Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Who's Your Pick for the Democratic Nominee (Round 2)

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 1,536 80.7%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 23 1.2%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 230 12.1%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 60 3.2%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 0.6%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 39 2.0%
  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 4 0.2%

  • Total voters
    1,904
  • Poll closed .

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,485
Sure, all of this is will 100% happen, but I'm asking more about what happens if he artfully swats those criticisms aside or shows genuine contrition (or at least what viewers decide is genuine)?

He's now getting endorsements from prominent AA figures. If that continues I would think that a lot of people will feel "well if they can forgive him so can we."

Basically what I'm saying is I'm not sure the debate will have the effect many are hoping. Not saying he'll go out there and smack everyone, but if he simply looks competent and steady and able to impressively defend himself he will surely become the clear Bernie alternative.
I mean, sure, we don't know and it's obviously just conjecture all the way around.

I still think it's preferable to put him in front of the electorate and try to force some accountability rather than just let him run a side campaign for the general.
 

Shaun Solo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
719
Bloomberg was a Republican for six years, which ended 13 years ago.

You don’t want him in the race because you don’t like him. Which, great, you shouldn’t, I don’t. But I don’t believe you or me or anyone else should make that decision for the party. The voters should. That’s how the system is supposed to work, and I find these arguments against the democratic process to be disheartening.
Reducing the criticisms of Bloomberg to "you don't like him" sucks man.

A billionaire using his immoral wealth to buy his way to the nomination/presidency shouldn't be excused by saying "that's how the system is supposed to work". It's not. Shit is fucking broken rn.
 

Boss

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
830
Bloomberg was a Republican for six years, which ended 13 years ago.

You don’t want him in the race because you don’t like him. Which, great, you shouldn’t, I don’t. But I don’t believe you or me or anyone else should make that decision for the party. The voters should. That’s how the system is supposed to work, and I find these arguments against the democratic process to be disheartening.
Yes it's disheartening to see people on the left not want the fascist who used the police force in their city as a private army to terrorize minorities to be able to run on the ticket and use his billions of dollars to buy his way into people into voting for him.

You do realize how little people actually pay attention to the debates, right? You do realize a video that was uncovered of him being openly racist was treated as an attack by a Bernie Bro by the media.

Frankly, the system is flawed and the democratic process should not be a billionaire outspending his way into an election. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,198
Netherlands
Bloomberg is an asshat as a person and candidate, but he's got good people in his media team. His ads that I've seen are on point and this social attack is good. Hopefully whoever wins the primary actually lets his media team run a bit without interference using whatever is left of the billion rather than think they know better - the Dems media has been bad for years in my opinion

Yeah I hope he stays far away from the nomination, but I must admit I like how he can get under Trump's skin.
 

ScribbleD

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,401
Not even a joke, just pure reality

It's going to be incumbent on the candidates to attack Bloomberg without being prompted by the mods. Warren is already fading fast, maybe she'll go for the Hail Mary and harass Bloomberg at the end of every answer.
The other thing is, Bloomberg isn't the frontrunner, so the other candidates have far less reason to go after him. I would hope they have the moral backbone to do so anyway, but some of them definitely don't have a moral backbone (looking at Pete, for example).
 

Pepito

Member
Dec 11, 2017
959
Bloomberg is an asshat as a person and candidate, but he's got good people in his media team. His ads that I've seen are on point and this social attack is good. Hopefully whoever wins the primary actually lets his media team run a bit without interference using whatever is left of the billion rather than think they know better - the Dems media has been bad for years in my opinion

Yup, he's pulling a lot of great talent from other smaller campaigns across the country since he's paying more than anyone else.


In 2018, Leeper threw herself into the 2018 midterms, helping a Democratic state Senate campaign.

