|
I never said that. I was just saying that if I said that, it would be a thing that I said.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
I still don’t understand what kinds of powers a Democratic nominee or president has over the actual party. Is he the de facto party boss during his term? How exactly does Bernie Sanders the nominee have the power to fire people like Tom Perez or others? Do we even have a talent pool of left wing loyalists to replace these people in the event of a left wing purge? Anyway I wanna talk about NH. What is the strategy to counteract the media narrative that Pete won and is surging ahead in NH? CNN has announced him as the rising star of the Democratic Party. It’s fortunate the rest of the media isn’t doing this and just calling it a tie but it’s still a powerful message. I’ve long held the belief that CNN has degraded from a respectable news agency to a tabloid news org similar to Fox News but more neoliberal centrist friendly. Still their reporting on Iowa as dishonest as it is is like calling Pete Viagra to Bernie’s Sildenafil. Only those who really care and shop around are going to buy the latter. The rest will buy what they know because it’s the official name brand. This has a powerful effect on the voting public. If the media reported on this properly Bernie should be the presumptive nominee by now! Will Bernie attack Pete on his south bend record? He needs to attack him hard on his record. Pete engaged in nepotism to fire a qualified black police chief so the police force can murder black people. Pete must get savaged in the debate. The media will ignore it but it needs to be said. The message needs to come out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:loving lmao. (Read the thread) Electing Trump to own the libs
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JaneOst_/status/1225546948826058757
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:13
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I still don’t understand what kinds of powers a Democratic nominee or president has over the actual party. What made 2016 such a ratfuck on Sanders is that Clinton's campaign took control of the DNC and the Party months before she was actually nominated. She was able to do this because she and her cohort bled the DNC dry with patronage (particularly huge fees to consultants who did very little), then offered the DNC a cash infusion from the Clinton campaign in exchange for beginning that process of consolidation. It was corporate vulture capitalism practiced on a political party organization. quote:Anyway I wanna talk about NH. What is the strategy to counteract the media narrative that Pete won and is surging ahead in NH? CNN has announced him as the rising star of the Democratic Party. It’s fortunate the rest of the media isn’t doing this and just calling it a tie but it’s still a powerful message.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Right wing fascist regimes kill the left whenever they have power. It's happening in India and Brazil right now. It's pretty hubristic to think that it can't happen here. This isn’t the end of history, and it can happen here. But if we ever find ourselves facing this type of thing it is incredibly unlikely to start with people who threw a few hundred at a primary campaign. That’s a huge list, and many aren’t worth the effort. Sure, join the SRA if you feel you’d like to be a slightly harder target, but if things get really wild the “donated to Bernie” list is not going to be handed out to the assassination squads due to its sheer size alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
I spoke at a evangelical church men's group this morning! Got seven more votes and commitments for Bernie!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Question : has anyone in the MSN, like anyone at all, questioned Buttigieg’s lack of experience? I seem to remember a significant amount of kvetching about Obama being a freshman Senator with no executive or foreign policy experience in 2008. Wonder what the difference is between Pete and Obama...
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Bernie should ask Pete if whoever gets the most votes should be considered the winner. If he says yes then he has to admit he lost Iowa, if he says no that just looks bad for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Bernie should ask Pete if whoever gets the most votes should be considered the winner. If he says yes then he has to admit he lost Iowa, if he says no that just looks bad for him. Iowa doesn't matter anymore. It's all about NH. KIM JONG TRILL posted:Question : has anyone in the MSN, like anyone at all, questioned Buttigieg’s lack of experience? Hard to make an experience argument when Obama was the last D president and Trump is president. I don't think that is effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Question : has anyone in the MSN, like anyone at all, questioned Buttigieg’s lack of experience? Pete is white, that's all the experience he needs. Plus with Trump winning, it's very obvious that question is completely irrelevant these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Question : has anyone in the MSN, like anyone at all, questioned Buttigieg’s lack of experience? klob actually came after him hard about that in the december debate. hopefully she'll be hurling staplers at him tonight 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Hard to make an experience argument when Obama was the last D president and Trump is president. I don't think that is effective. Yeah, I don't think it's anything insidious and just the media realizing that "experience" has no bearing on a candidate's chances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Anyway I wanna talk about NH. What is the strategy to counteract the media narrative that Pete won and is surging ahead in NH? CNN has announced him as the rising star of the Democratic Party. It’s fortunate the rest of the media isn’t doing this and just calling it a tie but it’s still a powerful message. Look, Biden and Warren are not polling badly enough for Buttigieg's surge to actually matter. CNN's messaging isn't going to change that. Trump took advantage of the media narrative in 2016, but everyone forgets that he was consistently the front runner. The pundits and the GOP establishment weren't in denial about an underdog that no one saw coming, they were in denial over an entire primary's worth of data. Pete's support just isn't good enough. Even his chances in NH are slim at best. The thing to be afraid of is his potential to muddy the waters enough