When people decide to harass the person to the point they go to the police
I'm not excusing it. I think there's a real problem w/ Bernie supporters online. It's a ridiculous story and that's probably why no one on this forum who supports Sanders brought it up while it was a thing. No one here is taking part in harassing anyone.When people decide to harass the person to the point they go to the police
And before he was never asked a question like about his campaigns sexual harassment issues.
So people excusing this like this is basic stuff that has always happened are being dishonest. It only happened here because of the question that they did not like.
I think they all likely got harassed. Maybe we haven't heard about it; but I guarantee the girl who asked the question about sexual harassment wasn't the only one to get targeted. idk why this happened. I think there's some really stupid people out there.why did it happen this time then? have his supporters gotten more paranoic after 2016? I do think that its worth thinking about.
We can look people up on facebook because we have similar interests, because they may be applying for a job, we find them attractive, maybe because we don't like them we would look them up. As soon as someone asks a question on live tv.....You BETTER NOT DARE looking them up on Facebook!
Again, TYT shouldn't have put it on blast, but knowing what I know I'm glad I'm not still ignorant to what CNN did.
It's one thing to look up a person, it's another to cheerlead harassment for dubious reasons. This isn't like harassing Steven miller in a restaurant or any other avowed white supremist. She asked a question, a legitimate one and people are harassing her because Bernie didn't take it well like they need to be liberal brown shirts protecting him
Official Staff CommunicationI thought this current convo would stick closer to CNN's 2020 primary practices, but I was wrong. Please make a thread if you want to continue the deep-dive into doxxing, gamergate tactics, and what online "fans" of candidates may be up to. This thread is for 2020 Primary news. Thank you.
Back on topic, so is it looking like Biden is actually doing this or is all just an unending rumor. It seems like it's been a rumor forever now. Is it basically confirmed or just centrist hopefuls throwing his name around?
Yeah, this is my take on him as well. And as someone from the South Bend area, I can assure people he's genuinely a good guy who's gotten results.I think I've listened to all the candidate interviews on PSA so far, and his was definitely the most compelling. Not only is he a great communicator, but he also seems to be approaching these questions in a way that for whatever reason, feels more effective and unique than any of the other candidates.
He's clearly very progressive, like Bernie or Warren, but conveys his points better. He also seems like a good middle ground between Bernie's ideals and Warren's focus on policy.
That's how I seem him anyway. Very excited for his town hall.
If he's hiring then it's going to happen. He probably saw the bump Bernie got and figured his own would make him the front runner.Back on topic, so is it looking like Biden is actually doing this or is all just an unending rumor. It seems like it's been a rumor forever now. Is it basically confirmed or just centrist hopefuls throwing his name around?
He doesn't need much of a bump to get into first. Him and Bernie have been close this entire time. Hell, RCP has Biden in front on their aggregate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.htmlI don't think an announcement would bump Biden much - he's already the choice people default to at this stage, most of those who are set on supporting someone else won't care much.
On this note, I'm not sure what Biden's ceiling is, but I would imagine most people who defaulted to him will change their options when the primary kicks into full gear and they learn about other candidates. I can see someone like Beto taking a substantial number of voters away from him.He doesn't need much of a bump to get into first. Him and Bernie have been close this entire time. Hell, RCP has Biden in front on their aggregate: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Right now all the numbers are based on name recognition and nothing else, for everyone. That'll change once the debates start and people start seeing who is actually running.On this note, I'm not sure what Biden's ceiling is, but I would imagine most people who defaulted to him will change their options when the primary kicks into full gear and they learn about other candidates. I can see someone like Beto taking a substantial number of voters away from him.
It's also worth noting that Bernie is the second choice for a higher percentage of Biden supporters than Biden is to Bernie's
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-there-really-lanes-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/
In other news, Gillibrand having a worse RCP than Gabbard is kind of really really terrible for her.
Interesting, I'll be very curious to see how this all shakes out. I like Biden as personality but I'm concerned he's not the direction the party is going. I also have concerns about the way he'll be depicted by right wing media and detractors as "creepy Biden" or something. The Democratic Party being sensitive to (as it should be) sexual harassment might really muddy things up. I don't know that he's actually a creeper, but there are a fair number of clips that make him look too touchy feely.If he's hiring then it's going to happen. He probably saw the bump Bernie got and figured his own would make him the front runner.