Last November, a Connecticut state House seat opened up when the Republican incumbent announced her run for a new office. It was the kind of suburban district Democrats had been flipping across the country, and Leeper decided to take a shot at the special election, set for January 14, 2020.
Her campaign manager had just run a successful reelection campaign for the mayor of Bridgeport. He posted on Facebook in mid-November that Leeper’s race had real meaning for him, explaining that his family had lived in the district since 1962. “Nowhere is more ‘home’ to me than my story and this district. It’s personal,” he wrote. “And that’s why I believe in Jennifer Leeper and her vision for this place that we both love so much.”

With just three weeks until the election, however, he was back with a new status update. “I’m taking my talents to Madison, Wisconsin,” he posted on December 26. He had taken a job with billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s newly launched presidential campaign, which was offering lucrative salaries, as a deputy organizing director, it would later emerge.
Without a captain in the final weeks, Leeper’s campaign flagged. On Election Day, Leeper lost to her challenger by just 79 votes, and Republicans held on to the seat.
 

PKrockin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,387
A few days ago Bernie and Amy brought up the question of whether a pro-lifer has a place in the party. I think that's a much more legitimate question than whether someone like Bloomberg has a place in the party. We're talking about someone who thinks the police is their own personal army and that intentional discrimination against black people and Muslims is actually good. He's like a billionaire Joe Arpaio.
 

Tiger Priest

Member
Oct 24, 2017
465
New York, NY
Btw, it’s incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.

Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y’all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike “stop-and-frisk” Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
 

Boss

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
830
Facts, the fact that some dems are entertaining this shows a lot.
Well, I knew, but hopefully others wake up to it.

Bloomberg would 100% be a worse president than Trump, given that the fucker has been terrorising minorities in an official capacity years ago.

Now the fucker is buying people out.
Hey, don't attack the "democratic process " of a billionaire racist, transphobic, islamophobic, MBS/Epstein/Weinstein buddying, climate change profiting, sexual harassing piece of shit buy his way into the election!
 
Oct 26, 2017
10,948
Here's the thing, if Bernie supporters come of as overzealous, can anyone really blame their passion? Like the world is literally dying around us and evil capitalists still rule the world with their shit-eating grins. You underestimate how people will react when you back them in a corner like this, look at what Lenin did to his enemies when their material conditions were bad enough. I'm not saying that's what will happen here, but its only natural that anger and resentment will continue to build.
errr, yes?

There are lots of people who are angry with the state of things, there is a stark difference between turning that anger into instant attacks on anyone else who isn't a complete ideological fit or a group of people who are seen as a potential "ally".

Bringing up Lenin as some type of apt comparison also is a mega bad look considering what you're implying and what the conversation is regarding Sander supporters being overtly hostile and causing harm to Sanders campaigns needed outreach outside of his base.
 

medinaria

Member
Oct 30, 2017
482
yeah, this article just asserts that thing A happened and thing B happened later with nothing actually tying together the two actions. It's a classic post hoc fallacy to say that since B happened after A, B was influenced by A. The fact is you have no idea whether the money was what motivated them to change the rules and asserting that it obviously was is complicated by the fact that bloomberg is, unfortunately, doing quite well in polling and we had reports of *progressives* lobbying the DNC to change the rules because they felt excluding bloomberg from debates was letting him avoid scrutiny.
this is kind of a wild assertion, though! like, it bears more than a passing resemblance to the "you have no evidence that I literally said you give me X and I give you Y, therefore, no quid pro quo" argument that trump has made!

we have scads of evidence that this is how bloomberg works. he gives people money, because he's such a nice guy, and then (miraculously) when it comes time for him to get something he wants, he gets it. this is how money in politics works more broadly, but we have evidence of him doing this constantly in new york city. there's actually very few reasons to not believe that this is what happened.

 
Oct 25, 2017
7,443
Hey, don't attack the "democratic process " of a billionaire racist, transphobic, islamophobic, MBS/Epstein/Weinstein buddying, climate change profiting, sexual harassing piece of shit buy his way into the election!
Lmaoo, tell me about it. "We gotta beat Trump at all costs! Even if we bring in someone worse!"
Fucking idiots would get us all killed.
 

