GreyjoyBastard posted:

Is the show any good?

Grapplejack posted:

I wonder if Sanders would pick up Harris as VP, or if she'd even accept that

Koalas March posted:

Real talk: with so many people trying to hide their bigotry and terrible opinions behind the "comedy forum" label a few years ago it was like the forums version of "it's just a prank bro!" and you can bet anyone saying it is probably a piece of poo poo

have you seen my baby posted:

2016 the most ridiculous thing that could happen was that television personality Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination and then the White House.

2020 the most ridiculous thing that could happen is that television personality Marianne Williamson wins the Democratic nomination and then the White House.

HootTheOwl posted:

And you shouted them all down and they've left. That's how a forum works. Warren or Harris will make the news again and you'll shout down their supporters again and the thread will be in agreement again.

Gripweed posted:

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1145013425057280000

generic one posted:

Just as a casual observer and infrequent poster, I’ve gotta ask, do you read the posts in this thread, or just skim for tweets and article links? ‘Cause, it’s all over the place. Some dipshit even suggested gulags for people who said they’d be fine with Warren if Sanders wasn’t the nominee.

papa horny michael posted:

https://www.marianne2020.com/issues/healthcare

"I robustly support high-quality universal health coverage for every American. I will do this by making medicare an 0ption on the Obamacare exchanges. Over time, more people will migrate to medicare. I also support federal subsidies to ensure medical coverage for every American, even those in states which have refused medicaid expansion.

Those who wish to keep their private insurance may do so."

Z. Autobahn posted:

I'm gonna chime in real quick and say that no, it is very much those 3-4 extremely obnoxious posters that make this thread basically unbearable and drove most of us away. Like, you're right that folks like you and Marjoran and even VS, while we disagree, are actually engaging and interesting to talk to and I feel like I often learn something or have a worthwhile conversation. But the "Warren is a fascist and if you back her you're worse than Trump" moron brigade is *really* loving annoying and they post constantly and make this thread unbearable.

Like I would absolutely enjoy a thread where I could talk to you and other folks and genuinely discuss something like this, but this thread ain't it.

Groovelord Neato posted:

the most disheartening thing about the primary is even if sanders wins we're pretty hosed. it's not like he's going to be able to transform our energy system in time to stave off catastrophic climate change. gently caress did they even ask anything about climate in the debates?

How are u posted:

Why's that?

joepinetree posted:

Yes, Warren has gotten better in recent months and joined several of Bernie's resolutions. But I don't particularly trust leftwing conversions on the even of announcing a bid for presidency.

Judakel posted:

This panic over traditional media is hilarious considering how horribly it has failed to control the narrative since 2016. The rest of "political media" is pretty evenly divided between left and right. Leftists have made a lot of progress in controlling the narrative online.

Judakel posted:

Maybe. Remember, boomers have been collectively overtaken by other generations as a portion of the electorate. We will see how successful we are at engaging them.

Punk da Bundo posted:

there isn’t one candidate with good views on Israel , Israel should be treated and regarded like apartheid South Africa . It’s a shame, really , that people are so afraid to stand up for what is right .

Punk da Bundo posted:

we’ve been settling for least bad for so long

Punk da Bundo posted:

That seems to be “least bad” as far as Israel goes , that both parties have the same level of fervent defense of Israel .

Raenir Salazar posted:

1948 seems like a strange year to pick; especially as Israel didn't actually have much if any support from the US during the war of independence and in fact had actually more support from the USSR at the time. I'd pick 1967 or so as when US Israeli policy begins to get one sided in a US-USSR Cold War geopolitical dichotomy.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

false, if only because McGovern was too good for this damned nation.

TulliusCicero posted:

I actually expect that if Bernie becomes the nominee they will try to find a way to say he is anti-semitic somehow

AIPAC and Israel and the Shapiro-Adelson Evangelicals posing as Jews will find a way

TulliusCicero posted:

Lol at evangelical Shapiro questioning anyone's "jewishness"

Party Plane Jones posted:

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1145314391228895232

Ogmius815 posted:

Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable.

