2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt

Status
Not open for further replies.

BoboBrazil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,145
She's got 11 million cash on hand. Also a lot of that money is setting up field offices.

Also what's the evidence she's bad at running a campaign?
She pulled 10 million of that from her Senate campaign though. She's at a burn rate of 85%. Compare that to Kamala Harris at 33%. Her financial director quitting is a huge sign of campaign issues. I think she's a positive force to have in the race during debates so hopefully she can hang in there.

The real underperformance is Beto, who hasn't climbed up the polls substantially despite being in full campaigning mode.
I'm not that concerned about polling at this point because it's all name recognition and Beto seems to be on a self imposed media blackout. The only person moving up in most polls right now is Pete and that's because he's appearing on any media outlet he can and the media has predominantly been positive on his run.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,003
And his being widely disliked doesn't preclude some from having an affinity for him.
You say warped, but warped in what sense. Out of the norm? Skewed? Deviated from the average, what?

Why is not the assertion "widely disliked" not also warped? Neither of us have hard numbers, we never polled ERA to see how they feel, we're all running off of anecdotal evidence.

In the single poll we had, Bernie was the clear winner. https://www.resetera.com/threads/if-the-2020-us-presidential-election-were-today-who-would-you-vote-for.107283/

It's not a definitive answer or anything because it doesn't touch Gaming side, was locked pretty early, etc, but again there is literally 0 evidence that he has more detractors than supporters on ERA, so saying "His vocal enthusiasts here present an extremely warped take." is weird.
 
Last edited:

blackw0lf48

Member
Jan 2, 2019
273
She pulled 10 million of that from her Senate campaign though. She's at a burn rate of 85%. Compare that to Kamala Harris at 33%. Her financial director quitting is a huge sign of campaign issues. I think she's a positive force to have in the race during debates so hopefully she can hang in there.
Reports are her campaign director quit because Warren is not doing large fundraisers and going after large donors.

Also she raised 1.4 million the final week, more than Harris did. And has a similar number of donors and donations to Harris.

She struggled out of the gate, but signs are her campaign is on the upswing.
 

Raster

Member
Feb 28, 2018
1,977
Keep in mind, we're still in the very early stages of everything. Warren announcing when she did moved up everyone else's announcements by a number of weeks I imagine.
Yeah it's early, but you'd think the intense media coverage + his campaigning style would amount to something even this early. Buttigieg is creeping up on him and he doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as Beto.

It's news like this that should be worrying for him even this early on
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,989
Yeah it's early, but you'd think the intense media coverage + his campaigning style would amount to something even this early. Buttigieg is creeping up on him and he doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as Beto.

It's news like this that should be worrying for him even this early on
Most people aren't paying that much attention just yet. People like all of us who do are kinda freaks. We need to remember that.
 

BoboBrazil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,145
Reports are her campaign director quit because Warren is not doing large fundraisers and going after large donors.

Also she raised 1.4 million the final week, more than Harris did. And has a similar number of donors and donations to Harris.

She struggled out of the gate, but signs are her campaign is on the upswing.
That's good if her donation numbers stay on a positive trajectory. Crowds seem to love her when she talks. She usually gets some of the best responses of anyone when she speaks at conferences.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,003
Williamson's a good orator but something about her rhetoric rubs me the wrong way:

We need a politics from the inside out. You can’t change anything only by changing things on the outside… Not a business, not a relationship, not an organization, not a life. Only temporary change can happen that way. What we need now is a renewed conversation about what it means to be human, in our politics as much as everywhere else. That’s what our Founders were talking about. How we are created equal. How we have inalienable rights, not just because we are entitled brats who want what we want but because we are given those rights by God. How it is the natural state of humanity to be free of tyranny, political or economic or any other kind. How to establish a society that honors those things. We have strayed from the important existential questions of life, and that is why our politics are sick. They do not speak either to our depths or from our depths. They are shallow and selfish and greedy and corrupted. They do not display the purity of heart that is the truth of who we are as people. Until that changes, our country will continue on a perilous course. But when that changes, we will begin to heal in the twinkling of an eye.
My problem with this is primarily my problem with horoscopes, you can project whatever your desires are onto her words and think "yeah I like what she says".

