|
Groovelord Neato posted:That fucker lives in the UK lmao even better!
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
oxsnard posted: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) If pollsters wanted they could get Hillary Clinton on the debate stage. Since if they included her she’d get that much support. I’m not sure pollsters should be involved at all once there are delegates. Why should candidates with 0 delegates be on the stage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was never based on money, it was based on number of unique donors. As Steyer demonstrated, getting donors is based far more on how willing you are to hand massive stacks of cash to Facebook than "actual grassroots support." There are enough people who just donate to any Dem campaign that even Booker was able to hit it despite not having enough actual support to get near the polling threshold. hobotrashcanfires posted:He's a joke, and he shouldn't, actually. It's kinda bad and poisonous to literally buy presidential campaigns. There are people who want to vote for him. In fact, far more want to vote for him than Pete Buttigieg. It makes zero sense to see Pete on the stage and not Bloomberg. But again, Bloomberg is perfectly happy with that scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1223344642059534337?s=20 *audible "Ooooohs" from the studio audience* https://twitter.com/mugrimm/status/1223338397609156608?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah Bloomberg sucks rear end but he's polling nationally at 5-10% so he probably should be on the debate stage Should Michelle Obama be on that stage "I'm not running but apparently enough of you would vote for a name you heard before that I'm here, that's the law"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Should Michelle Obama be on that stage If Michelle Obama was running for president, yes? That seems to be the key difference here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:As Steyer demonstrated, getting donors is based far more on how willing you are to hand massive stacks of cash to Facebook than "actual grassroots support." Nah she handed massive stacks of cash to Facebook too and couldn't even qualify for the third debate. That's how I noticed her "I'll pay you in T-shirts to pretend you like me" Hail Mary play. Probably has more to do with her sucking poo poo so much worse than Steyer it's not even funny op
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:If Michelle Obama was running for president, yes? That seems to be the key difference here? Bloomberg isn't running in Nevada, and that's where the stage is. In fact, he's not trying to win at all. He's trying to strip enough delegates from Bernie to force a contested convention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Look, “Bloomberg should be on stage because he’s polling well” is a fine point to make but the DNC changing the rules this late in the game after Tom Perez already said the rules can’t be changed to have a climate change debate because it might benefit some candidates and not others, you can understand why people were pissed when they heard this news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:There are people who want to vote for him. In fact, far more want to vote for him than Pete Buttigieg. It makes zero sense to see Pete on the stage and not Bloomberg. But again, Bloomberg is perfectly happy with that scenario. If that's the case then he'd qualify with the delegate option. No need to remove the donor requirement to get him onstage even if he wins zero delegates in IA and NH Concerned Citizen posted:If Michelle Obama was running for president, yes? That seems to be the key difference here? Oh ok so it shouldn't just be based on what you can get people to say in a poll, gotcha Also Bloomber isn't running in Nevada either so...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah she handed massive stacks of cash to Facebook too and couldn't even qualify for the third debate. That's how I noticed her "I'll pay you in T-shirts to pretend you like me" Hail Mary play. Gillibrand was pretty close to the donor threshold but also was spending millions on ads to hit the polling one, which she missed by a mile
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
No, see, it should be this esoteric, completely made up set of parameters that specifically exist so that I can justify having Bloomberg on stage. That way, he can continue to pollute our democracy with endless bags of money because corruption is legal and good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Gillibrand was pretty close to the donor threshold but also was spending millions on ads to hit the polling one, which she missed by a mile OK so do you even realize you just destroyed your own argument
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
