Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[Myzozoa]

If the main arguments for reworking the immigration is how immigrants are a net positive for the nation and also how it would be cruel to send them back after having been established in a lifestyle so much superior to where they came from then that effectively can and will be extended for ever, making it effectively open borders.

Heres an example:

The immigration laws are relaxed. Its easier than before to come and stay within the US and become a citizen. People still hop over the border or come by plane and overstay illegally because its still easier than however much we relaxed it. The same argument is then made a couple decades down the road. They are a net positive to the nation, and it would be cruel to send them back where they came from because they are so established here and uprooting them would be very inconvenient for them. Then we relax the immigration laws, again.

This has already happened before, and theres no reason to believe it will happen again if those 2 arguments are the basis for relaxing immigration the first time. It effectively makes it open borders, as I have just illustrated. The Dems effectively want open borders.

I support any theoretical restriction on immigration - stupid or smart - because nations are objectively the property of the people who live there. So they can decide whatever stupid laws or shit they want in the same way if someone has a house they can do whatever they want with it. Barring obvious restrictions of course, like voting for a holocaust or voting to get rid of democracy or voting to tax people at 100% of their income or obviously, universally unacceptable things. I have no problem with immigrants per se, but its completely unacceptable that the people of the United States are not allowed to decide who comes in to their rightful property. And there tons of smart reasons why you might want to restrict immigration, too. Race is one of the dumb and arbitrary reason, but if there were a scenario where you had a neighbor whose people had terrible ideas you might find it smart to restrict immigration from that particular place so that their ideas dont become a part of your democracy. Thats just one of them.

Diversity of ideas is the most important kind of diversity, and if you have an open borders type scenario, then you dont get places where you can experiment with different ideas because you end up always having to compromise with the new citizens in order to get any policy enacted so it ends up being that every nation is pretty much the same thing in the end because all the cultures mix together. It is a lot like that now though, especially in the purple states, but you still have a lot of room even in those places to experiment with new ideas or form a unique culture that you can compare to other cultures to see what ideas youd like to scalp from them. With open borders or relaxed immigration that would be harder to do.

usa installed rightwing regimes: *crashes the economy and oppresses citizens, sending flows of migrants to the US border*

us citizens: 'I will take one of these please. rightwing regimes lower taxes on the rich which causes everyone's wages to go up after all.'

 

[BlizzardHero]

i'll vote for the first candidate to say the andy ngo thing is fake. 100% certainty, take it to the bank

The andy ngo thing is fake.

You better write me in as a candidate or I'll haunt you. :3

 

[tcr]

Last week Kamala Harris made breakthrough strides in pinning Joe Biden's race record under a microscope with her now rapidly famous "I was that little girl" minispeech, fitting five minutes of rhetoric into the 30 second slot she was allotted by the debate moderators. This issue was in part brought about to address Joe Biden's seemingly poor race relations and as an effort by Kamala to court the black caucus away from Joe Biden, and the main issue that has nailed itself to headlines has been 1970 legislature on busing and desegregation. During the Democratic primary debates, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden had this exchange:

BIDEN: I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education. That’s what I opposed.

HARRIS: It’s a failure of states to integrate public schools in America. I was a part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California, public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.

BIDEN: Because your city council made that decision. It was a local decision.

HARRIS: That’s where the federal government must step in, that’s why we have the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. That’s why we need to pass the Equality Act, it’s why we need to pass the E.R.A. Because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.

People will interpret this different ways I guess and will try to spin this any way which possible so I will be succinct and give my interpretation of it and hope it coincides with yours. To me Harris is blatantly supporting federal mandation of busing to integrate schools whereas Biden is defending his position of, in short "states rights" and local precincts decisions to bus or not to bus, and Biden feels that it is not the federal government's decision to mandate and enforce desegregation tactics such as busing. I think both have merits while both stances also have their own flaws within them; Biden's position is flawed in that Harris is indeed correct, there are times where the law of the land of the Supreme Court must be upheld and if states or local precincts are not cooperating then it is the federal government's job to enforce the law of the land. Harris' position is flawed in that not every instance requires federal government oversight, and ultimately it comes down to interpretation of constitution and delicate issues on federal v state power as granted by the constitution. Additionally I feel that Harris is a bit misaligned in that she feels that the passing of the ERA or Equality Act will be an end all be all to discrimination (I feel that while it would ideally be opportune to pass these acts they do not hold the meat she attributes them to, as discrimination has far more causes than just being de jure legal, such as economic and education related causes).

