|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
People who were authorized to speak for Joe Biden and his campaign went on national television and said in no uncertain terms that going out and voting in a pandemic was good and that the CDC said as much themselves. The CDC had to put out a statement saying that "No, this is the opposite of what we said."
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:
it is dodging the question to point out that the assumption underlying the question was totally incorrect. the sanders campaign called to delay the primary. joe biden said voting for him in person was safe to do. presuming Joe Biden is not senile (it is to laugh) that is is a candidate knowingly and willfully lying to voters, to put their lives in danger, in order to preserve his own power. something his opponent did not do. it would be much more convenient to pretend otherwise, of course, because "Biden can cause little a coronavirus deaths, as a treat" is a real awkward position to defend. regrettably, that's his position, and for god knows what reason you've decided to make it yours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
the biden campaign and its allies were very clearly in favour of getting the primaries out of the way under circumstances which were both unsafe and fundamentally hostile to the possibility of a fair election, since the whole process is entirely dependent on often elderly volunteers who would sometimes just not show up out of reasonable fear for their life. i understand why they did it and i think that sanders would've done something similar had the shoe been on the other foot, but it was still an *incredibly irresponsible and undemocratic thing to do* and anyone voting for them are going to have to face that reality if they want to behave in anything resembling good faith
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the sanders campaign called to delay the primary. joe biden said voting for him in person was safe to do. presuming Joe Biden is not senile (it is to laugh) that is is a candidate knowingly and willfully lying to voters, to put their lives in danger, in order to preserve his own power. something his opponent did not do. false choice it's also possible Biden was always stupid and careless enough that no one should ever listen to a word he says, working brain or no
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Again, though, that would then also apply to Sanders not telling people he'd agreed to drop out before Wisconsin's primary. Situation sucks but the GOP Supreme Court of WI wouldn't allow it to be delayed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Pick posted:Again, though, that would then also apply to Sanders not telling people he'd agreed to drop out before Wisconsin's primary. That does not absolve the Biden campaign of encouraging people to put their safety and lives at risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That does not absolve the Biden campaign of encouraging people to put their safety and lives at risk. if you want to argue that bernie was equally bad, like i said i disagree but i can respect the argument but nobody trying to argue biden is a murderer seem to want to make that leap, when there's not actually a difference
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Pick posted:Again, though, that would then also apply to Sanders not telling people he'd agreed to drop out before Wisconsin's primary. 'the other guy did it too, in a lesser way, as a deal with us' is not even a defense
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Sometimes you're just in a bad situation. But similarly, I don't think that anyone running should be discouraging the protests on the basis of increased coronavirus risk, even though there will be an increased coronavirus risk. I don't think that anyone running should be discouraging the protests on the basis of increased risk of police brutality (where protestors have been blinded and killed) either. Do you think that Biden and Sanders have a responsibility to ask people not to protest?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if you want to argue that bernie was equally bad, like i said i disagree but i can respect the argument this is completely demented, my dude the actual fact is that sanders kept trying (probably for mostly self-serving reasons, but still) to postpone the primaries, divert donations to covid civil society orgs etc, and when he relented *it was in coordination with the biden people and the DNC* sanders is not without sin, but there is absolutely no equivalence in culpability here
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:Sometimes you're just in a bad situation. But similarly, I don't think that anyone running should be discouraging the protests on the basis of increased coronavirus risk, even though there will be an increased coronavirus risk. I don't think that anyone running should be discouraging the protests on the basis of increased risk of police brutality (where protestors have been blinded and killed) either. Do you think that Biden and Sanders have a responsibility to ask people not to protest? an election can reasonably be postponed, being a bureaucratic, formal and very organised process. these protests are not. it is ridiculous to compare the two
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
You can't claim that Sanders was uniquely trying to get the primaries delayed; Democrats generally were trying to get the primaries delayed, and did (something Sanders had no power to do or directly solicit through official political mechanisms in WI) until the interference of the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:an election can reasonably be postponed, being a bureaucratic, formal and very organised process. these protests are not. it is ridiculous to compare the two It can't actually, because they did, and then it was overturned by the GOP Supreme Court in Wisconsin. So it turns out this was not possible at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