I'm okay with Bloomberg being in the debate even if the reason he's in it is dumb and malicious. The guy has no chance of winning and he'll only drain votes from people who mostly wouldn't support Bernie in the first place. It's pretty amazing what a piece of poo poo that guy is, though. Like, every bit as much of a piece of poo poo as someone like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If that's the case then he'd qualify with the delegate option. Ok well what if those people don't like in IA and NH? I don't think those two states should be first, much less be the arbiter of who is truly running for president. quote:Oh ok so it shouldn't just be based on what you can get people to say in a poll, gotcha Ok, you got me. The presidential primary debates should only have people who are running for president. I am undone. Yes it's weird that Bloom didn't register for NV but I personally don't really care about the physical location of a nationally broadcasted debate. Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jan 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so do you even realize you just destroyed your own argument Counterpoint: I did not. Because Steyer, in fact, has more money than Gillibrand and easily hit the donor threshold while scraping to the polling one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm okay with Bloomberg being in the debate even if the reason he's in it is dumb and malicious. The guy has no chance of winning and he'll only drain votes from people who mostly wouldn't support Bernie in the first place. While I think the outcome is good (another moderate getting in and taking away airtime from other moderates since he will be attacking Bernie who will get more time to respond, and hopefully hurting moderates by splitting the vote), the process of the DNC arbitrarily deleting requirements midrace to get who they want in the debate is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
Yeah Bloomberg, Pete, and to a lesser extent Steyer being in the race for longer helps Bernie out because none of them are viable and they all serve to take votes from Biden. Warren needs to drop out immediately after IA and NH though and endorse Bernie (no, I know she isn't going to actually do this). Her supporters legitimately will break for Bernie more than the other candidates. The longer she stays in the race the clearer it is that she doesn't actually give a poo poo about enacting a progressive agenda and building a progressive movement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:While I think the outcome is good (another moderate getting in and taking away airtime from other moderates since he will be attacking Bernie who will get more time to respond, and hopefully hurting moderates by splitting the vote), the process of the DNC arbitrarily deleting requirements midrace to get who they want in the debate is bad. Oh, for sure, but there was never any question that these people are all corrupt scumbags. Better that they be incompetently corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Ok well what if those people don't like in IA and NH? I don't think those two states should be first, much less be the arbiter of who is truly running for president. Concerned Citizen posted:Ok, you got me. The presidential primary debates should only have people who are running for president. I am undone. It's the debate specifically for the Nevada primary, you make no sense. Concerned Citizen posted:Counterpoint: I did not. Because Steyer, in fact, has more money than Gillibrand and easily hit the donor threshold while scraping to the polling one. Then Bloomberg should have no problem making the donor threshold as long as he's as serious as Steyer and no need to remove that requirement just for him. You're contradicting yourself constantly, you don't need to abuse your brain just to defend a billionaire's right to buy his way into a debate good god
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No, see, it should be this esoteric, completely made up set of parameters that specifically exist so that I can justify having Bloomberg on stage. That way, he can continue to pollute our democracy with endless bags of money because corruption is legal and good. Sounds like the DNC in a nutshell, tbf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:The longer she stays in the race the clearer it is that she doesn't actually give a poo poo about enacting a progressive agenda and building a progressive movement. That has been obvious for a while, but it became undeniable once she tried to smear Bernie as a sexist in an attempt to destroy him so progressives would have no alternative but to vote for "Medicare For Maybe In A Few Years"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:As Steyer demonstrated, getting donors is based far more on how willing you are to hand massive stacks of cash to Facebook than "actual grassroots support." There are enough people who just donate to any Dem campaign that even Booker was able to hit it despite not having enough actual support to get near the polling threshold. Steyer actually made some effort to get donors - and it's still poo poo he's trying to buy his way in as well. Bloomberg is shovelling money and coasting in off the people who just saw a guy on tv and answer every phone call. Its actually okay to take a moral position on the issue of billionaires trying to buy political office, while acknowledging that is our unfortunate reality. Concerned Citizen posted: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. Though its loving hilarious to suggest it's good because now the media he's been giving hundreds of millions too can now go after him like they somehow couldn't before. Especially after what we saw at the last debate, which was of course the culmination of Warren's foolhardy smear campaign against Bernie hand-in-hand with CNN. Remember when you unrelentingly defended the opening salvo of that like it was somehow legitimate and weirdly had no opinion to offer after it blew up in her face? That this may well backfire is immaterial. It's not good for democracy and pointing that out is okay. Maybe it's time to drop your snide, disingenuous concern trolling shtick and post genuinely for once?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