Only temporary change can happen that way. What we need now is a renewed conversation about what it means to be human, in our politics as much as everywhere else. That’s what our Founders were talking about. How we are created equal. How we have inalienable rights, not just because we are entitled brats who want what we want but because we are given those rights by God.
I read this and think "yeah she's right, that's why we need socialism over capitalism, a mode of production that prioritizes human needs over profit".

A religious conservative who reads it might think "yeah she's right, that's why we need bible study in schools and to stop vilifying the Founders for being slave owners".

We have strayed from the important existential questions of life, and that is why our politics are sick. They do not speak either to our depths or from our depths. They are shallow and selfish and greedy and corrupted. They do not display the purity of heart that is the truth of who we are as people.
I read this as "neoliberal politicians are selling out our wellbeing to corporate profits, we need to govern and produce based on morality rather than market forces".

The same conservative I posited above would read this and think "liberal elites have given up on the real (white) America to godless minorities and foreigners."

You see how this works? She says good things but does not take a hard stance. This kind of stuff is dangerous in politics because you don't really know what she's after for certain, nor what her morals are, except "good things for good people".
 
Last edited:

BoboBrazil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,145
Yeah it's early, but you'd think the intense media coverage + his campaigning style would amount to something even this early. Buttigieg is creeping up on him and he doesn't have nearly the same name recognition as Beto.

It's news like this that should be worrying for him even this early on
If you look at the media coverage of Beto it's mostly been negative. They are talking about his Vanity Fair cover and standing on things. They made him apologize for saying his wife was taking care of the kids while he campaigned.
They are saying he went too far when he said Trump is using the same language about immigrants that Hitler did and that Netanyahu is a racist. His positive media coverage has mainly been limited to his fundraising numbers.

On the positive side, a town hall on CNN, a breakout debate moment, and a couple of media appearances and he can have a huge upswing in polling, whereas someone like Bernie and Biden are probably as high as they are going to go.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,889
On top of that, he hasn't been to California yet. I don't think it would make a big impact, but anything is better than 0. His next stop is Bluffton, South Carolina on Friday. He's really going to have to tap into MSM again like he did in his Senate run, but what do I know - I'm not Obama's campaign manager or whatever.
 
Last edited:

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,241
If you look at the media coverage of Beto it's mostly been negative. They are talking about his Vanity Fair cover and standing on things. They made him apologize for saying his wife was taking care of the kids while he campaigned.
They are saying he went too far when he said Trump is using the same language about immigrants that Hitler did and that Netanyahu is a racist. His positive media coverage has mainly been limited to his fundraising numbers.

On the positive side, a town hall on CNN, a breakout debate moment, and a couple of media appearances and he can have a huge upswing in polling, whereas someone like Bernie and Biden are probably as high as they are going to go.
I think a lot of people would consider the coverage, if at all, of their preferred candidate to be negative.

I mean my god, look at Joe Biden.
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,003
I think a lot of people would consider the coverage, if at all, of their preferred candidate to be negative.

I mean my god, look at Joe Biden.
Our news media is broken. We treat the political process like a circus because there's money in treating it like a circus. Trump is absolutely right about the MSM but for all the wrong reasons.
 
Last edited:

Tracygill

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,430
The Left
Has any of the other candidates gone on Tucker Carlson?

Subject: Fuck Tucker Carlson

Dear Friend,

Recently, Senator Gravel was invited to appear as a guest on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. We had no choice but to decline. This was not an easy decision, as the Senator has believed for many years that the anti-war message should be heard by anyone who is willing to listen — even hostile cable news personalities.

This decision was made more difficult by the fact that we could desperately use the exposure that the appearance would bring. In order to qualify for the Democratic debates, we need 65,000 donations from individuals across the country and we still have a long way to go.

