MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
No need to even go back that far. Bernie had an insane showing in 2016 against one of the biggest names in politics. He was polling under 15% in what was basically a 2-person race at this time in 2015.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
this is like a smash roster and everyone is hoping that mike gravel is preorder dlc
andrew yang look like a smiling sea turtle
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
idk Yang does speak really intelligently on a lot of issues. He's got that Pete flair of being underqualified but sounding very qualified. He's also great at pulling the anti identity politics crowd.
I'd happily vote for pete in the primary and definitely am not voting for Yang, but i deifnitely see the appeal for the latter, and he'll probably rise after debates
Thinking emoji
John Hickenlooper gets picked so often as the “random no-name politician” example I'm beginning to believe it's actually benefitting his name recognition.
its funny to say hickenlooper. if you cant be an interesting person in politics you can at least try to have a cool last name like buttigieg or zwoogideeloop
zwoogideeloop 2024: my name doesn't make sense but my policies do.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...tic-candidates-speak-at-poor-peoples-campaign
The Poor People's Campaign will be speaking to Democratic presidential candidates today and vice versa
"if we followed the polls, there would be no poor people's campaign"
Last edited:
This is literally the exact sort of thing he's always been campaigning on. How is this a surprise?
with no Mike Gravel we won't have any crazy old man on stage ranting about UFOs, why is this the reality we live in, why din't you donate $4.20 you meme traitors
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Bernie Sanders Says Elizabeth Warren Catching Up to Him Because People ‘Would Like To See A Woman Elected’
Wow, 2 in a row!
While we're here, can we also talk about how Bernie also opposed desegregation via busing?
Wow, 2 in a row!
While we're here, can we also talk about how Bernie also opposed desegregation via busing?
MikeDawg the problem is shit like this https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/joe-biden-cory-booker-segregation.html where Joe Biden says he misses “civility” of working with racist senators (recently). And when Corey Booker says that’s inappropriate, Joe Biden demands he apologize.
Do you have any sources on Bernie opposing busing on the whole? I googled it and only found these articles:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/479739/ (Bernie arrested for protesting segregation)
And https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/05/joe-biden-busing-problem-226791 (Biden supporting segregation).
The part that bothered me most about Bernie’s tweet was that it implied Warren was the choice of corporatists because the article was about Warren. He stated in the interview you linked that it was not directed at her which just makes the tweet nonsensical. He also stated that he believes he is suffering in the polls because some people want to see a younger president or a woman president. I don’t think that that’s necessarily false, I certainly don’t think people in their late 70s or 80s should be president. The claim that it has a large impact on the polling is incredibly dumb, but I don’t think the politicians themselves should be speculating on polls.
What I really don’t understand is why you keep posting exaggerated shit like “Bernie’s campaign committed suicide!!!” while continually defending Biden who is the most problematic candidate. Both in terms of politics and also in terms of continually putting his foot in his mouth.
Do you have any sources on Bernie opposing busing on the whole? I googled it and only found these articles:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/479739/ (Bernie arrested for protesting segregation)
And https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/05/joe-biden-busing-problem-226791 (Biden supporting segregation).
The part that bothered me most about Bernie’s tweet was that it implied Warren was the choice of corporatists because the article was about Warren. He stated in the interview you linked that it was not directed at her which just makes the tweet nonsensical. He also stated that he believes he is suffering in the polls because some people want to see a younger president or a woman president. I don’t think that that’s necessarily false, I certainly don’t think people in their late 70s or 80s should be president. The claim that it has a large impact on the polling is incredibly dumb, but I don’t think the politicians themselves should be speculating on polls.
What I really don’t understand is why you keep posting exaggerated shit like “Bernie’s campaign committed suicide!!!” while continually defending Biden who is the most problematic candidate. Both in terms of politics and also in terms of continually putting his foot in his mouth.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
The screenshot is from this newspaper.
https://archive.org/stream/middleburyNewspapers_1974-09-19/9311_djvu.txt
It's not the focus of the article, but in it he clearly says busing is a bad idea because it would heighten racial tensions, as if that's a valid reason to hold back on desegregation.
Of course he said that. That's damage control. He directly quoted a one-line tweet saying Warren is doing well, then implied she was a corporate shill and he's the one-and-only progressive savior.
In the time between now and the start of civilization, when has it ever been expeditious to be a woman in politics, no less a young woman? In fact, the 2 front runners RIGHT NOW are some of the oldest white men who have ever run. Claiming that Warren's gender of all things is a factor in why she is beating Bernie is absurdly desperate and misogynistic. It pairs incredibly well with his equally desperate tweet.