Now just yesterday (7/3) when asked about the issue of busing less than a week later Kamala Harris seemingly walked back her position on busing, saying that “I think of busing as being in the toolbox of what is available and what can be used for the goal of desegregating America’s schools,” and when asked to clarify if she supports federally mandated busing, Harris replied, “I believe that any tool that is in the toolbox should be considered by a school district.” (source)

Normally I wouldn't really split hairs here but considering Harris' stance on this issue and her critique of Biden's semantic arguments I think her word choice of "considered" and dancing around the question is a bit absurd. It would be remarkably easy for her to say "Yes I support federally mandated busing" and I can't really see any reason why she wouldn't actually outright say so and instead attempt to play the "it is a tool available for the school districts to use" (almost a carbon copy of Biden's stance that the decision should be left up to the school district or the state rather than federal).

I can really see this issue coming back to bite her in the butt, especially if its brought up during a second debate. While I think she had a commanding presence in the first debate her walking back this issue as well as various other issues (such as her evolving stances on marijuana and legalization and seemingly false portrayal of her identity, to where even her own father decided to disassociate himself from her comments and stereotyping of his culture). This walkback exemplifies the core issues I've had with Kamala Harris since the very beginning of this whole debacle; I feel that she decidedly lacks a backbone or even firmly grounded stances and attempts to play to the biggest non-issues in order to appear firmly progressive. It reminds me entirely of stances Hillary Clinton held, from remarks on superpredators to her opposition to lgbt rights and walkbacks thereof, and for this reason I think she would be a very unsettling candidate for presidency and easy to attack on issues. I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on these recent developments, particularly those from the Biden and Harris camps as those are the most relevant to this emerging issue.

 

[MikeDawg]

Poll dump.

The Bernie campaign might need to rethink its "electability" strategy.

Kamala officially made it to 2nd in RCP average. Warren is close to taking 3rd.

Biden slightly leads Kamala among black voters, but is surprisingly tied with her among whites.

Dems overwhelmingly care more about beating Trump than they do about impeachment.

Q2 Fundraising. Surprised Pete did so well, not surprised Kamala had a bit of a slump.

Pete: $24.8mil
Biden: $21.5mil
Bernie: $18mil
Kamala: $12mil
Warren: TBA

Kamala also sold a shockingly substantial 1400 "that little girl was me" shirts. Particularly surprising because the shirts are kinda ugly.

I don't think the shirts are necessarily proof of the Biden attack being a 100% strategic maneuver. It doesn't take long at all to design a t-shirt. There were birdie sanders shirts the same day that bird landed on the podium in 2016.

Will be interesting to see how people react to Kamala's prosecutorial background going forward. I think the progressive assumption that it will sink her is premature. "Bring law and order back into the white house" is a fantastic storyline, and I'm sure she has a wealth of prepared defenses for every possible attack.

Plus, it's silly to think that things like "fighting truancy" will cut into her numbers. I'd be surprised if she doesn't bring it up herself as a positive, tbh. Same with things like refusing death penalty but defending consitutionality, because "I got the job done, even when I had personal qualms" is, again, a fairly compelling argument right now, especially to balance her affinity for executive action.

As long as her campaign is proactive, I think they could easily spin her record.

 

[Shrug]

mike what are your thoughts on the thesis of “the new jim crow”? ive critiques but they’re from the left direction. do you not agree with the basic argument? explain why

 

[orch]

Biden's implosion feels manufactured. It probably is, but it's for the better anyways. So, whatever.

Mike finally posted something that made a bit sense. I agree that Kamala have a compelling narrative that she can use to market herself in this primary. I think that if she pushes on her authorial backgrounds, she could make a legit narrative that she gets things done. No nonsense.

Obvious leftist objections are irrelevant as of now. Average democrats aren't sold on the idea that cops are bad or whatever.