in fairness, Joe Biden telling people he views as his inferiors to die for him -is- totally unprecedented. and even if there was some of that in the Before Times, surely, by the time he was in the Obama administration, he was cured of those tendencies. eight years of exposure to someone who knew better would have cured him of the willingness to tell people "nah, it's fine, public health crises can be ignored where treating them seriously might have consequences to my power."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this is completely demented, my dude of course there is; it's the same claimed terrible offense. the terrible offense that biden is accused of is giving bad information to people to get them to turn out in an election during a pandemic. sanders did literally the same thing. the stuff about "he tried to delay it" is a distraction because that attempt was empty; it could not be delayed because republicans had the power to block delaying it and were doing so. you can ask "if biden tried to delay it more, would that have made a difference?" the answer is certainly no. i mean, the democratic governor did delay it, and got stopped. so once it is understood as a factual matter - and this is a factual matter, not a matter of interpretation - that the primary could not be moved by the democrats and everyone knew it, that excuse goes out the window. i'm focusing on this because this is again one of those claimed bloody shirts that does not hold up under scrutiny: the sole reckoning with the results of this logic being applied elsewhere is your statement "sanders is not without sin" and that's pretty poor wrestling with it. voting is important. wisconsinites have been kept under republican rule they cannot undo at the ballot box because they are gerrymandered to poo poo and their supreme court is hilariously partisan. this was one of the few chances to start trying to undo that. i think that was a reasonable choice to make, and that was a choice made by both candidates. it's a reasonable moral position that both candidates should have been straight with their voters about why they were pushing people to vote. it is not a reasonable moral position that only biden is wrong here, and the efforts to find a way for that to be true reveal what it is: motivated reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Pick posted:You can't claim that Sanders was uniquely trying to get the primaries delayed; Democrats generally were trying to get the primaries delayed, and did (something Sanders had no power to do or directly solicit through official political mechanisms in WI) until the interference of the GOP. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...onal-convention the DNC were making it clear that anyone who delayed would be punished for it https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/488111-dnc-calls-on-states-not-to-postpone-primaries%3famp the DNC explicitly called on states not to postpone your memory is playing tricks. the DNC and the biden campaign wanted the primary sewn up before they were willing to countenance delays this was not a partisan issue. they were effectively willing to sacrifice some voters and the fairness of the process in order to prevent any chance of a sanders resurgence. this is, imo, fair enough, but if you're going to vote for them you absolutely have to face up to this poo poo because it's a trivially available piece of recent history
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:an election can reasonably be postponed, being a bureaucratic, formal and very organised process. these protests are not. it is ridiculous to compare the two yeah see this is where an underlying factual matter definitively rebuts this argument. you, and others, assume the wisconsin primary could be moved. it could not be moved by the democrats. you are correct there is a process to move the election. that process contained points where republicans could block it; republicans believed it was in their interests to have as low-turnout an election as possible so they did not want it moved. therefore, bills to move it in the legislature (controlled by republicans) died. efforts by the governor to unilaterally move it were blocked by the republican supreme court. the election could not be moved. that's just a basic fact that you cannot go into this debate not understanding. republicans deliberately chose to force the election to happen in the middle of the pandemic for partisan reasons. the only choice democrats had was how to react to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...onal-convention https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/wisconsin-primary-election/index.html quote:Wisconsin's primary will go forward Tuesday, with polling places opening for in-person voting and absentee ballots required to be postmarked by Election Day, after courts halted Democratic efforts to delay the primary and extend the deadline for ballots to be returned by mail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:of course there is; it's the same claimed terrible offense. the terrible offense that biden is accused of is giving bad information to people to get them to turn out in an election during a pandemic. sanders did literally the same thing. the stuff about "he tried to delay it" is a distraction because that attempt was empty; it could not be delayed because republicans had the power to block delaying it and were doing so. you can ask "if biden tried to delay it more, would that have made a difference?" the answer is certainly no. i mean, the democratic governor did delay it, and got stopped. this is nonsense you're trying to first narrow down the entire discourse to one case, namely wisconsin when it's much broader than that, and then you're doing a weird maneuver where the guy playing along has the same moral culpability as due to some kind of psycho moral reductionism in an apparent attempt to... deny the reality of machine politics and the contingency of bourgeois democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Pick posted:You can't claim that Sanders was uniquely trying to get the primaries delayed; Democrats generally were trying to get the primaries delayed, and did (something Sanders had no power to do or directly solicit through official political mechanisms in WI) until the interference of the GOP. the word "generally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
wisconsin was not the only primary under discussion and trying to limit the issue to only wisconsin is laughably dishonest