Fox News pundits have always served as yellow journalists, using xenophobia and white supremacy to sell wars domestically and abroad to please their corporate masters. The network has emboldened white supremacists and is the single entity most responsible for the corruption of our public discourse. Most troubling, though, are the numerous acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred as a direct result of their hateful and bigoted rhetoric.

At its heart, this is a campaign about peace. It is for that reason we could not appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight. We cannot, in good conscience, appear on the program of a white supremacist who is responsible for encouraging violence against immigrants, people of color, and the political left. To do so would lend tacit endorsement to his deeply reprehensible views and would reinforce the ridiculous idea that his sham of a talk show is a place for serious debate.

We believe strongly in our anti-war platform, and would be very happy to share it with nearly anyone else.

Sincerely,

David Oks
Campaign Manager
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,989
Has any of the other candidates gone on Tucker Carlson?
I do not think so, no.

Yang has probably been on FOX and Bernie is going on soon-ish, but I think everyone else is avoiding them.

Actually, Tulsi Gabbard has probably been on Tucker Carlson's show in the past if my memory serves me correctly.
 

Frozenprince

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,974
Official Staff Communication
Enough with the metacommentary about the site and who it's users support or do not support.
Isn't this about an election?

Isn't "who you support" kind of, well, the whole point of this thread existing? Like, do we really need 95 posts on "Beto went to bumblefucksville today!" when having a discussion about a candidates support on the platform we're discussing this on is kind of the entire point of having this thread in the first place? Who, what, and why of politics is politics.

I'm genuinely curious. This isn't a moderation question, this is a question about what this thread is supposed to be.
 

BoboBrazil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,145
I think a lot of people would consider the coverage, if at all, of their preferred candidate to be negative.

I mean my god, look at Joe Biden.
I guess this is mostly true. Stations like CNN are looking for any gotcha moment on Democratic candidates so they can both sides everything and treat it like a horse race. These stations also have a vested interest in making sure Trump wins in 2020 to keep ratings up. Pete is the only one the media seems to have a love affair with at this point.
 

TheModestGun

Member
Dec 5, 2017
2,327
Preferring her over Bernie and thinking she has what it takes to achieve anything that she wants are not the same thing. And Waleed naturally ignores that if the statement were true the roles between the progressives and centrists in the party would be reversed. Centrists get results, progressives not so much and that spiel about rewriting the system is bullshit. In theory it might be applicable, it reality this is not something progressives are ever going to act on, or they'd have done it 20 years ago. But nothing. Crickets. So progressives are stuck with Bernie and AOC.
My point was never about "results" in the first place. I was merely trying to illustrate the point the functionally, the political beliefs of Bernie and AOC are very similar, but center left democrats have picked her as an "anointed one" (for now).

It doesnt really matter anyways. It was a jokey statement about the "bitch eating crackers" crowd.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,989
Isn't this about an election?

Isn't "who you support" kind of, well, the whole point of this thread existing? Like, do we really need 95 posts on "Beto went to bumblefucksville today!" when having a discussion about a candidates support on the platform we're discussing this on is kind of the entire point of having this thread in the first place? Who, what, and why of politics is politics.

I'm genuinely curious. This isn't a moderation question, this is a question about what this thread is supposed to be.
There's a pretty big difference between "I support x" and "Everyone here supports y but is too afraid to say so because of z" which is what people have been getting into.
 

Frozenprince

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,974
There's a pretty big difference between "I support x" and "Everyone here supports y but is too afraid to say so because of z" which is what people have been getting into.
I mean, this is an election thread, what else are we doing if not going "well X has people who will vote for them if x, y, z"? There is no substantive difference between applying this statement to the site, and applying it externally.
 

Apharmd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,004
We should definitely get a 2020 primary poll. It's long past time for one.

