I'd appreciate if we could talk about the democratic candidates instead of low-effort insults. Please note the "Serious" tag.
Thanks!
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
I'd appreciate if we could talk about the democratic candidates instead of low-effort insults. Please note the "Serious" tag.
Thanks!
when will elizabeth warren denounce her 30+ year run as a reagan republican? when will she apologize for masquerading as a POC for years in order to boost her own career? when will nancy pelosi apologize for signing a massive defense bill? when will mikedawg apologize for JAQing off about bestiality?
bernie sanders, like every other politician, has made mistakes in his career. perhaps his strange satirical writings about 1970s feminism were steeped in problematic language, and maybe his votes (or lack off) in his long senate career reflect imperfections. i would like to point out how unbelievably stupid it is to claim something like "bernie sanders likes child-porn;" it is such an obvious deflection based in crude absurdity to dilute the subject at hand. maybe the local village idiots will use that vote as a sort of "gotcha!" moment to call bernie's humanity into question (read: you), but i think even your lowest common denominator would find something fishy about the claim that bernie sanders endorses pedophilia. unless they don't understand how legislation works, which in this case is probably the audience you're attempting to court with a post like that. why would a candidate sign a bill like that? perhaps because it had unconstitutional or unethical aspects -- if you can support mandatory sentencing establishment for crimes like murder, manslaughter, fraud, etc. then it should logically follow the same precedent here. in the same vein, i wonder if the legislation he did vote for are also full of a greater context. bills are more than just their name you know...
regarding joe rogan, i cannot say i am personally a fan of the man. however, joe rogan does not strike me as a hateful individual unable to see the bigger picture. i think of him as a sort of naive guy whose job is an entertainer. yes, he has given platforms to alt-right figures in the most deplorable form, but he has also invited characters like cornel west onto his show. i suppose because of west's affiliation we should also expunge one of the most prominent intellectuals of the past century by association. denounce? the people that joe rogan attracts are exactly the type of people that need to start associating with a more compassionate politics. there exist many lost allies under capitalism, and the working class disenfranchised by it cannot be united in full unless you try to reconcile differences. people like you on the "left" (read: center-right) make me sick, because you're so unwilling to engage in anything intellectually and resort to simple denouncements even of potential allies. there are things, and people, who we cannot compromise with, but the "denouncement" of millions of americans who have had their lives victimized by capitalism are not the ones. i suppose bernie sanders should explicitly ask for only the most pure people to vote for him, if that is the standard we are going to begin to invoke from now on. mikedawg, for somebody who is such a strong neoliberal, why are you out here imitating the bolsheviks and instilling absurd purity tests? it is very easy to find contradictions in legislating during a 20 year long career when you forget just how complex legislation can be. alas, people like you survive on simple 'gotcha' questions because you are a husk devoid of any meaningful policy or substance. you favor symbolism over anything structural -- no wonder you're a neoliberal!
bernie sanders, like every other politician, has made mistakes in his career. perhaps his strange satirical writings about 1970s feminism were steeped in problematic language, and maybe his votes (or lack off) in his long senate career reflect imperfections. i would like to point out how unbelievably stupid it is to claim something like "bernie sanders likes child-porn;" it is such an obvious deflection based in crude absurdity to dilute the subject at hand. maybe the local village idiots will use that vote as a sort of "gotcha!" moment to call bernie's humanity into question (read: you), but i think even your lowest common denominator would find something fishy about the claim that bernie sanders endorses pedophilia. unless they don't understand how legislation works, which in this case is probably the audience you're attempting to court with a post like that. why would a candidate sign a bill like that? perhaps because it had unconstitutional or unethical aspects -- if you can support mandatory sentencing establishment for crimes like murder, manslaughter, fraud, etc. then it should logically follow the same precedent here. in the same vein, i wonder if the legislation he did vote for are also full of a greater context. bills are more than just their name you know...