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:wisconsin was not the only primary under discussion and trying to limit the issue to only wisconsin is laughably dishonest yes it was Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, long story short, there's a pandemic going on at the same time as a major presidential primary. People are told not to go out and gather in large groups. Biden tells people it is safe to go vote in person. This is a terrible thing to do because he is encouraging voters, who mostly includes the largest at risk group of people, to endanger their lives so that he can cement a victory he doesn't need.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yes it was are you a robot or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:in order: What I meant by that statement was, you are now shifting the argument to "It was worth endangering human lives to win a few judges" which is not an argument worth winning, if you could even prove it. evilweasel posted:2) this doesn't make any sense at all. as best i can tell, you are trying to argue "well, what about joe biden wanting to win wisconsin???" he didn't really care, because the bernie campaign had already promised to drop out as soon as it was over. which they did. Jesus, dude. You cannot divorce Joe Biden from his own electoral ambitions, especially within a discussion on a political campaign. evilweasel posted:3) that's dodging the question. and this question is important because it's forcing you to reason through your argument with the motivated reasoning changed. wisconsin democrats attempted to move the election, and it was blocked. knowing that, knowing that the election would not be moved, bernie sanders campaigned in wisconsin and encouraged people to vote for him, knowing their votes were pointless and that he had already agreed to drop out (and deliberately withheld that information from his voters). he did so for the same reason: driving up turnout in the wisconsin election, for the purpose of trying to win that judicial race. Wisconsin was literally threatened by the DNC that they would lose representatives. It was an atrocious abuse of power surpassed only by their later attempt to erase Bernie Sanders from the New York ballot. Bernie Sanders made a significant attempt to delay the primary, while the establishment coerced the state into following through. I genuinely do not believe you can equate a man lying about the safety of the polls to another man actively trying to prevent that danger. It is a false equivalence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah see this is where an underlying factual matter definitively rebuts this argument. you, and others, assume the wisconsin primary could be moved. it could not be moved by the democrats. I think you’re ascribing a wild Q tier conspiracy where there isn’t one. There’s no reason to believe that WI state republicans were serving their own nefarious ends when there is a much simpler explanation at hand: Joe Biden wanted the primary to happen on that day. Joe Biden claims to be very good at getting Republicans to work with him. Therefore, Republicans moved to have the primary on that day because they were working with Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
and in response, Joe Biden told his voters "you are safe to vote, in the middle of this pandemic." was this correct, or was this a lie, that killed people, told in the hopes of preserving the power of Joe Biden
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Pick posted:You can't claim that Sanders was uniquely trying to get the primaries delayed; Democrats generally were trying to get the primaries delayed, and did (something Sanders had no power to do or directly solicit through official political mechanisms in WI) until the interference of the GOP. This is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
to be clear, i am not making the same case as cpt obvious, though i think that the charge that the biden campaign and the dnc were more willing than the sanders campaign to sacrifice voters' and volunteers' lives in order to get the primary over with is entirely reasonable. to what extent it is accurate in wisconsin specifically is, in my view, not that interesting
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Eminai posted:This is a lie. It is not a lie, see the posts by evilweasel on this page that have direct documentation of this not being a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Pick posted:It is not a lie, see the posts by evilweasel on this page that have direct documentation of this not being a lie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction it is a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Wisconsin was literally threatened by the DNC that they would lose representatives. It was an atrocious abuse of power surpassed only by their later attempt to erase Bernie Sanders from the New York ballot. Bernie Sanders made a significant attempt to delay the primary, while the establishment coerced the state into following through. I genuinely do not believe you can equate a man lying about the safety of the polls to another man actively trying to prevent that danger. It is a false equivalence. i am pretty sure that the bolded is not at all true and is you faintly misremembering that under existing DNC rules, you need to complete your primary by june 9 (which left ample time for a delay) but given that you have made that factual assertion, please support it edit: the NY state thing was real bad, but that was a local machine politics decision about trying to tamper with unrelated primaries (trying to assist incumbents in their primaries by minimizing turnout) evilweasel fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Eminai posted:I think you’re ascribing a wild Q tier conspiracy where there isn’t one. There’s no reason to believe that WI state republicans were serving their own nefarious ends when there is a much simpler explanation at hand: Eminai posted:This is a lie. wrong. again, this is well documented, there were court cases about it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/politics/wisconsin-primary-election/index.html quote:Wisconsin's primary will go forward Tuesday, with polling places opening for in-person voting and absentee ballots required to be postmarked by Election Day, after courts halted Democratic efforts to delay the primary and extend the deadline for ballots to be returned by mail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:43
|
|