 

[MikeDawg]

...

Been a while, but she pushes the Jim Crow analogy too hard at the expense of relating the role of capitalism, and imo she makes some huge reaches irt the war on drugs

Can't really comment on the parts about life in prison, but the tragic irony of using inmate labor to get the "made in america" label was a powerful point

 

[MikeDawg]

Also, general thoughts on Kamala's housing proposal?

https://kamalaharris.org/homeownership-gap/

I'm not one for media conspiracies, but tbh the media spin ("Kamala announces plan to give black homeowners money") kinda seems like a deliberate effort to redirect her white support back to Biden. Granted, this is a racial equity plan, but the only race-based requirement is to have lived in a historically redlined neighborhood for 10 years. Nothing is directly stopping non-blacks from reaping the benefits.

Regardless, politico and CNN have people crying out about reparations and reverse racism. Disregarding the plan itself for a second, will that spin actually cut into her support?

 

[Myzozoa]

Also, general thoughts on Kamala's housing proposal?

https://kamalaharris.org/homeownership-gap/

possibly terrible and wasteful such that it can only be meant to be defeated from the left and right, why is the max price 300,000 ? why is it for home buyers? why is the grant capped at 20k or 20% of closing cost? why is it limited to only ppl living for a while in places recognized as historically redlined? this proposal just looks so limited that i personally can't tell who it helps. it starts off so well with the analysis inequality wrt black property ownership, but then largely does nothing for a majority of black ppl living in cities as far as I can tell. please correct me if im wrong.

my quick alternative suggestion is to build new housing in cities and sell it to ppl from historically marginalized backgrounds for less than $50,000 mortgage, then they have a property worth much more when theyre done. this proposal is unlikley to happen without significant grassroots organization and political will since on the face of it, it makes it appear as if home prices will go down.

 

[Shrug]

thinking about it american capitalism set itself up to never be defeated. Property ownership makes people reactionary and maintaining segregation does. capitalism fused the two together, unbeatable

 

[MikeDawg]

possibly terrible and wasteful such that it can only be meant to be defeated from the left and right, why is the max price 300,000 ? why is it for home buyers? why is the grant capped at 20k or 20% of closing cost? why is it limited to only ppl living for a while in places recognized as historically redlined? this proposal just looks so limited that i personally can't tell who it helps. it starts off so well with the analysis inequality wrt black property ownership, but then largely does nothing for a majority of black ppl living in cities as far as I can tell. please correct me if im wrong.

my quick alternative suggestion is to build new housing in cities and sell it to ppl from historically marginalized backgrounds for less than $50,000 mortgage, then they have a property worth much more when theyre done. this proposal is unlikley to happen without significant grassroots organization and political will since on the face of it, it makes it appear as if home prices will go down.

I imagine the specific limitations are to ensure as much as possible that benefits are exclusive to the intended group: (mostly) black people who have been systematically blocked from purchasing homes. For reference, Liz was criticized for her similar policy because it wasn't exclusive enough iirc. That was probably a consideration.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the plan itself, but I agree with you that the scope is weirdly small. Then again, there's nothing wrong with having some smaller plans, I guess, especially since housing isn't a huge part of her platform. The idea, from what I understand, isn't meant to "fix" the housing market in a significant capacity. She just wants to address this specific case of racial inequity by giving middle class people in historically black neighborhoods the extra push they need to be able to afford a house. The particular $ amounts were presumably calculated through some internal analysis about the economic impacts of redlining. Hopefully she explains the specifics some time in the near future.


We'll see if she releases a comprehensive housing plan (see: Warren), because imo this would be more impactful as one component of a bigger reform.

 

[fanyfan]

Also, general thoughts on Kamala's housing proposal?

https://kamalaharris.org/homeownership-gap/

I'm not one for media conspiracies, but tbh the media spin ("Kamala announces plan to give black homeowners money") kinda seems like a deliberate effort to redirect her white support back to Biden. Granted, this is a racial equity plan, but the only race-based requirement is to have lived in a historically redlined neighborhood for 10 years. Nothing is directly stopping non-blacks from reaping the benefits.