PolishQ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
417
The other thing is, Bloomberg isn't the frontrunner, so the other candidates have far less reason to go after him. I would hope they have the moral backbone to do so anyway, but some of them definitely don't have a moral backbone (looking at Pete, for example).
Well, we know Biden is planning some sort of attack on him at the debate.
 

Deepwater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,381
Btw, it’s incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.

Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y’all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike “stop-and-frisk” Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
pete doesn’t have the cash like Bloomberg does to bribe people
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,138
Btw, it’s incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.

Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y’all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike “stop-and-frisk” Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
Bloomberg is like 1000x richer than Pete and money gets endorsements. This is the reality of it.
 

Boss

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
830
Btw, it’s incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.

Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y’all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike “stop-and-frisk” Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
Biden you have to think is from Obama ties, but Bloomberg is because of the money and connections.
 

Boss

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
830
A few days ago Bernie and Amy brought up the question of whether a pro-lifer has a place in the party. I think that's a much more legitimate question than whether someone like Bloomberg has a place in the party. We're talking about someone who thinks the police is their own personal army and that intentional discrimination against black people and Muslims is actually good. He's like a billionaire Joe Arpaio.
The answer is no, a fascist mayor who hates black, muslim and transgender people does not have a place in the party.
 

ty_hot

Member
Dec 14, 2017
4,191

Had no idea Bloomberg was a Republican before, the rest of the things dont surprise me a bit. And ofc the DNC is probably hoping he can get the nomination in case Pete can't
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
2,615
The DMR endorsement didn't do all that much for Warren, and while I think the Culinary Union will certainly move the needle a bit, I don't think they'll endorse Bernie or Biden, who are basically the only two people who could win this.
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,822
this bloomberg debate is funny. Is this nigga even out there campaigning and meeting with people? fuck outta here
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,745
Reducing the criticisms of Bloomberg to "you don't like him" sucks man.

A billionaire using his immoral wealth to buy his way to the nomination/presidency shouldn't be excused by saying "that's how the system is supposed to work". It's not. Shit is fucking broken rn.
Yes it's disheartening to see people on the left not want the fascist who used the police force in their city as a private army to terrorize minorities to be able to run on the ticket and use his billions of dollars to buy his way into people into voting for him.

You do realize how little people actually pay attention to the debates, right? You do realize a video that was uncovered of him being openly racist was treated as an attack by a Bernie Bro by the media.

Frankly, the system is flawed and the democratic process should not be a billionaire outspending his way into an election. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
It's disheartening to see people unironically support party rule by elites and fiat, rather than democratic support.

The Democratic nominee for President should be the person the party electorate chooses it to be. Not you nor I nor anyone else has the right to steal that decision from the party, even if a potential result would be incredibly distasteful.
 

xenocide

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,376
Vermont
I'm going to preface this by saying this is the last post I'm going to make on this subject, because I know exactly what is going on here.

So you made a broad generalization, and that backed that up with anecdotes, some being from people who have a vested interest in attacking Sanders? For example, the second link is Pete Buttigieg comparing Sanders supporters to Trump's. Also, since you are linking that as proof, should I take it that you agree with Pete that Sander's supporters are like Trump supporters?

I was hoping for something more substantial when you make such a broad claim attacking so many people.
I guess my point is I don't know what you're asking me to provide for evidence--and I suspect that really is the point. Is the only non-anecdotal evidence you're willing to accept me literally linking posts on here? Because I'm not going to do that. I provided quite a few links to various sources establishing--mostly just this election cycle--that Sanders has a subset of his base that is incredibly active online, and incredibly toxic.

The reality is this; if one person calls you an asshole, it might be on them, if many different people say you're an asshole, you might actually be an asshole. If everyone kind of acknowledges that this issue exists, it's more than likely an actual issue. You can either try to excise those people from the movement you guys care about, or deny it's a problem.