Our news media is broken. We treat the political process like a circus because there's money in treating it like a circus. Trump is absolutely right about the MSM but for all the wrong reasons.
Trump has an art for telling half of the truth. He IS right about the mainstream media being trash, about them slanting/manufacturing/manipulating stories, or being manipulated by rich and powerful interests. They did that to generate support for the Iraq War, for instance, among many other examples. Of course the irony is that Trump wouldn't have been elected without the media, their 24 hour circus surrounding him, which has gone on now for almost 4 years unabated, lol.

I've pretty much stopped using American mainstream media outlets for anything. They are absolutely broken, yeah. Politics aren't sports, or reality TV, this is serious shit that affects the lives of millions or even billions of people. The pitch for the MSM in the past was that there were gatekeepers, curators, to act as "adults in the room" and ultimately protect society as a whole. The last few years has put the lie to this idea. Really it was never true and it was always about selling eyeballs to advertisers, access to power, and protecting certain interests.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,989
I mean, this is an election thread, what else are we doing if not going "well X has people who will vote for them if x, y, z"? There is no substantive difference between applying this statement to the site, and applying it externally.
No, there's a pretty big difference between applying it on site and applying it out in the world. The difference is people take it as attacks or insults and it starts a fight.

Also, your example is not what was happening. There's a big gap between that and "People who support x aren't coming into this thread because of y"
 

Latpri

Member
Apr 19, 2018
663
Bernie is a piss poor debater. Warren is a former law professor. She would school him on stage. Not that it matters much because Hillary also schooled Trump.
Ted Cruz is an excellent debater and Donald Trump took him apart in the debates. Being a good debater and playing well on national television are different things. Hillary did not play well on national TV and couldnt get people to Pokemon Go To The Polls. Angry old man energy sells, it doesnt matter if you can frame your argument well as long as you A) seem passionate about what youre talking about and B) can identify a person or group of people who are hurting you.

Fan, supporter, whatever. It's the same shit. Would you rather be called a bro?
I would much prefer Bernard Brother over fan, yea
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,252
We should definitely get a 2020 primary poll. It's long past time for one.
Seconded.

Angry old man energy sells, it doesnt matter if you can frame your argument well as long as you A) seem passionate about what youre talking about and B) can identify a person or group of people who are hurting you.
What sucks about the latter part is that Democrats really don’t do that. By and large, and I could be very mistaken, they don’t rrally blame anyone for anything. It’s one of the reasons why Bernie is popular.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,889
If Angry Old Man energy sold, then why did Bernie lose the primary by such a wide margin?
Like, do we really need 95 posts on "Beto went to bumblefucksville today!" when having a discussion about a candidates support on the platform we're discussing this on is kind of the entire point of having this thread in the first place? Who, what, and why of politics is politics.
We've posted when Bernie went to bumblefucksville too. They're always accompanied by video, so you can make informed opinions about your politics from the horse's mouth. Why would you complain about that?
 

samoyed

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,003
The last few years has put the lie to this idea. Really it was never true and it was always about selling eyeballs to advertisers, access to power, and protecting certain interests.
It might've been true once upon a time but with the invention of yellow journalism, the proliferation of the advertising industry, the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine, it is no longer true.
 

Raster

Member
Feb 28, 2018
1,977
That 2020 straw poll we had here got brigaded by Tulsi stans lol, she had like 2k votes iirc
 

Latpri

Member
Apr 19, 2018
663
What sucks about the latter part is that Democrats really don’t do that. By and large, and I could be very mistaken, they don’t rrally blame anyone for anything. It’s one of the reasons why Bernie is popular.
Absolutely. Trump can talk about illegal Mexicans flooding in to the country and has a nice three word soundbtye "Build the Wall!" that tells everyone how we can safeguard ourselves from this threat. Its cheap, visceral, and it works.

Bernards got the 1%. He can actually identify a threat, and its one people actually believe in. The spooky russian spectre is not going to take off as a viable threat and is a dead end.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,711
Obviously she understands that people see morality differently, that was never in dispute.