regarding joe rogan, i cannot say i am personally a fan of the man. however, joe rogan does not strike me as a hateful individual unable to see the bigger picture. i think of him as a sort of naive guy whose job is an entertainer. yes, he has given platforms to alt-right figures in the most deplorable form, but he has also invited characters like cornel west onto his show. i suppose because of west's affiliation we should also expunge one of the most prominent intellectuals of the past century by association. denounce? the people that joe rogan attracts are exactly the type of people that need to start associating with a more compassionate politics. there exist many lost allies under capitalism, and the working class disenfranchised by it cannot be united in full unless you try to reconcile differences. people like you on the "left" (read: center-right) make me sick, because you're so unwilling to engage in anything intellectually and resort to simple denouncements even of potential allies. there are things, and people, who we cannot compromise with, but the "denouncement" of millions of americans who have had their lives victimized by capitalism are not the ones. i suppose bernie sanders should explicitly ask for only the most pure people to vote for him, if that is the standard we are going to begin to invoke from now on. mikedawg, for somebody who is such a strong neoliberal, why are you out here imitating the bolsheviks and instilling absurd purity tests? it is very easy to find contradictions in legislating during a 20 year long career when you forget just how complex legislation can be. alas, people like you survive on simple 'gotcha' questions because you are a husk devoid of any meaningful policy or substance. you favor symbolism over anything structural -- no wonder you're a neoliberal!
Joe Rogan called black neighborhoods "planet of the apes" and said the n word multiple times on his show.
Said homosexuality is caused by child molestation.
Thinks trans women are men.
It's always hilarious to me when brogressives are holier-than-thou until Bernie comes into the picture, then Joe fucking Rogan is a stand up dude. Instead of saying "that's a bad endorsement, but I still like Bernie", you deflected to things that have happened years/decades ago. The Joe Rogan endorsement happened last week. Even better, you proceeded to write a dissertation praising the dude.
Your "Bernie should just magically control who voted for him" strawman doesn't hold water when his campaign has actively promoted the endorsement. No comment would've been a far better comment than going out of their way to embrace the bigot. You're deliberately missing the point.
I'm glad I'm here to balance the conversation again, because this shit is a cult. A number of progressive organizations who support bernie are actively denouncing Rogan and his endorsement. Unsurprising that a bunch of 20 year olds on the internet cbf to do the same.
Said homosexuality is caused by child molestation.
Thinks trans women are men.
It's always hilarious to me when brogressives are holier-than-thou until Bernie comes into the picture, then Joe fucking Rogan is a stand up dude. Instead of saying "that's a bad endorsement, but I still like Bernie", you deflected to things that have happened years/decades ago. The Joe Rogan endorsement happened last week. Even better, you proceeded to write a dissertation praising the dude.
Your "Bernie should just magically control who voted for him" strawman doesn't hold water when his campaign has actively promoted the endorsement. No comment would've been a far better comment than going out of their way to embrace the bigot. You're deliberately missing the point.
I'm glad I'm here to balance the conversation again, because this shit is a cult. A number of progressive organizations who support bernie are actively denouncing Rogan and his endorsement. Unsurprising that a bunch of 20 year olds on the internet cbf to do the same.
Last edited:
Why is an endorsement from rogan a bad thing
Funny how everyone itt trashed Kamala for every little thing that brought her progressive credentials into question. Yet here we are dismissing those same concerns in respect to the self-described "tough on crime" Saint Bernard. That's what happens when you're allegiance falls with a man instead of an ideology. Bernie is the definition of a mediocre white dude failing upwards.
The best part is that Kamala was the only one with a chance of leeching Biden's black support and rebuilding the Obama coalition. Now he's sitting at 51% with black voters while everyone else is struggling to break single digits.
She would've been the perfect compromise candidate, but thanks to the unrelenting brogressive smears, we're stuck with Joe Biden. It's almost poetic. Perfect metaphor for the counterproductive efforts of Bernie and his undying fans.
Another great example is the recent poll showing only half of Bernie fans will definitely vote for the nominee. Because reelecting Trump and securing a bigly conservative Supreme court will be so great for the marginalized groups you all pretend to care about.
Final note on the Rogan situation: the Bernie campaign released a video celebrating the endorsement. If you can't see the difference between that and simply receiving an endorsement, you should reevaluate your priorities.