Regardless, politico and CNN have people crying out about reparations and reverse racism. Disregarding the plan itself for a second, will that spin actually cut into her support?

So it’s only a media conspiracy when it’s against Kamala? Kamala being the media darling for everything except this isn’t enough i guess

 

[MikeDawg]

So it’s only a media conspiracy when it’s against Kamala? Kamala being the media darling for everything except this isn’t enough i guess

idk when exactly she was "the media darling" but ok. She was only getting ~6-7% of candidate coverage most weeks until the debate, fairly proportional to her support in the polls:

https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data/blob/master/media-mentions-2020/cable_weekly.csv

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth...ention-to-kamala-harris-after-the-debate/amp/

Regardless, I'm not really sure what you're responding to. What's wrong with critiquing a CNN headline?

 

[Ieki]

 

[MikeDawg]

Photoshopping a black woman's face onto a Jim Crow era cop arresting a white guy is a bit tasteless, dont you think?

 

[Ieki]

Photoshopping a black woman's face onto a Jim Crow era cop arresting a white guy is a bit tasteless, dont you think?

I don't know who originally made that image but it's a medium for people to project their views of this primary, ranging from "evil Copmala strikes again" to "arrest his chance in this primary," of which I fall into the latter camp. It's also my eyeball-rolling way of dealing with Mr. "only Bernie can beat Trump"'s accusation of Harris being a media darling, as everything needs to be a conspiracy apparently.

 

[MikeDawg]

I don't know who originally made that image but it's a medium for people to project their views of this primary, ranging from "evil Copmala strikes again" to "arrest his chance in this primary," of which I fall into the latter camp. It's also my eyeball-rolling way of dealing with Mr. "only Bernie can beat Trump"'s accusation of Harris being a media darling, as everything needs to be a conspiracy apparently.

Its original (and obvious) purpose was to say, "Low-information voters don't realize Bernie is the best candidate for blacks because he went to a protest! Meanwhile, COPMALA is basically Jim Crow, so vote for civil rights activist icon Bernie instead of identity politics!"

 

[fanyfan]

If you think about it, this checks all the boxes for a standard 2019 bernie/trump conspiracy:

1. "The mainstream media is trying to push their favorite milque-toast corporate establishment pick: Pete Buttgieg!"
2. "The DNC is cheating to help Biden!"
3. "The establishment wants everyone to think POC hate him!"

1. I'm not one for media conspiracies, but tbh the media spin ("Kamala announces plan to give black homeowners money") kinda seems like a deliberate effort to redirect her white support back to Biden.

Nothing is wrong with criticizing CNN but maybe this will make it clearer what I’m trying to say. As for Kamala being the media darling, it’s not that they show her 24/7. It’s that they almost always show her in a positive light. It’s not just Kamala, Mayor Pete also comes to mind, but Kamala is one of their favorites. Do you deny that?

It's also my eyeball-rolling way of dealing with Mr. "only Bernie can beat Trump"'s accusation of Harris being a media darling, as everything needs to be a conspiracy apparently.

First of all, I didn’t say only Bernie can beat Trump, or at least if I did, it was poor phrasing on my part. What I said, or at least meant to say, is Bernie has the best chance at beating Trump. Why? Because he actually energizes the base. Bernie has overwhelming support among young people, and those are the people that need to turn out if we’re going to have a chance at winning. He also does very well, according to the polls, in the rust belt states that we absolutely need to beat Trump in 2020. Why? Because he’s very against the trade deals that screwed the Midwest over. Like Trump, except people saw how Trump’s tariffs hurt the Midwest as well as him replacing NAFTA with something that’s barely an improvement. Annecdotally, I know a lot of people where I live (Michigan) who would’ve voted for Bernie in 2016 but voted for Trump over Clinton. Trump is going to be tough to beat in 2020 so we need the candidate with the best chance.

Also, not everything is a conspiracy. I have just pointed out that most of the media coverage of Kamala is positive, while a lot of the media coverage of Bernie is negative. Is there necessarily a conspiracy? No. Is there evidence of some people plotting against Bernie? Ask the NYT. “The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.” Now, the media’s negative coverage of Bernie isn’t necessarily a conspiracy. But when there’s already evidence of a conspiracy against him, it’s not smart imo to dismiss it out of hand.