The statements she make about morality however, she often states on behalf of everyone. Like the idea that God gave all of us a sense of morality, instead of just her. Even if she believes we all have our own private morality, she still says that that morality came from god. What possible basis could she have to know where my morality comes from? And the only reason she'd be calling for a 'moral awakening' is if she had judged that the morality of others is found wanting, and it's her duty to revitalize that sense of morality in them. How could she possible do that if not to impart her own sense of morality onto them? Now it's not necessarily wrong to make persuasive arguments about morality from your on point of view, but making categorical statements about where morality comes from without qualification of subjectivity is just incredibly misguided.

Her ideas on morality are not likely to be challenged and she will continue to spread them as if they are objectively true (even though she knows and admits that they're not), and that concerns me. As a politician, if you want to state your personal spiritual/religious beliefs, be clear in stating that how they apply to you personally and not necessarily everyone else.That's all I'm saying.
If, for the spiritual person, there is no distinguishing between the experience of the physical universe and their experience of God then whether someone believed in God or not it would appear that everyone's morality would still be based on an aspect of God according to the perspective of the spiritual individual.

The assessment that their appears to be a moral lack in America is something that others agree with whether spiritual or not.

In terms of moral awakening, she is a spiritual leader and has been for most of her life so it does follow that she would be clear in making statements that this is part of what she is bringing with her candidacy and will bring to the presidency.
In action she doesn't impart her own beliefs she helps other people find theirs. It's part of what she's learned from The Course in Miracles. A miracle is a shift in perception. In this case, a shift in perception on a grand political scale on the matter of morality. It's not imparting her spiritual understanding but opening up others to find theirs, if needed. That appears to be what she means by moral awakening.
Of course this is just my interpretation of what I've learned of her in the last few months. Your questioning would be a great opportunity for her to elaborate on her views about this for herself at her Town Hall. Maybe someone will ask.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,252
This is in terms of getting people out to vote. We can’t really point to Putin and say he is the reason why we insurance companies are taking advantage of the populace.

We're under constant observation by multiple troll/hate sites. Any public poll is going to be a disaster.
That’s why we should have a stickier thread with a poll. Only members can vote then.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,077
Minnesota
If, for the spiritual person, there is no distinguishing between the experience of the physical universe and their experience of God then whether someone believed in God or not it would appear that everyone's morality would still be based on an aspect of God according to the perspective of the spiritual individual.
Yeah, well she has to understand that not everyone sees it that way, so telling me that my morality comes from God is alienating and also harmful to the perception of the atheist community.


The assessment that their appears to be a moral lack in America is something that others agree with whether spiritual or not.
I don't disagree with the lack of morality. I just don't see 'god' as an answer to that 'awakening'.


In terms of moral awakening, she is a spiritual leader and has been for most of her life so it does follow that she would be clear in making statements that this is part of what she is bringing with her candidacy and will bring to the presidency.
In action she doesn't impart her own beliefs she helps other people find theirs. It's part of what she's learned from The Course in Miracles. A miracle is a shift in perception. In this case, a shift in perception on a grand political scale on the matter of morality. It's not imparting her spiritual understanding but opening up others to find theirs, if needed. That appears to be what she means by moral awakening.
Of course this is just my interpretation of what I've learned of her in the last few months. Your questioning would be a great opportunity for her to elaborate on her views about this for herself at her Town Hall. Maybe someone will ask.
And all of this signals to me that this is not the kind of person I want leading our government. I don't need nor want a spiritual leader as president.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,266
Yes you hate it when Im glib, I know.
Huh?

Not only have I not paid enough attention to your posts to have an overall take on your tone or style but you're misusing the word glib here.

You posted "spooky Russian spectre" as if to say that efforts to hack into our electoral system are neither real nor a real threat on the same day that we're getting reports it happened in all 50 states. That's the post I was responding to.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,711
The Washington Post article in this tweet is a fun little assessment to check out the importance of various issues to the candidates according to their social media activity.
 