evilweasel posted:here is the underlying data about how accurate polls are prior to an election. sadly, as i last took statistics well over a decade ago, your guess is as good as mine about what an adjusted r-squared of about .5 means for the value of current polling about 150 days out from the election I can speak to this a bit; the calculation is at least plausibly valid (e.g. it's really a multiple regression though they call it just an r-squared too often), but it's got several internal variance sources that they can't account for without way, way more complex methods, such as controlling for variance in when the convention is held. They'd likely run into power problems if they tried to do that reanalysis anyway. The analysis after that point is...questionable. Lots of assertions, not well-supported, about general forces acting on voter preference. Many are plausible, but not tied to the prior claims very well. The authors identify three periods of "surges of predictability", meaning the r-square and relationship spikes over the general trend. These aren't...very well-specified, but they're 1. "the run-up during the first three months of the year, when the parties are selecting their candidates", 2. "late-summer convention season" 3. "the very end of the campaign" I'd like to have date ranges on these, but oh well. To be clear, these don't represent when the polls are most predictive, these are periods when the polls' predictive power increases fastest. They reflect, in principle, with some assumptions, a convergence of public opinion on voting preference. What I think is the most likely explanatory factor for these periods, which the authors really fail to address at all, is that all of them reflect periods of intensified media coverage, and therefore informational availability to generally unattentive members of the public. It's not really that the underlying events are crucial, it's that people are more aware of them and are attending to the question of the vote. This raises...complications, when it comes to applying the general principle to this election. I'd need to see data to tell, but my guess is we've already had a fair amount of convergence; the problem is I'd need measures of within-individual vote shifting over time, and that's both hard to measure and hard to collect. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i am pretty sure that the bolded is not at all true and is you faintly misremembering that under existing DNC rules, you need to complete your primary by june 9 (which left ample time for a delay) but given that you have made that factual assertion, please support it the DNC reacted to Ohio's announcing that they were postponing their primary due to Coronavirus by threatening all states that delaying the primary past june 9 would result in them losing delegates. i am in awe of the ease with which the goalposts move from "that didn't happen" to "it did happen, but it was good" over the course of one sentence
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i am pretty sure that the bolded is not at all true and is you faintly misremembering that under existing DNC rules, you need to complete your primary by june 9 (which left ample time for a delay) but given that you have made that factual assertion, please support it Sure, found it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction Here's a memo sent out by the DNC. Have fun defending monsters. quote:“The Delegate Selection Rules provide that each state’s first determining step must take place by 9 June. If a state violates the rule on timing, or any other rule, they could be subject to penalties as prescribed in Rule 21, including at least a 50% reduction in delegates, which will need to be reviewed by the RBC. This is a memo sent out by the DNC in response to Ohio figuring out whether they wanted to delay. So, yes, it is loving coercion. And, before you jump in with "they didn't say Wisconsin SPECIFICALLY", this was a memo to all states including Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:to be clear, i am not making the same case as cpt obvious, though i think that the charge that the biden campaign and the dnc were more willing than the sanders campaign to sacrifice voters' and volunteers' lives in order to get the primary over with is entirely reasonable. to what extent it is accurate in wisconsin specifically is, in my view, not that interesting that's a different argument. wisconsin is the specific one that i see the biden campaign attacked on, which is why i focused on that. more broadly speaking, the initial DNC position was basically "don't push the primary past june 9, do vote-by-mail instead" which is a reasonable position, especially when you look at the actual statement made that's the source of most of the articles quote:“States that have not yet held primary elections should focus on implementing the aforementioned measures to make it easier and safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote, instead of moving primaries to later in the cycle when timing around the virus remains unpredictable,” Perez said. that latter part has proven to be correct: it's still not really a great idea to hold an in-person election and just delaying elections would not have been the answer. the dnc and biden campaign certainly did want the primary to be over sooner rather than later, but the primary issue was enough elections that a nominee was effectively selected which was still well up in the air in early march. attacking ohio moving theirs was clearly wrong, however. Cpt_Obvious posted:Sure, found it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction you're referring exactly to what i said you were probably referring to, and it's saying 'beyond june 9'
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
"Yes the DNC did everything in its power to bar states from delaying primaries, but it's okay because Republicans were doing it anyway" is a hell of a defense
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:saying 'beyond june 9' Ffs dude, check your loving calendar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:02
|
|
|
and now, from "the DNC did not say if you delay your primary we're gonna take your delegates" to "well, actually delaying primaries wouldn't have helped anything." hopping from point to point, desperate to find one that justifies Joe Biden telling voters that there was no need for them to worry about coronavirus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:and now, from "the DNC did not say if you delay your primary we're gonna take your delegates" to "well, actually delaying primaries wouldn't have helped anything." No the next point will be claiming that electing judges is worth getting sick, just like the civil rights riots happening now. Liberals love nothing more than to co-opt racial justice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:08
|
|