing." This whole thing is insane. In any case, the DNC debate cutoff doesn't consider campaign employees or other campaign expenditures. He would be in with or without those. Also, I genuinely think Klobuchar has a better shot at winning the ultimate nomination, albeit still sub-1%. Bloomberg is widely disliked by Democrats! Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I get that it's easier to just attack imaginary arguments but you can at least try to pretend you aren't just trolling. He absolutely should be on the debate stage so that he can get publicly humiliated by Sanders just like Delaney. He should not be on the debate stage because he bought enough commercials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:He absolutely should be on the debate stage so that he can get publicly humiliated by Sanders just like Delaney. He should not be on the debate stage because he bought enough commercials. the loving commercials did more for him than yang, gabbard, booker, and other bullshit also-rans who got on the debate did getting last minute money bombs and all, is the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea I actually like the change, it SHOULD be entirely poll/support based and not money, but big lols to be had at them doing it now just to benefit the wealthy freak no one likes. It was never based on money, it was based on number of unique donors. You can raise only $225,000 for your entire campaign but if it was from 225,000 people who each gave a dollar then you're good. On the other hand your campaign can have $Texas-Times-A-Billion but if that's all just your personal funds or from your friend Peter Thiel or something then you don't qualify. It's the reason that just before she dropped out, Gillibrand was trying to bribe people to donate by offering them free T-shirts if they just chip in $1. She had millions in Wall Street cash, but no actual grassroots support, so in desperation she was cynically trying to launder that banker cash into fake support. It didn't work lol (turns out, if people don't support you enough to buy a T-shirt with your face on it for $25, they're not interested in having it for $1 either when thrift stores exist) The number of unique donors requirement was great, a better measure of real grassroots support than some pre-selected subset of "qualifying polls" which are all fake anyway (or at least based on arbitrary bullshit like turnout models) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I get that it's easier to just attack imaginary arguments but you can at least try to pretend you aren't just trolling. He's a joke, and he shouldn't, actually. It's kinda bad and poisonous to literally buy presidential campaigns. That he can is the poo poo reality we're presently stuck in. Nobody has to pretend its somehow legitimate, as you seem to want to insist it is. Of course that's just how you always roll with all the rot in our political system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Yeah Bloomberg sucks rear end but he's polling nationally at 5-10% so he probably should be on the debate stage. How he got to that level in the first place is a separate issue (and should be eliminated through campaign finance reform)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:01
|
|