Mar 9, 2018
2,348
Bernie can also talk about Russia, and in fact has done so, too. Just look at his response post the Barr summary of the Mueller report. Very different from Tulsi Gabbard's "Totally clears the president, thank you". Unlike the portion of the left that has a hangup over people talking about Russia, Bernie has talked about it and has included it and framed it very appropriately, including recently discussing the internationalization of far right movements and their links to millionaires and billionaires. Elite corruption, alliances between global kleptocrats. Laws for the rich and powerful vs for the poor. There are many ways to talk about this that is right up the alley of the left, consistent with his overall message.

And in fact, it would probably be good to talk about Russia when Republicans come to Bernie's throat for Soviet Union comments or try to paint him as a Soviet communist, like some sort of authoritarian. Very useful thing to have available to him. I think he certainly will talk about Russia when he's the nominee, even if it makes some portion of the online left absolutely nuts.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
15,989
Bernie can also talk about Russia, and in fact has done so, too. Just look at his response post the Barr summary of the Mueller report. Very different from Tulsi Gabbard's "Totally clears the president, thank you". Unlike the portion of the left that has a hangup over people talking about Russia, Bernie has talked about it and has included it and framed it very appropriately, including recently discussing the internationalization of far right movements and their links to millionaires and billionaires. Elite corruption, alliances between global kleptocrats. Laws for the rich and powerful vs for the poor. There are many ways to talk about this that is right up the alley of the left, consistent with his overall message.

And in fact, it would probably be good to talk about Russia when Republicans come to Bernie's throat for Soviet Union comments or try to paint him as a Soviet communist, like some sort of authoritarian. Very useful thing to have available to him. I think he certainly will talk about Russia when he's the nominee, even if it makes some portion of the online left absolutely nuts.
It also fits into his critique of the billionaire class quite easily, given modern Russia is essentially a kleptocratic mafia-state run by a group of oligarchs. He can just go, "See? What did I tell you? The world's wealthy elite wanted Trump and they worked to make it happen! They don't want the revolution!"

Modern Russia is everything we all say the US is, only way worse.
 

Latpri

Member
Apr 19, 2018
663
Huh?

Not only have I not paid enough attention to your posts to have an overall take on your tone or style but you're misusing the word glib here.

You posted "spooky Russian spectre" as if to say that efforts to hack into our electoral system are neither real nor a real threat on the same day that we're getting reports it happened in all 50 states. That's the post I was responding to.
Oh right, I thought glib meant like, cheeky or something, my mistake. You know, for a long time I thought 'aloof' meant 'absent minded', Im bad with words.

Anyway, Im downplaying Russia because public perception is Donald Trump did not collude with Putin to steal the 2016 election. Yes, theres more to the story. Yes, theres nuance. Yes, theres other truths. Except, the truth doesnt matter, the general public has made up their mind. If the democrats come out swinging with Russia in the 2020 general election we might as well give Trump the presidency, its a failing electoral strategy.
 

JABEE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,338
Yep. At my company (big IT corporation), employee-paid premium costs of different plans from different providers change every year. So even long time, full time employees still go through open enrollment and have to shop around for an insurer every single year. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people are in the same position.
Whenever I hear the healthcare changing talking point, I wonder what reality they are living in where you get to keep your premium healthcare in the current system. Must be nice.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,266
The truth doesnt matter, the general public has made up their mind.
Did it ever occur to you that you're perpetuating the notion that "the truth doesn't matter" by characterizing a very real and very dangerous tampering with our elections as a "spooky Russian spectre"? And even worse, helping to set the stage for it to happen again?
 

Raster

Member
Feb 28, 2018
1,977
The Washington Post article in this tweet is a fun little assessment to check out the importance of various issues to the candidates according to their social media activity.
It's kind of hard to take that WaPo statistic seriously when it shows Klobuchar talking more about corporate power than Bernie Sanders lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.