I'm just thinking about his logic. Right now he's still one of the heaviest hitters in the party. Had he tried in 2016 it would have been a clash of the titans between him and Hillary.Interesting, I'll be very curious to see how this all shakes out. I like Biden as personality but I'm concerned he's not the direction the party is going. I also have concerns about the way he'll be depicted by right wing media and detractors as "creepy Biden" or something. The Democratic Party being sensitive to (as it should be) sexual harassment might really muddy things up. I don't know that he's actually a creeper, but there are a fair number of clips that make him look too touchy feely.
I'm just thinking about his logic. Right now he's still one of the heaviest hitters in the party. Had he tried in 2016 it would have been a clash of the titans between him and Hillary.
He'll probably fuck it all up somehow if he runs, but if he tries then he's going to be the front runner until he does.
Biden would have dropped early in 2016.
He's never campaigned well.
Front runner? Recent polls have him second
Bernie has similar ties to the crime bill and no one seems to notice. People don't care about stuff if they like you.I seriously fail to see how Biden gets far in this current climate with his completely out of touch comments on millenials or Mike Pence is a "decent guy." Not to mention the crime bill of the 90s or his ties to the banking industry. He's also a grabby old man.
Far as I can tell it's just the NH polling. Check the RCP link earlier, it's national.Biden would have dropped early in 2016.
He's never campaigned well.
Front runner? Recent polls have him second
Recent polls have him narrowly second in New Hampshire, a place Bernie won in 2016.Biden would have dropped early in 2016.
He's never campaigned well.
Front runner? Recent polls have him second
I seriously fail to see how Biden gets far in this current climate with his completely out of touch comments on millenials or Mike Pence is a "decent guy." Not to mention the crime bill of the 90s or his ties to the banking industry. He's also a grabby old man.
I guess journalists get people to harass a private citizen to the point they shut down social media and report harassment to the police.
Just ethics in asking questions journalism right?
The only similar ties they have to the bill is the fact that they voted yes on it. Biden literally wrote the bill and was one of its biggest pushers. Bernie had many problems with the bill but voted yes because of the Violence against Women act part of it.Bernie has similar ties to the crime bill and no one seems to notice. People don't care about stuff if they like you.
Biden puts himself in those situation with terrible quotes, no one forces him so say the words. I am millennial and listened to the quote in context, it was still bad. One thing I can count on is Biden putting his foot in his mouth over and over again.Biden is constantly a victim of out-of-context pull quotes in headlines. Welcome to politics, I know. But I actually listened to his speech where he "criticized millennials" and as a millennial who is frequently annoyed with baby boomers, I agreed with the point he was making. But it's easier to make a glib comment based off a headline and move on.
A lot of smart folks are underestimating Biden's appeal. They mistakenly think that the people that like him only do so because of The Onion and memes, but Biden is a tremendously charismatic speaker and is very effective at appealing to people's emotions. IMO, nobody else in the race so far has his ability to connect with a room.
Bernie ran on the full bill for his first senatorial campaign. He was saying how he made Vermont safer by voting for it. You don't think that will come up when he tries to say that?The only similar ties they have to the bill is the fact that they voted yes on it. Biden literally wrote the bill and was one of its biggest pushers. Bernie had many problems with the bill but voted yes because of the Violence against Women act part of it.
Biden puts himself in those situation with terrible quotes, no one forces him so say the words. I am millennial and listened to the quote in context, it was still bad. One thing I can count on is Biden putting his foot in his mouth over and over again.
You can go after CNN without publishing her Infotmation everywhere so she gets harassed.
But they didn't do that, they focused on HER first and then decided to hit CNN after.
She was the main target at first, CNN was the post-harassment excuse.
Modpost.That's not a very fair representation of what they did. They stressed before any of this that the question she asked was fine and that they weren't criticizing her but they were criticizing CNN for how they framed the occupations or place of work of the people asking questions.
Yeah it will come up and he will have to answer for it again as he has in the past. My contention was the fact he is the same boat as Biden when it comes to his ties to this bill and I do not think that is the case.Bernie ran on the full bill for his first senatorial campaign. He was saying how he made Vermont safer by voting for it. You don't think that will come up when he tries to say that?
Recent polls have him narrowly second in New Hampshire, a place Bernie won in 2016.
Bernie was just on The View and I was surprised at some of the tough questions.
Some highlights:
- he says he's not considering taking advice from Hillary.