The best part is that Kamala was the only one with a chance of leeching Biden's black support and rebuilding the Obama coalition. Now he's sitting at 51% with black voters while everyone else is struggling to break single digits.
She would've been the perfect compromise candidate, but thanks to the unrelenting brogressive smears, we're stuck with Joe Biden. It's almost poetic. Perfect metaphor for the counterproductive efforts of Bernie and his undying fans.
Another great example is the recent poll showing only half of Bernie fans will definitely vote for the nominee. Because reelecting Trump and securing a bigly conservative Supreme court will be so great for the marginalized groups you all pretend to care about.
Final note on the Rogan situation: the Bernie campaign released a video celebrating the endorsement. If you can't see the difference between that and simply receiving an endorsement, you should reevaluate your priorities.
Why is this bad tho
Yeah, that ain't great. Glad he owns the problems with & responsibility for the Crime Bill now-- I am still for the violence against woman act regardless though.
And still looking forward to the look on Pelosi's face when Nominee Bernie bars the whole party from taking PAC and billionaire money.
On another note, seems like every day we get new polls with Bernie at the top.
Emerson Iowa, Bernie 30% +9
New York Times Iowa, Bernie 25% +8
CBS News Iowa, Bernie 26% +1
NBC Marist NH, Bernie 22% +5
CNN NH, Bernie 25% +9
WBUR NH, Bernie 29% +12
CNN National, Bernie 27% +3
Des Moine Register Iowa, Bernie 25% +5
Bernie SUUUUUUUURRRRRGE~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also saw the emerson poll that showed only Bernie & Yang's voters are not bluenomatterwho-- Bernie's is about 30% "depends on the candidate" / 10% "BUST" in case Bernie loses, Yang's support is about 30% "BUST" / 10% depends. Coincides with Bernie getting a lot more leftists and independents, Yang a lot more conservatives (and independents).
...but unlike Hillbots who think that this is a bad thing and a show of party disloyalty, I applaud both campaigns for doing the hard work of knocking doors and trying to win voters who don't vote, who are not loyal to either party, who are young &/or disenfranchised, and who we can and should bring on board to beat Trump. The fact that some 30-40% of Bernie's large support is here for Bernie & not for the party is an argument FOR his electability vs. Biden.
...and also speaks to how Bernie's actual support is probably very much under-captured by the above polls.
Last edited:
Does Saager Enjeti count? lolololololol
2-3 years ago I actually closely followed Jordan Peterson, the Rubin Report, Ben Shapiro's Sunday Special, Prager U just to see what they were saying (and in Rubin's case mock him admittedly...). But the episodes I lived for were the ones where Eric Weinstein, or Andrew Yang, or even Tucker Carlson would turn the whole conversation on economics upside down and drop the fools' on the head about systemic realities. Even now watching Tucker Carlson dunk on Elizabith Warren and now sounding the alarm that Bernie could beat Trump is also very amusing.
I watched more right-wing media because I knew I'd be agreeing more and more in a bubble if all I did was watch Secular Talk all the time-- but then I found The Michael Brooks Show and that was that. Never looked back as my media taste spiraled towards Richard Wolff's Economic Update, Chapo Traphouse, and Jacobin. lolololololololololololololol
whats the point of the above video?
I like how you're leaving out how Bernie only voted for it to support the Violence Against Women Act bill that was attached to the crime bill. Or how he goes in on the punitive measures that same year. It's incredibly myopic how people criticize Bernie for "being unable to compromise" but then he gets lambasted for voting for the Violence Against Women Act because it's attached to Hillary Clinton's Crime Bill. Or that Biden bragged about the bill, labeled it as his own. I think it's silly if you hold these litmus tests (with twitter as your source...lol) without even blinking twice about the other candidates. If Sanders should be thrown out and cancelled because of the aye vote for this bill, then what should be done for Biden, who co-sponsored the bill, or Clinton, who vehemently defended the bill and called people superpredators because of it? What should be done for Harris who's entire career is based on this one decision?