LinYutang posted:

Bernie has been seriously campaigning for four years. Thus far he has a ceiling of around 20% with total name recognition. The premise of creating a broad working class coalition to push through transformative change hasn't at all come to fruition; his polling among black voters is still dismal. But people still insist he is "electable."

So there probably is something to the idea that "electable" is a sophisticated way to say "candidate I agree with."

Calibanibal posted:

NH is 95% white and 70% men and the average age is 63. I wonder why Bernie is popular there?

Typo posted:

Typo posted:

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/democratic-presidential-candidates/polls/

Typo posted:

Typo posted:

what do you think

Z. Autobahn posted:

I mean... he's using polls that show... what the polls are showing... as opposed to polls that show what... theoretically could happen? I don't understand this argument. Polls show us where support currently is. Obviously things could change in any of a million ways, but... that's not what polls are?

Z. Autobahn posted:

Right, as has been the case for the months, there's a widespread disagreement on what "doing well with a group" means. Does it mean % of your supporters that are that group? Does it mean your fav/unfav with that group? Or does it mean how you rank as a preferred candidate with that group? Bernie has always done very well in metrics 1 and 2 with black voters, less so with metric 3. The problem is, when it comes to a primary, metric 3 is what actually matters.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

his mustache still feels weird

LinYutang posted:

Not die-hard leftists, but my local Our Revolution chapter has already begun splitting, with a core group of people defecting to Warren. Sanders' positions and rhetoric on race seems to be a dividing line, like his vote on the 1994 crime reform bill.

CelestialScribe posted:

This is why Democrats need to run on M4A being a pro-business policy.

CelestialScribe posted:

Business owners do.

VH4Ever posted:

Meh. Not sure why nationwide numbers matter since this isn't a "nationwide" election yet. Nice to see the overall sentiment is at least behind one of the Bernie/Warren duo but yeah, to me this poll is useless.

Helsing posted:

The primary is far from over and we need to remember that going forward Harris will start to face a lot more scrutiny. Much like with Biden this is a painful but necessary part of the process: somebody has to actually go negative on Harris and start using her record against her. Arguably it is good that Biden is fading so fast that the real contest can begin, the one that pits woke washed neoliberal authoritarians against an insurgent social democratic grassroots movement. After all, it won't be enough for Bernie to win, he has to actually start salting the earth for future neoliberal candidates. The stretch goal here needs to be that whatever the outcome of the primary, the path to power for the Hillary and Biden style candidates is cut off permanently.

Helsing posted:

At some point the left of the party needs to find a way to confidently criticize the Clinton/Harris/Booker approach of woke washing neoliberalism through superficial appeals to diversity. That's not a critique you can wait on Biden to make for you.

quote:

Frankly the ideal spokesperson for this would be someone like AOC, and if she continues to avoid getting her hands dirty during the primary I'd say that is a serious warning sign that she's not the great new hope everyone thought she was.

Oh Snapple! posted:

It's definitely something that really cant come from Bernie himself due to pre-existing narratives - it cant even come from his campaign staff, as any comments from, say, Turner or Gray will just be attributed to "Bernie's staff (which you should assume is white and male)."

It is not an optimal situation.

Willie Tomg posted:

Trump was polling at 1% by this time in 2015 for gently caress's sake.

Mellow Seas posted:

Source? Considering we are post-escalator anniversary that seems way wrong to me. I remember him taking off pretty much immediately, and then everybody spent six months assuming he would collapse at some point. I could be wrong.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

If she endorses Warren she's unironically canceled.

Willie Tomg posted:

AOC is a year-old freshman house rep in direct ideological conflict with both the current speaker as well as those for whom the speaker is carrying the water--who are, to be clear: armed and organized white nationalists. I do not stan her like some do, but there is a compelling case to be made for her eating the elephant one bite at a time.