Considering Bernie's crashing poll numbers and the flak he's getting over the past couple days, I'd say that, yes, this is a significant turning point in his decline. The fact that his strategy has shifted to, "The polls show I beat Trump (but not as much as Biden)!" and, "If you vote for anyone else, including Elizabeth Warren, you're a corporate shill!" is hugely symptomatic of that. In what world will that strategy revitalize his chances? The only thing he's accomplished over the past few days is turning away people who were on the fence or had him as their second choice. Did you know that even before this stunt, 35% of voters wanted him to drop out? He's only second behind De Blasio (who is in the 40s) in that regard.
When did I defend Biden? In fact, I've bashed him multiple times throughout the last few pages and said his history should be outright disqualifying.
I've definitely noted that he isn't going to instantly crash-and-burn like many in this thread hope, and the fact that his poll numbers have gone up since March is pretty indicative of that. There's a difference between siding with his actions and pointing out the reality of his popularity and ability to deflect scandals.
Last edited:
Your third quote didn’t capture the relevant portion of my post. I specifically said that people wanting there to be a woman or young president doesn’t have an impact on the polling and his comments on that are unnecessary and probably inaccurate. But it probably is true that some people want a younger or woman president. For example, me, the president would ideally be younger is something I believe. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
1 week earlier: “Biden is my second choice.”
“Biden’s comments are disqualifying.”
1 week earlier: “Biden is my second choice.”
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Oh dang, true. But you said I've been defending Biden, and there's no defense of anything in that comment. If the idea is that it's hypocritical for me to defend Biden while admonishing Bernie's recent misogyny, then I'm not sure how my comment praising Biden's environmental plan is relevant. And at the point when I'd made that comment, Biden was having a pretty great, gaff-free run (hence his rising poll numbers). That combined with his massive lead against Trump was plenty of reason to strongly consider him.
I have to wonder how many different, completely contradictory things a #NeverBernie centrist has to believe in order to make their ideology sound like anything other than reactionary spite politics. You have to concurrently believe that Bernie is less progressive than Elizabeth Warren (or Kamala Harris - lmao) while at the same time defend the right-wing think tanks like Third Way who are warming up to Warren. You have to disagree with everything Third Way stands for - opposition to Medicare for All, opposition to Wall Street reform, support for many Republicans - while marching in lockstep with them on Bernie. You have to interpret Bernie praising Elizabeth Warren for inspiring women to run and vote for other women as misogyny. Why are you more mad at Bernie for calling Warren a corporate shill (which he didn't even do...) when a literal corporate shill think tank said it ten minutes earlier?
Last edited:
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
You can dislike someone without disliking their platform. For example, Bernie and Tulsi. Good thing there are 2 other candidates with similar (and most better) platforms.
Also, tons of people are spiteful of Bernie's role in getting Trump elected in 2016 by staying in well past his time and using those few months to attack Hillary. Good guess!
Someone with a past and recent history of making misogynistic and racist comments is indeed less progressive than Elizabeth Warren, who has practically the same worldview minus the occasional bigotry (apart from the Native American gaff).
Plus, it's absolutely fair to support someone slightly less "progressive" (whatever that means anymore) if they will be better at the job, especially for president who barely deals in policy anyway. The only major differences that I can tell are that Warren is less committed to M4A than Bernie and Kamala, Kamala is more in favor of trade than Bernie and Liz, and Bernie is more committed to anti-immigration, anti-identitypolitics, and anti-intervention than Liz and Kamala (though it would be disingenuous to pretend his record shows him to be a complete dove).
Meanwhile, both Kamala and Liz have had far more successful careers than Bernie, which is pretty important when you want to, you know, actually effect change.
Not really. It's hilarious that you're using this argument though when a common talking point from Bernie fans is that Republicans like him. You know, the Republicans who are ACTUALLY right-wing. I could easily say that to support Bernie, you have to "defend the racist and reactionary groups like Republicans who are warming up to Bernie," and it would be far more incriminating. I wouldn't say that, because it's stupid, but you get the idea.
Not really. Especially when he blatantly implied that those women (like Warren) should step aside by opting to run again in 2020. Didn't he say at some point that he only ran in 2016 because Warren wasn't running? Now Warren is running (and beating him), and he not only decided to run again but also openly attacked her. Kind of contradictory, dontcha think?
Plus, he has a history of DISCOURAGING people from voting for women. For example:
1986: Voting for Madeleine Kunin because she is a woman would be "a sexist position"
2016: "It is not enough to say I'm a woman, vote for me" referencing Hillary Clinton
2019: Elizabeth Warren is catching up because she is a woman.
1. Yes, he did.
2. Maybe because the "corporate shill think tank" isn't running for president? Maybe they don't have nearly as much influence as that particular candidate? Maybe I don't value the option of or support that "corporate shill think tank" in the first place. Wasn't Bernie the one who came up with the "no negativity" pact? Hmm...
Last edited: