-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Official Staff Communication
I 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.
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. That's my only comment I'm making on this matter, I just saw the wonderment post after posting this.
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?
Looks like he's doing it. He's apparently hiring staff and such.
I wish he wouldn't. I love Joe, but I think this primary is going to chew him up.
I appreciate the mod team keeping things on topic and avoiding huge derails.
I recall you having, like, the exact same rankings of candidate preferences as I do, so we must have pretty similar politics lol. I'm looking forward to listening on my lunch. Already downloaded the podcast.
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 recall you having, like, the exact same rankings of candidate preferences as I do, so we must have pretty similar politics lol. I'm looking forward to listening on my lunch. Already downloaded the podcast.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
The only poll I've seen that has him second is a recent New Hampshire poll. Nationally, he's consistently been the front runner.
Bernie has similar ties to the crime bill and no one seems to notice. People don't care about stuff if they like you.
Far as I can tell it's just the NH polling. Check the RCP link earlier, it's national.
Recent polls have him narrowly second in New Hampshire, a place Bernie won in 2016.
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.
Edit: Missed the staff post.
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.
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?
User Banned (1 day): ignoring modpost, continuing derail
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 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.
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.
Something interesting I saw in this particular NH poll: https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1551&context=survey_center_polls
If you look at the breakdown when responders are asked who they support in an open-ended question, you see this result:
In the time frame since the pre-primary camaigning has really ramped up, between August 2018 and Feburary 2019, Sanders support when asked an unprompted question has taken off dramatically, and it correlates with a huge drop in undecided respondents. Name recognition is strong, but Bidens name recognition doesnt seem to be worth anything when respondents arent given a list of candidates to choose from.
Now, that could just be because he hasnt announced yet... but none of the other leading candidates have moved much since theyve announced either.
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)
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)
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.
If you read any of the post-election books about the Hillary campaign - a running theme is that Mook / Clinton / campaign staff believed that persuasion was not needed, but just turning out the existing democratic base was. There was a deliberate effort NOT to reach out to anyone that wasn't part of the already core democratic base (over the objections of Bill Clinton and Dingell and a couple of others). They basically believed that Obama - Trump voters would never actually exist (and to a lesser extent, male Romney-Clinton voters).
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.
OP
OP
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?
Cancelling debt would go a lot further than paying back creditors, but I think debt is predatory and I hate creditors to begin with so that solution would have an added benefit of hurting the loaners so its not surprising I like it.
Money will always be part of the solution but guidelines would need to be put in place to make sure that money goes in to investing in the people and communities and not just siphoned off by the fat vampires that currently suck up all of this nations wealth. Like, investment into black communities is great but ensuring that the workers that build these projects are part of the community and get a job on top of everything else is better, and making damn sure the resulting infrastructure and businesses that are constructed are owned and operated by members of the community is even better.
People tend to just think of money as reparations but political power can be another. Now im getting into galaxy brain territory but increasing the number of state and federal congressional districts so that the resulting districts are smaller and the representitives are able to better represent thier constiutents could even be a form of reparations. If the US house exploded to 1500+ members it almost goes without saying that more minority involvement in politics would occur because a lot of those new districts would be representing small, densely packed urban areas.
e: Said "senate" instead of "house", whoops
Not sure if this article's been posted, but I found it interesting. FiveThirtyEight:
We're Tracking 2020 Presidential Endorsements. Here's Why They Probably Still Matter
Here's their endorsement tracker.
We're Tracking 2020 Presidential Endorsements. Here's Why They Probably Still Matter
Here's their endorsement tracker.
that sounds fucking awful and only marginally better than what we have now
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.
OP
OP
I actually remember that SCOTUS idea from when Metaphoreus suggested it, which is probably a strike against it.
I think it depends on what you want SCOTUS to be. Also in the current situation I think you would just end up with five empty seats in the middle.
I didn't watch it, but I think a better answer than no, is instead focus on what you will do to help. (Maybe he did that)
Oh did he use working class to mean white working class again?
Youre jokin but thats probably a better metric for how meaningful someones endorsement is than "Failed to become president in 1988"
no, he made it clear by working class he also means PoC who are disproportionately affected by wealth and social inequality.
It's honestly more enjoyable to sit back and read the bickering than participate in it :-P
- Status