Edit: fuck I accidentally clicked post early

 

[Ieki]

I thought you had said that itt, my apologies

but Bernie Sanders does not motivate the base, most democratic voters aren’t as far left as him and the base and most reliable voting block is PoC, who do not support him and would be unlikely to turn out in large numbers in the general.

 

[tcr]

To say Bernie doesn't motivate the base Democrat voters is a little absurd I'd say. In the 2018 midterms voter turnout has been surging ahead, in record static population numbers. In 2016 it was estimated that ~55% of the population turned out to vote (250 million~) compared to 2012's 235 million, and 2008's 230 million. To say this trend will continue I don't see as a problematic statement. Voter turnout in terms of percentage of the voting enabled population increased in all years since 1970 except for one 5% blip during the 2008 Obama election, while midterm enthusiasm for 2018 was at 47%, roughly 2-5% below the national election average (major roughly, I didn't do the exact math). A different estimate puts voter turnout for 2018 at 53.4%, on par with national election turnout. I don't think its a stretch to say that no matter who gets the DNC nom there will be enthusiasm for voting, especially as milennials and older gen z people get geared up for the 2020 election (source one | source two | source three)

Moreover the DNC's most reliable voting bloc is certainly African Americans (I would not go so far as to say all PoC considering roughly a third of Hispanic voters vote Republican - source), however they are just that: reliable. To suggest that Bernie would somehow deter Black people from voting, or worse yet vote for the other party is absurd. 2016 Gallup polls have favorability percentages of 53% / 16% / 31% (in terms of favorable / unfavorable / don't know enough information) of black voters opinions on Bernie Sanders in the run up to the DNC primary of 2016. That 16% is the biggest crucial number there, being only 4 percentage points above HRC's 12% unfavorable rating (from black voters), neither of which can be assessed to be considered "do not support him." Another Gallup survey pegged that black milennials actually favor Bernie more than they did Clinton in the run up to the 2016 primaries, with favorability ratings among black millenials supporting Bernie with 67% favorable ratings versus Clinton's 60% favorable ratings. 538 has a great article on this with the argument that it's not that black voters disliked Bernie Sanders or were turned off by him, but that they happened to like other candidates to different degrees. (source one | source two | source three)

I'd very much like to contest both 1) your point of black voters being absolutely crucial to securing a DNC victory and 2) that black voters wouldn't turn out for a hypothetical Sanders v Trump election. Black voters have a remarkable ~19% favorable rating for Trump's 2019 standings. Other polls peg it even lower at 4% in some cases (Gallup March 2019). To say that voters of all blocs aren't energized, least of all in one of the most divisive presidents the United States has ever had, is absurd. This isn't 2008 anymore and people are starting to wake up to the need to caucus for their candidates and get their voice heard, as has been evidenced by a nationwide ripple effect of voter turnout since the inauguration in 2016. I don't think black voters are absolutely as essential to the process as you are making them out to be, as in that those voters will turn out anyway less in support of a specific candidate and more in opposition to Donald Trump during 2020. Those blocs tend to vote based on party lines rather than any specific candidate and the polling for favorable ratings only matters in context of determining potential primary winners rather than general election winners. I'll let his numbers for the 2016 primary speak for himself as he drew more milennial and younger voters than Trump and Clinton combined (source). Sanders also tends to draw an overwhelming amount of support from non-Black, non-White voters, of which certain polling institutions are predicting to be an even larger voting bloc in the upcoming 2020 election than the black monolith (source - "We project that the 2020 election will mark the first time that Hispanics will be the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the electorate, accounting for just over 13% of eligible voters – slightly more than blacks.") The biggest voting bloc and the one that the DNC should ultimately be focused on imo is the whites, and specifically college aged whites. Milennials ages 18-29 experienced the biggest boost in voter turnout, with a 79% increase to their voting numbers, and of those college whites are still the overwhelming majority of the population, by static numbers. "Only Bernie can beat Trump" is indeed a false narrative, however the most recent general election prediction polls have placed Trump winning in the general election against every candidate bar Biden (with a net +6%) and Sanders (with a net +2%), while Harris, Buttiegieg, and Warren all fall to Trump (all with a +2%). These polls should be taken with a grain of salt, tho they do tend to indicate some direction of political images in the coming months leading up to the DNC primary. (source one | source two | source three | source four).