over the next several weeks to lead to a brokered convention, but in that case it'd still be a brokered convention where Sanders comes in with the most delegates and Pete is nowhere near second place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1225791606672019458 But now all the major news sites are just saying "Who the gently caress knows who won? We'll probably never know, so we'll just call it a tie between Sanders and Buttigieg." Which is about as good of a result as they could get from a recanvass, anyway, so they're content with the ratfucking job they've already done and are moving on to focus their efforts on ratfucking Bernie in New Hampshire and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Anyway I wanna talk about NH. What is the strategy to counteract the media narrative that Pete won and is surging ahead 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Bernie should ask Pete if whoever gets the most votes should be considered the winner. If he says yes then he has to admit he lost Iowa, if he says no that just looks bad for him. I could easily see this happening at the debate. Also, for people worried about turnout in the Iowa caucus, there could be tons of factors influencing turn out at one caucus. It was the day after the super bowl and lots of people were probably just tired and hung over on Monday. The last time it was the day after the super bowl was 40 years ago in 1980.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Look, Biden and Warren are not polling badly enough for Buttigieg's surge to actually matter. CNN's messaging isn't going to change that. Trump took advantage of the media narrative in 2016, but everyone forgets that he was consistently the front runner. The pundits and the GOP establishment weren't in denial about an underdog that no one saw coming, they were in denial over an entire primary's worth of data. Plus with Pete’s new “front runner” status, Biden, Warren, and Klobuchar will all be hammering him at the debate tonight
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Look, Biden and Warren are not polling badly enough for Buttigieg's surge to actually matter. CNN's messaging isn't going to change that. Trump took advantage of the media narrative in 2016, but everyone forgets that he was consistently the front runner. The pundits and the GOP establishment weren't in denial about an underdog that no one saw coming, they were in denial over an entire primary's worth of data. This seems like head in the sand... He's clearly surging in every NH poll that has come out in the last week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I still don’t understand what kinds of powers a Democratic nominee or president has over the actual party. We are the pool of left wing talent. There's plenty of experienced and gifted individuals working behind the scenes for the Bernie campaign, the Democratic Socialists of America, and other organizations. What they will need is our assistance to primary the other motherfuckers when the time comes. Meanwhile, there are plenty of actions that Bernie Sanders can take without congressional approval. For example, ending student debt would take an action of the department of education. Kraftwerk posted:Anyway I wanna talk about NH. What is the strategy to counteract the media narrative that Pete won and is surging ahead in NH? CNN has announced him as the rising star of the Democratic Party. It’s fortunate the rest of the media isn’t doing this and just calling it a tie but it’s still a powerful message. Bernie usually makes attacks featuring policy and funding. Here's a good time when he took on Pete and Biden in one fell swoop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYyVF5ayuE I cannot stress enough how much Sanders absolutely dominates the debates, and those debates do actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
Butt seems to have gotten a ~5 point bump in national polls. That's not nearly enough to matter. Especially when he gets blown out in Nevada
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This seems like head in the sand... He's clearly surging in every NH poll that has come out in the last week. No, he's not. Both polls where he's "surging" actually show more improvement for Sanders than for Buttigieg. People keep forgetting that plenty of polls actually showed him doing well in NH before IA. This obsession with momentum is ridiculous when it's taken this far. For momentum to matter in these early states, you have to actually win. The two most recent polls either put Pete in a very close race for a tie or so far behind Bernie that he can't win even if he overperforms by quite a bit. He has no chance in NV or SC and he's polling a distant fourth or fifth in national polls. Don't take any of this the wrong way, though. Pete loving sucks. It loving sucks that he did well in Iowa and it sucks that he's going to do well in New Hampshire, because he's wrecking the momentum that would let Bernie become an uncontested front runner. He's potentially setting us up for a nightmare scenario with a brokered convention, it's just that Pete Buttigieg personally has no chance at all of becoming the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Butt seems to have gotten a ~5 point bump in national polls. That's not nearly enough to matter. Especially when he gets blown out in Nevada It does matter if he wins NH and it leads to another bump. These things build on each other. Paradoxish posted:No, he's not. Both polls where he's "surging" actually show more improvement for Sanders than for Buttigieg. People keep forgetting that plenty of polls actually showed him doing well in NH before IA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It does matter if he wins NH and it leads to another bump. These things build on each other. How is butt going to "gain momentum" into Nevada? Reid's political machine could've probably rallied the restaurant union for Biden, but there's no way they can pull it off for the butt. That's a solid 5-10% of voters who are all but guaranteed to go to Bernie in overwhelming numbers
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Eric Swalwell is on CNN pumping for Bloomberg LOL