I love how the unique donor requirement is somehow so absurdly easy to meet that it's just a useless measure of how much cash you give to Facebook, yet so onerous that it's unfair to a poor struggling work-a-day billionaire like Bloomberg. It's anything you want it to be, as long as you support billionaires buying their way into the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Iowa Caucus Demographics for the last 3 cycles. 2004 -124,000 caucus-goers
2008 -239,872 caucus-goers
2016 -171,517 caucus-goers
I don't know why the 2008 and 2016 results are off by a couple points, but that's what I could find. If we can get turnout for the 44 and under crowd up near 40%, we could be looking at a real nice Monday night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
bowser posted:https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1223344642059534337?s=20 Did the campaign itself attack sunrisemovement or is that just something a media outlet did? Also showing up on a show doesn't mean you have their endorsement. I think we're stretching here. Also I genuinely thought no one liked Bloomberg but that dude in the Iowa interviews legit said Bloomberg was his first choice and his second choice was "The other rich one". So. Yay rural Democrats in Iowa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Did the campaign itself attack sunrisemovement or is that just something a media outlet did? Because that seems...unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Did the campaign itself attack sunrisemovement or is that just something a media outlet did? It's in the quoted tweet https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1223084282358521857
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So are you suggesting that Pete is only going on Maher's show so if he gets his endorsement Pete can tell him to eat poo poo on national TV? I think Pete is going on Mahers show because its the last chance to be on a national stage before the caucus, and he's free to do so, the others aren't because of the trial. I'm pretty sure all of the candidates at one point or another have been on the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love how the unique donor requirement is somehow so absurdly easy to meet that it's just a useless measure of how much cash you give to Facebook, yet so onerous that it's unfair to a poor struggling work-a-day billionaire like Bloomberg. It's not onerous if you have unlimited money, it's that Bloomberg does not give a poo poo about the debates or actively doesn't really want to be on the debate stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Iowa Caucus Demographics for the last 3 cycles. 17-year-olds can caucus? Huh TIL
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's not onerous if you have unlimited money, it's that Bloomberg does not give a poo poo about the debates or actively doesn't really want to be on the debate stage. OK well then there's no need to let him in is there. If he gets a delegate at some point, put him in the debate, no need to change the rules because the DNC wants to handpick the debates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:17-year-olds can caucus? Huh TIL Only if they turn 18 by election day in November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:17-year-olds can caucus? Huh TIL Most states let you vote in the primary if you will turn 18 in time for the general election, it only makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:17-year-olds can caucus? Huh TIL If they'll be 18 by Nov 3. I think most states let 17 year olds in the same boat vote in the primary. They also usually let 16 year olds register to vote after the mid-term election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:17-year-olds can caucus? Huh TIL yeah we have a special protocol for it. They still have to register like everyone else and verify their age and stuff, but absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's not onerous if you have unlimited money, it's that Bloomberg does not give a poo poo about the debates or actively doesn't really want to be on the debate stage. https://twitter.com/KateAronoff/status/1223350128083439621?s=20 I wonder why people call this out hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Most states let you vote in the primary if you will turn 18 in time for the general election, it only makes sense. It does, which is why I was surprised
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:It does, which is why I was surprised We like to ensure our silly rules occasionally make sense, just to keep people on their toes. Edit: So are we getting Princes Of The Universe embedded in the thread Monday night after Bernie wins the Iowa Gathering?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/30/us/politics/iowa-poll-voters.html?auth=login-email&login=email#commentsContainer Reposting because I know a few of these folks and they want to know how they are seen outside the state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2020 22:53
|
|