I look forward to your thoughts
I like how you're leaving out how Bernie only voted for it to support the Violence Against Women Act bill that was attached to the crime bill. Or how he goes in on the punitive measures that same year. It's incredibly myopic how people criticize Bernie for "being unable to compromise" but then he gets lambasted for voting for the Violence Against Women Act because it's attached to Hillary Clinton's Crime Bill. Or that Biden bragged about the bill, labeled it as his own. I think it's silly if you hold these litmus tests (with twitter as your source...lol) without even blinking twice about the other candidates. If Sanders should be thrown out and cancelled because of the aye vote for this bill, then what should be done for Biden, who co-sponsored the bill, or Clinton, who vehemently defended the bill and called people superpredators because of it? What should be done for Harris who's entire career is based on this one decision?
I look forward to your thoughts
One thing I appreciate about Biden's campaign is that he's centered LGBT issues in a way that other candidates haven't.
From the very beginning, he's said LGBT rights will be his top legislative priority, which is consistent with his decision to skip the Cali convention in favor of an Iowa LGBT event, and his key role in accelerating the gay marriage debate:
His recent highlighting of trans issues was also a pleasant surprise. It's really cool that he's been unbashedly leaning into trans protections despite his older base and the fact that the early primary states aren't particularly LGBT-friendly. It comes at a great time politically considering his main competitor's recent attempt to court socially conservative voters. Call it opportunistic if you want, but I'd rather someone take the opportunity to support marginalized people as opposed to bigots.
In the age of Trump, I'm glad we have someone who's unafraid to lean into the right-wing "identity politics" euphamism, and it's not exclusive to LGBT issues.
From the very beginning, he's said LGBT rights will be his top legislative priority, which is consistent with his decision to skip the Cali convention in favor of an Iowa LGBT event, and his key role in accelerating the gay marriage debate:
Joe Biden said:
His recent highlighting of trans issues was also a pleasant surprise. It's really cool that he's been unbashedly leaning into trans protections despite his older base and the fact that the early primary states aren't particularly LGBT-friendly. It comes at a great time politically considering his main competitor's recent attempt to court socially conservative voters. Call it opportunistic if you want, but I'd rather someone take the opportunity to support marginalized people as opposed to bigots.
In the age of Trump, I'm glad we have someone who's unafraid to lean into the right-wing "identity politics" euphamism, and it's not exclusive to LGBT issues.
Last edited:
There’s not a single democratic candidate in the race I trust to actually advocate and fight for my rights as a queer person. Biden least of all.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm curious: why not Biden, for all of the reasons I listed above?
Even if we do believe that none of the candidates will fight for LGBT rights, he's the only one who has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, not to mention his aforementioned role in getting gay marriage legalized. Relative to the other candidates, he easily has the best chances of actually doing something.
See, this is why Trump is going to win. You fools are too busy bickering about who is the best candidate and failing to realize that Trump's supporter base is loyal and vicious. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, these people are absolutely despised by the very demographic that gave Trump the win and no amount of polls or accounts you can recite is gonna change reality.
Whether you want to admit or not, Trump represented drastic change, and thats why his popularity skyrocketed back in 2016. Clearly there was a big enough demographic that felt let down by the current establishment to vote for him despite his horrible past and blatant racism. Clearly America is beginning to get tired of the same, and guess what Hillary Clinton was? Establishment, establishment, 180% establishment.
If Trump is to be beaten we cannot have our typical, frozen-faced politician. We can't have Joe Biden, we can't have Warren, we can't have Buttigieg, we cant have Klobuchar, we need people who represent drastic change, like Bernie and Yang. For those reasons Biden and Warren, as qualified as they may be, are the antithesis of what we need right now.
Despite Donald Trump basically threatening the livelihood of Mexican Americans they didn't vote last election. What we need is the poaching of conservatives. We need to win back the trust of the crucial demographic that felt ignored last election - rural people, conservatives - to beat Trump. But we're too busy accusing each other of sexism, having corporate media debates try to instigate fights, and more audienceless virtue signaling to actually unite against the true threat - Donald Trump.
Tl;Dr ur all stupid and fucked
Whether you want to admit or not, Trump represented drastic change, and thats why his popularity skyrocketed back in 2016. Clearly there was a big enough demographic that felt let down by the current establishment to vote for him despite his horrible past and blatant racism. Clearly America is beginning to get tired of the same, and guess what Hillary Clinton was? Establishment, establishment, 180% establishment.