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Eric Swalwell is on CNN pumping for Bloomberg LOL Remember when USPOL posters were so whiny they had to make a separate thread for Democrats sucking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It does matter if he wins NH and it leads to another bump. These things build on each other. They only build on each other if he has the campaign apparatus in place to make use of it. Which he doesn't. Otherwise he's just, at best, siphoning off voters from other centrist candidates who did poorly. Bernie will siphon some of those voters too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Here's Pete's incredibly narrow path to victory: Pete's path to victory is exactly what happened in Iowa. Conspire with the DNC and the media to suppress polling that doesn't say what they want, so when they rig the election it seems plausible because it lines up with the polls we were allowed to see. They hosed this up so massively though that it's obvious now, if they continue to do it and steal the nomination for him, they will lose harder than Hillary because there will be more public mistrust and hatred of them than there was in 2016. But they might still do it anyway because they don't really mind losing to Trump or at least prefer it to President Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Reminder that it was thread consensus that the ideal outcome for the Iowa was basically exactly what happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This obsession with momentum is ridiculous when it's taken this far. For momentum to matter in these early states, you have to actually win. The two most recent polls either put Pete in a very close race for a tie or so far behind Bernie that he can't win even if he overperforms by quite a bit. He has no chance in NV or SC and he's polling a distant fourth or fifth in national polls. I imagine this is why Biden thinks Iowa and New Hampshire aren't a big deal; Clinton swept the south and if Biden can do that he can use the momentum to carry him to the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Reminder that it was thread consensus that the ideal outcome for the Iowa was basically exactly what happened I'm still on that boat. Biden sinking increases Bernie's chances in the south and other places where Butt can't hope to compete. Everything starts to domino on Super Tuesday gonig forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
Clinton was also a once in a generation politician at the top of his game and was actually from the south
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Realized I had an extra $20 in checking than was in my monthly budget, tossed it to Bernie immediately. Won't be the last time I donate this month but it was the first and only thought of what to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Xombie posted:They only build on each other if he has the campaign apparatus in place to make use of it. Which he doesn't. Otherwise he's just, at best, siphoning off voters from other centrist candidates who did poorly. Bernie will siphon some of those voters too. Trump didn't have any campaign apparatus. You can win through the media pumping you. oxsnard posted:Reminder that it was thread consensus that the ideal outcome for the Iowa was basically exactly what happened The ideal was Bernie by 10+ points....
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pete's path to victory is exactly what happened in Iowa. Conspire with the DNC and the media to suppress polling that doesn't say what they want, so when they rig the election it seems plausible because it lines up with the polls we were allowed to see. You sure about this? People know Iowa was sketch, but we can’t do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:How is butt going to "gain momentum" into Nevada? Reid's political machine could've probably rallied the restaurant union for Biden, but there's no way they can pull it off for the butt. That's a solid 5-10% of voters who are all but guaranteed to go to Bernie in overwhelming numbers He doesn't need to win literally every early state, though. He can take a hit in Nevada if he has the narrative that he came from nowhere and "won" Iowa and New Hampshire in upset victories. If Biden drops out before Super Tuesday that's a ton of "I just want the safe white moderate" support he can hoover up and maybe take a couple Super Tuesday states, too. If he loses in New Hampshire that story's a lot harder to sell, but gently caress I just have this creeping, horrible feeling that he's gonna somehow pull it off there. Of course the big elephant in the room is the contested convention. Pete and Bloomberg don't need to win--they just need Bernie not to win. I don't think anyone serious thinks Pete would walk out of the convention with the nomination in that case, but I bet he could negotiate himself either a VP pick or some prominent job that he could use to launch a presidential run later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
fondue posted:Isn't momentum how Bill Clinton got the nomination? When he started his campaign he was some no-name governor from Arkansas. He lost Iowa and during the New Hampshire campaign his affair with Flowers came out. Despite losing NH he spun the Flowers affair into a prime-time apology and then swept the south. Biden was the front runner going in and the first four states were split by four different candidates in the 92 primary. Clinton lost Iowa because a senator from Iowa was running.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pete's path to victory is exactly what happened in Iowa. Conspire with the DNC and the media to suppress polling that doesn't say what they want, so when they rig the election it seems plausible because it lines up with the polls we were allowed to see. Under Trump they still get to be kings of the ashes of the Democratic Party and keep pulling their inflated salaries and keep racking up all the deferred compensation they'll get on the back end once they go private again and pick up contracts from their installed replacements. If (when) Bernie wins, they're shown the door and get nothing. I do not trust ANY of them to not sabotage him at any chance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Eric Swalwell is on CNN pumping for Bloomberg LOL If Bernie doesn't devour Pete, Bloomberg will do it for us. I assure you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:You sure about this? People know Iowa was sketch, but we can’t do anything about it. I don't think VitalSigns is saying "Iowa was so obvious that they can't do it again." Rather, they're saying that Iowa was so obvious that if they keep doing it, even soft/moderate Bernie supporters and maybe even some Warren supporters will permanently lose their trust in the Democrats and their nominee is even more likely to be crushed by Trump when they can't whip up the enthusiasm they need to get people to come vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 16:53
|
|