- he thinks she didn't campaign enough in certain states and that she didn't reach out to the working class enough and that's why she lost.
- when asked how he wants to overcome his 2016 weak spots, he said he has a million volunteers spread across all 50 states that are going to help him win + the ongoing effort to make his campaign more diverse.
- he says he laid off the male staffers who were accused of sexual harassment and has a strong protocol in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.
- he was asked about reparations for descendants of slaves and he said he doesn't think simply writing a cheque will solve the issue.
Those are all good answers (except the reparations one, which is a cop-out). I don't know if it's fair to say that Clinton didn't reach out to the working class enough. I think it's more accurate that they weren't receptive, and she wasn't positioned to reach out to them.
Those are all good answers (except the reparations one, which is a cop-out). I don't know if it's fair to say that Clinton didn't reach out to the working class enough. I think it's more accurate that they weren't receptive, and she wasn't positioned to reach out to them.
Its not really a copout. Reparations as a cash payment just means all of that money would most likely end up in the hands of creditors and landlords, how is that going to help the black community in the long term? Writing a check would just be an infusion of cash to the current ruling class.
I'm not sure I totally agree with this -- like the assumption is generally that if you give workers a bunch of capital they can build their own competing institutions and I don't see why black workers should be different -- but assuming it for the moment, what would the solution be?
In our coverage of the 2016 primaries, we were heavily invested in the hypothesis articulated in the book "The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform," by the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller. The book, which is also backed by other political science scholarship, argued that the preferences of party elites, as expressed by endorsements, tend to lead voter preferences. If party elites achieve consensus on a candidate, that candidate tends to win the nomination, even if he or she initially receives only tepid support in the polls, the book argues. And even if those elites can't achieve consensus, parties rarely nominate candidates who aren't at least minimally acceptable to the party establishment, it implies.
It also makes for a good reality check. One can make assertions about which candidates are backed by the party establishment and which ones aren't, and these claims are common in media coverage of the campaigns. Tracking endorsements raises the bar by requiring tangible evidence for those claims, however. It's potentially noteworthy, for instance, that the supposedly establishment-friendly New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't have any endorsements yet, while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders already has almost as many as he did in 2016.2
But also, to put it bluntly, we think a lot of political analysis is dumb. And a lot of the reason it's dumb is because people are too quick to draw conclusions from just one or two cases. In fact, the "Party Decides" hypothesis has a fairly good track record overall.
I haven't talked much about which Democrats have received the most endorsements to date because it's awfully early in the process and so far less than 10 percent of all Democratic endorsement points have been claimed. Furthermore, the large majority of the endorsements that have been made so far are from within the same state as the candidate, e.g. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz backing Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. So far, however, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker has the most endorsement points, with Klobuchar and California Sen. Kamala Harris essentially tied for second. Sanders's initial total, while well behind the other three, is also fairly promising for him given that he received so few endorsements in 2016.
that sounds fucking awful and only marginally better than what we have nowAnyone else listen to Pete's Pod Save America interview? I'm digging his idea for SCOTUS (15 judges, 5 appointed by Republicans, 5 by Democrats, and other 5 are chosen by the ten appointed judges, but the choices must all be unanimous). About halfway through.
Anyone else listen to Pete's Pod Save America interview? I'm digging his idea for SCOTUS (15 judges, 5 appointed by Republicans, 5 by Democrats, and other 5 are chosen by the ten appointed judges, but the choices must all be unanimous). About halfway through.
His points about "if you don't fix the democracy part first, all this other stuff is not going to get fixed" seems to be lost among pretty much every other candidate. As well as fighting on values rather than policies, and having our policies based on our values rather than values based on our policies (which I feel pretty much every other candidate is doing)
Its not really a copout. Reparations as a cash payment just means all of that money would most likely end up in the hands of creditors and landlords, how is that going to help the black community in the long term? Writing a check would just be an infusion of cash to the current ruling class.
he thinks she didn't campaign enough in certain states and that she didn't reach out to the working class enough and that's why she lost.
Under this system Micheal Dukakis' endorsement is worth almost twice of AOCs, lol.
I get what theyre trying to do but like, I dont think this ones gonna work out Nate.
no, he made it clear by working class he also means PoC who are disproportionately affected by wealth and social inequality.Oh did he use working class to mean white working class again?
It's honestly more enjoyable to sit back and read the bickering than participate in it :-P