If Trump is to be beaten we cannot have our typical, frozen-faced politician. We can't have Joe Biden, we can't have Warren, we can't have Buttigieg, we cant have Klobuchar, we need people who represent drastic change, like Bernie and Yang. For those reasons Biden and Warren, as qualified as they may be, are the antithesis of what we need right now.
Despite Donald Trump basically threatening the livelihood of Mexican Americans they didn't vote last election. What we need is the poaching of conservatives. We need to win back the trust of the crucial demographic that felt ignored last election - rural people, conservatives - to beat Trump. But we're too busy accusing each other of sexism, having corporate media debates try to instigate fights, and more audienceless virtue signaling to actually unite against the true threat - Donald Trump.
Tl;Dr ur all stupid and fucked
Is that not, like, the whole point of a primary?
first time posting here but I’m probably voting Bernie. I think he’s the candidate in the strongest position right now. He’s behind Biden nationally but he’s surging and I’d be really surprised if he loses Iowa with the way trends are shaping (the DMRegister polls in particular look really good). He’s got the most excited voter base of all the candidates, and I think there’s been very little legitimate criticism of his policies from what I’ve seen on the news networks aside from “socialism”/phantom personality concerns magnified by certain people on CNN/MSNBC/Fox/what have you.
I think the real concern with Bernie is a lack of a fair assessment on the news networks because of an intrinsic conflict of interest; he’s been pretty open about how the CNN debate format sucks on Joe Rogan (on a side note, one of the biggest endorsements he got in the last week or so). This boxes him into a position where it’s tough to get any sort of a win in the debates, but his team has done a very good job of building up his youtube/Twitter with good content. This sort of alleviates the issue of him not getting a national audience for stuff he necessarily wants to communicate (I think he sounds a lot more cogent in long form). The “feud” Warren and sanders had in the last debate honestly helped sanders far more than Warren too because it actually energized his base against a pretty trumped up accusation by CNN, and it brought into view of the media cycle more of the sanders in the 1980s who was saying the exact same stuff.
as an aside I think it’s now or never for yang to surge, I’d put my money on him dropping out and his support mostly switching to Bernie, it’s already looking like a two-man race and I think that puts him over the top
I think the real concern with Bernie is a lack of a fair assessment on the news networks because of an intrinsic conflict of interest; he’s been pretty open about how the CNN debate format sucks on Joe Rogan (on a side note, one of the biggest endorsements he got in the last week or so). This boxes him into a position where it’s tough to get any sort of a win in the debates, but his team has done a very good job of building up his youtube/Twitter with good content. This sort of alleviates the issue of him not getting a national audience for stuff he necessarily wants to communicate (I think he sounds a lot more cogent in long form). The “feud” Warren and sanders had in the last debate honestly helped sanders far more than Warren too because it actually energized his base against a pretty trumped up accusation by CNN, and it brought into view of the media cycle more of the sanders in the 1980s who was saying the exact same stuff.
as an aside I think it’s now or never for yang to surge, I’d put my money on him dropping out and his support mostly switching to Bernie, it’s already looking like a two-man race and I think that puts him over the top
So is MikeDawg gonna respond to anyone who replied to him or keep posting cherrypicked bad takes
Anyways, we're a week away from Iowa and it looks like Bernie is surging at the right time. Anything could happen at this point, especially with the 15% threshold and the fact that Buttigieg and Warren are teetering on that edge.
It's possible we see Biden and Bernie face off and the secondhand voters from Buittigieg or Warren determine who wins. I think if we're going purely on polls at this point and trends, Bernie might be able to clinch it. I think he will most likely take New Hampshire, but Iowa is so close it's hard to tell.
Anyways, we're a week away from Iowa and it looks like Bernie is surging at the right time. Anything could happen at this point, especially with the 15% threshold and the fact that Buttigieg and Warren are teetering on that edge.