The link you gave for the Culinary Union being "attacked" is, in fact, about the union attacking Sanders (and lying about his positions to boot). Did you mean to link something else?
Copied the wrong link for that article, fixed it now.

I don't think this is a game you should really be playing either. It's not like supporters of other candidates have never tried to erase the identities of minority Sanders supporters, mock and shame a loyal democrat voter of 20 years who is poor and disabled for saying he feels taken advantage of by democrats, called a poc supporting Sanders an "invader," and so on.
And those people should be criticized for that. I have never said they should not. But this kind of runs counter to your entire post especially the part later one where you criticize me for making generalizations. None the less, I firmly believe those people should be held accountable.

Which doesn't even speak to some of the policies and behaviors supporters of people like Pete or Bloomberg endorse with their support. Personally, I'm of a mind that people who support a bigoted billionaire who thinks the police are his army, all minorities are criminals, who spiked homelessness in his city 80%, etc, are pretty toxic, but there's really no point in me going "Wow, Pete/Bloomberg/Klobuchar/Warren/Biden/whoever else supporters are so toxic!" because it's petty, stupid, non-productive, and not even a falsifiable claim.
I have never once said things Sanders did are the reason why I think his supporters are toxic. You're conflating two entirely different concepts here. The bigger problem is, like I've said, is his supporters which disproportionately seem to be toxic. I do on many levels support Sanders. I helped send him to the Senate twice, donated to him in 2015 (and again in 2016), and voted for him in the Democratic Primary in 2016. My issue is with the people and their actions. I don't think all Sanders supporters are toxic nightmares, but he disproportionately has them compared to other candidates--and I believe I said as much.

You won't catch me defending Bloomberg or Mayor Pete as some great candidate, but tearing down people who are considering voting for those people is not exactly a good way to convince them they are making a poor choice. I won't say they are as bad as Donald Trump, granted Bloomberg has said some really terrible things on race that should never be forgiven, but I can understand why people would back him--he's running the right kind of campaign to be effective, seizing on an opportunity that he saw. Both have said and done reprehensible things while Mayor of their cities, and caused a ton of damage to communities of color, that much is undeniable. I still think both of them are better for this country than Donald Trump, and understand why some people support them. I disagree with them, and I will vehemently express that while trying to convince them otherwise respectfully, but I understand it.

So let me reiterate: Maybe you should stop making broad incendiary generalizations. If you don't like toxicity, don't contribute to it.
Hmm, right.
 
Dec 31, 2017
3,357

So pretty much confirmed it’s going to be Bernie vs everyone else, including Warren at the debate. Considering how critical debates have been in the lead-up to Iowa & NH, I’m really curious to see how Bernie handles the incoming. No doubt Chuck Todd will set-up endless gotcha’s for him as well.
Wow Tom. Wow.

I thought we had something.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,963
Btw, it’s incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.

Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y’all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike “stop-and-frisk” Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
One of these days I’d love to have a conversation about how corrupt the Congressional Black Caucus is when it comes to establishment politics.
 

Boss

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
830
User Banned (2 weeks): hostility, antagonizing other users
It's disheartening to see people unironically support party rule by elites and fiat, rather than democratic support.

The Democratic nominee for President should be the person the party electorate chooses it to be. Not you nor I nor anyone else has the right to steal that decision from the party, even if a potential result would be incredibly distasteful.
This is some galaxy brain shit right here, the fact is a fascist should not be allowed in the Democratic party. I don't know what else to tell you, if you're disheartened by that then I suggest some introspection about what values you want from candidates running for office on the democratic ticket.

Buying your way into an election and lying about your history is not democratic support.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,963
It's disheartening to see people unironically support party rule by elites and fiat, rather than democratic support.