 

[Shrug]

Been a while, but she pushes the Jim Crow analogy too hard at the expense of relating the role of capitalism, and imo she makes some huge reaches irt the war on drugs

Can't really comment on the parts about life in prison, but the tragic irony of using inmate labor to get the "made in america" label was a powerful point

this post reads like you googled "criticisms of the new jim crow". i guess my bigger question is this: how do you reconcile your belief in the fundamental injustices of the prison system with support for a person who was by all accounts a wholehearted and enthusiastic participant in this system?

Its original (and obvious) purpose was to say, "Low-information voters don't realize Bernie is the best candidate for blacks because he went to a protest! Meanwhile, COPMALA is basically Jim Crow, so vote for civil rights activist icon Bernie instead of identity politics!"

shots at me :/. do you genuinely believe people can have ideologically consistent critiques of candidates or is it all retroactive justification for a selection made for other reasons?

 

[MikeDawg]

this post reads like you googled "criticisms of the new jim crow". i guess my bigger question is this: how do you reconcile your belief in the fundamental injustices of the prison system with support for a person who was by all accounts a wholehearted and enthusiastic participant in this system?

Same reason that Liz's policy clout makes her a great Senator, but not the automatic best contender for the presidency: if Kamala were running for AG, I'd be more concerned with her history as AG.

That said, her "wholehearted and enthusiastic participation" in the system is massively overstated by her detractors, and the good things she did are massively understated.

shots at me :/. do you genuinely believe people can have ideologically consistent critiques of candidates or is it all retroactive justification for a selection made for other reasons?

Full stop, didn't have smogon in mind at all when I wrote that. Not meant at all as a shot at you, or really at anyone here (ppl have almost mostly stayed away from that line of thought, thankfully). There's a big difference between calling Kamala a cop vs what's going on in that meme.

 

[MikeDawg]

What? You are the one bringing up polls, I am referring to your own posts about these polls, where you say "bernie's campaign is crashing". I gotta spell this out again for you but I'm fucking calling you out. Your post that I respond to where you're "switching gears" out of your own argument to talk about how confused you are about Harris's poll numbers. I'm telling you that I think that people don't want to vote for Harris because they don't like her, lol. Where all you are doing is repeating what the poll numbers are

Also notable is that Harris supporters want Biden to drop out the least of the big 5. Almost as if Harris supporters aren't progressives but instead DNC supporters.

Considering new data: how do you respond to the polls showing that Bernie supporters mostly put Biden as their second choice (and vice versa)?

Does this mean Bernie supporters aren't progressives but instead (old, white?) DNC supporters? Or do you only apply that ridiculous logic to candidates you dislike?

Left in the first part because lol that she's now a frontrunner, and in many cases the favorite to win.

Protip: "repeating poll numbers" is a far more reliable way to draw conclusions than relying on what you happen to "think" lol

 

[Myzozoa]

lol bro, ur calling gato out cause the polls have switched while asserting how reliable/important polls are, i cant even

it is certainly possible that many of Sander's supporters are old white boomer men but remember there is an election to win out here, not just polls. if sanders appeals to old white boomers with his mildly progressive platform, all the better.

 

[MikeDawg]

lol bro, ur calling gato out cause the polls have switched while asserting how reliable/important polls are, i cant even

Actually, those polls never switched. Bernie and Biden fans always had the other as an overwhelming second choice. The fact that this trend persists now that the other candidates have high name rec just makes it especially worth pointing out.

Besides, the polls switching has nothing to do with the question anyway. I just asked his opinion on the data. It's only fair considering how often he's accused me of having double standards.

The solidified Kamala frontrunner status is fairly new, but that's irrelevant considering the original argument was about her potential anyway. I pointed out before that she had top tier excitability & second-choice numbers and was just being held back by name recognition. Gato said those stats were irrelevant, people hate her, and I'm dumb for even considering she could become popular. Funny how it played out.