It's possible we see Biden and Bernie face off and the secondhand voters from Buittigieg or Warren determine who wins. I think if we're going purely on polls at this point and trends, Bernie might be able to clinch it. I think he will most likely take New Hampshire, but Iowa is so close it's hard to tell.
If this is what a primary is then we need to end what is traditionally known as a 'primary'
Another thing to consider is that the polling that has been done is going to be undercounting young voting-age groups for the simple fact that almost nobody under the age of 40 has a landline. The effects can be seen in the recent midterms, but I'll focus on one congressional district in particular: Oklahoma's 5th. Incumbent Republican Steve Russell was the heavy favorite to win the election, but Kendra Horn significantly outperformed her polling numbers to beat him. I think it's fair to say that young voters went overwhelmingly Democratic in this district, even in deep red Oklahoma (this district represents Oklahoma City, which is easily the least red part of the state) and were undercounted by pollsters, which would explain the ~4 percentage point discrepancy between polling and the actual results.
To make my point relevant to this thread: For the reasons that pollsters just haven't been able to count people aged 18-29 effectively at all, I would honestly expect to see Bernie Sanders outperform his polling, which would explain why prediction markets are rating his odds better than pollsters/FiveThirtyEight's polling averages are.
Anyway, moving on from polling errors and how polling has been pretty terrible lately, something to consider in any Democratic candidate is whether or not they have the ability to bring in the groups who either voted third party or didn't vote at all in 2016. I've come to support Bernie Sanders for this reason, even putting aside my concerns about his age and protectionist trade policies; an establishment candidate like Biden simply can't bring in these voters. The simple fact of the matter is that an anti-establishment candidate is what is needed to bring in these cohorts; these people either vote third party or don't vote because they've grown to be disillusioned by the establishments of both parties. Bernie and Yang are really the only candidates who meet those criteria
I can't believe it's been a whole year and people are still pushing the landline lie. Same with the "polling is inaccurate!" rhetoric.
It's not even ignorance at this point, just dishonesty.
Yup. And at the very least, it's the whole point of this thread.
Didn't you just make the point that Trump's fans are unwaveringly loyal? Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and lost the electoral college by 70k. Why don't we try courting those 70k moderates in swing states who didn't turn out instead of jumping straight to attracting bigots?
Because you know what will really suppress the left wing vote? Making the party more conservative. Not to mention the moral implications of deliberately disenfranchising marginalized groups.
"There are only two sexualities: straight and identity politics."
Who exactly do you think I snubbed?
I appreciate the attention and that you all value my opinion so highly. But come on, these call-out attempts are getting really weak.
It's not even ignorance at this point, just dishonesty.
Yup. And at the very least, it's the whole point of this thread.
Didn't you just make the point that Trump's fans are unwaveringly loyal? Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and lost the electoral college by 70k. Why don't we try courting those 70k moderates in swing states who didn't turn out instead of jumping straight to attracting bigots?
Because you know what will really suppress the left wing vote? Making the party more conservative. Not to mention the moral implications of deliberately disenfranchising marginalized groups.
"There are only two sexualities: straight and identity politics."
Who exactly do you think I snubbed?
I appreciate the attention and that you all value my opinion so highly. But come on, these call-out attempts are getting really weak.
Last edited:
https://theweek.com/articles/617109/problem-polls
And don't forget about how wrong polling got it in the 2016 Democratic primaries in Michigan (also mentioned in the article). Polls have been undercounting young people ever since cell phones started becoming more of a thing and there's no getting around it. And even if polling is showing things are good for your guy, you shouldn't let that blind you to the fact that polling has been missing the mark frequently lately - it missed it on the 2016 election in particular, so I think some skepticism on polling is warranted given one of the times polling was wrong is still burned into people's memory.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2019/
Not to mention that your point is pretty moot considering Dem primary delegates are awarded proportionally. Calling the winner of a state incorrectly amounts to a 1 or 2 delegate difference, unlike the general where a single voter could cause a 55 delegate disparity.
Polling isn't showing things are good for "my guy" (whoever you think that is). In fact, Bernie has been the one surging over the past few days in early states, but you don't see me calling polls fake news, because that simply isn't the reality.
I defer to the above article irt your second point.