The Democratic nominee for President should be the person the party electorate chooses it to be. Not you nor I nor anyone else has the right to steal that decision from the party, even if a potential result would be incredibly distasteful.
What they’re arguing is someone that has a lot more resources than any other candidate using those resources blanket the internet and airwaves in ads is unfair and inherently undemocratic.

When the most support goes to whoever has the most wealth to get it, we’re officially an oligarchy.
 

jviggy43

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,159
Bloomberg was a Republican for six years, which ended 13 years ago.

You don’t want him in the race because you don’t like him. Which, great, you shouldn’t, I don’t. But I don’t believe you or me or anyone else should make that decision for the party. The voters should. That’s how the system is supposed to work, and I find these arguments against the democratic process to be disheartening.
Pretty gross were trying to distort what I said into "you just dont like him".
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,138

Had no idea Bloomberg was a Republican before, the rest of the things dont surprise me a bit. And ofc the DNC is probably hoping he can get the nomination in case Pete can't
That's about 17 tweets saying "yeah he is rich and bought himself a lot of power." Not really much of a playbook as much as it is an example of how money in politics works.
 
Oct 27, 2017
548

The thing about Bloomberg is he's basically just as racist as Trump, but he doesn't say it the same boisterous way Trump does, which means the media won't really hold his feet to the fire too much. They'll hold round table discussions on it, but no one will come out and just say Bloomberg is a racist fuck.
This is literally something Trump would say
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,822
What they’re arguing is someone that has a lot more resources than any other candidate using those resources blanket the internet and airwaves in ads is unfair and inherently undemocratic.

When the most support goes to whoever has the most wealth to get it, we’re officially an oligarchy.
exactly. how many doors have the Bloomberg campaign knocked on
 

Violet

Alt account
Banned
Feb 7, 2019
3,263
dc
Remember Trump's superbowl ad attempting to court black Americans point blank? Imagine months of him just running the Bloomberg videos lmao.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,634
It's disheartening to see people unironically support party rule by elites and fiat, rather than democratic support.

The Democratic nominee for President should be the person the party electorate chooses it to be. Not you nor I nor anyone else has the right to steal that decision from the party, even if a potential result would be incredibly distasteful.
Topic idea I've been legit throwing around: Do people really want a democracy?
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,647
What you think will happen: “Mr. Bloomberg, can you defend your statements on stop-and-frisk, transgender Americans, and allegations of sexual harrassment from your employees?”

What will actually happen: “Senator Sanders, you draw very large crowds. President Trump draws large crowds. Can Dem voters trust someone with so many glaring similarities to Donald Trump?”
That will only happen if Democratic candidates continue to fall for the lie you actually have to answer the question the debate moderator asks you.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,443
I guess the only thing that matters is that the ''voters should make a decision" whilst ignoring everything that surrounds said decision from propaganda in the form of paid ads being ass-blasted everywhere to buying out power.

Sure. Democracy.
 

JCizzle

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
2,855
What they’re arguing is someone that has a lot more resources than any other candidates using those resources blanket the internet and airwaves in ads is unfair and inherently undemocratic.

When the most support goes to whoever has the most wealth to get it, we’re officially an oligarchy.
I mean, most politicians are individually wealthy. It would be nice if average people could get elected, but that's just not how it seems to go.
 

ned_ballad

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,409
Rochester, New York
was someone seriously trying to argue that buying your way into an election is democracy?
No, people are arguing that the Democratic Party shouldn't be the ones who pick and choose who can run, that the voters should be trusted to pick the best candidate.

Otherwise you're giving the party power to decide whoever they want to run or not run. Power taken away from voters to decide for themselves if the candidate is worthy or not
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,745
Pretty gross were trying to distort what I said into "you just dont like him".
I'm not distorting anything. You don't like him, you shouldn't, he's gross and awful and unfit for the office, that's all true. But our feelings on him should not be the arbiter of who gets to be the Democratic parties nominee. The voters should decide that, that's their right. Otherwise what's the point of all this?