|
Sydin posted:We're only 20 minutes into this thing and I can already tell you what the MSM narrative is going to be after: Warren and Pete had great debates, Sanders failed to properly defend M4A or his awful horrible no good "Berniebros" internet abuse, Bloomberg was unfairly targeted, Biden and Amy were mostly non-entities. I feel like he did get hammered a bit on the berniebro angle and I'm kind of surprised he didn't have a better response to it. "We're getting attacked too" was not a good path out of it I don't think, unless he had some direct quotes of other campaigns being nasty too.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Get em Warren
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I think Klobuchar is imploding tonight. I can't not remember how badly she faceplanted with the mexico question and then going "so you think I'm stupid" to Pete. That kind of line is what you get out of petulant children, everyone knows someone that turns every piece of criticism into a personal attack that they can play the victim over and no one likes them. If I remember one thing about Amy for the rest of the primaries it's gonna be that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
LegionAreI posted:"I wish everyone was as perfect as you Pete, but.." ArbitraryC posted:I can't not remember how badly she faceplanted with the mexico question and then going "so you think I'm stupid" to Pete. That kind of line is what you get out of petulant children, everyone knows someone that turns every piece of criticism into a personal attack that they can play the victim over and no one likes them. Seriously she is literally that person.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
mutata posted:So based on the usual tendencies, Warren did good so they'll declare her the frontrunner suddenly and Bernie did good so they'll not mention his name. Got it. I dunno if I would say Bernie did good, he got a couple chances to stump and had some good moments, but the first hour was not a good look and I think a couple of the back and forths didn't come across so positively. Warren was fun to watch and I think scored a lot of points. Bloom cratered, amy looked real bad several times. Biden was kinda just there, was real weird when he went off on bernie in his closing speech though and I imagine that's not really a good look for him. Pete I don't think had any good answers to anything but he had a composure and a manner of speaking that made him seem like generic politician you might see played by an actor in a movie, so someone casually watching probably thought he did good. If I had to personally rank performance I'd say it was Good: Warren Okay: Bernie (issues)/Pete (Decorum) Bad: Amy Died on national television: Bloom I didn't list Biden cause it felt like he might as well not have existed. If there's a followup I'd really like to see it was on that last question before closing speeches. It feels like kind of a big deal that 5 of the candidates basically all said they'd be willing to override popular vote, not only is that a bad look democratically speaking, but it also means they all pretty much think they're gonna lose in voted delegates. It's a short question that might slip by a lot of people unless it gets really signal boosted, but it was an active admission from each of them that they a: are losing b: want to ratfuck the winner.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Honestly don’t see deadly shoe’s point here. If you had a situation where one candidate had 30% of the votes and two others had 20% and two more had %15 then sure I can see how you might say it’s not ideal that there isn’t an additional round of votes or a ranked choice system that works until there is a clear majority. Problems with fptp are well known. However, we don’t have any of those secondary options so the only metric we do have is the original split of votes. There simply isn’t anyone else with a better claim in this example than the one who originally got 30%, the only other option would be to give the nomination directly to someone who got less votes which is objectively against the one and only measurement we have. Letting someone with only 30% win isn’t ideal but handing it to someone with 20 or 15 would be strictly worse than that so what exactly is the point of the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2020 08:26
|
|