Don't try to sneak that "Mueller [came] out with nothing" line in there like it's somehow true - because it's not.
-
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
never did i say i approve of tulsi gabbard's politics, im just saying that the whole outrage surrounding her support for dictators is disingenuous. the hillary example was arbitrary, u could replace her with any president or any other major american establishment figure and it'd be the same shit. "unprecedented corruption" my ass, america is built upon corruption, deceit, and violence and just about every establishment figure has been complicit in that. this is not a moralistic judgment, it is the simple reality of "doing politics." surely you realize this, since you seem perfectly aware that maintaining normalized alliances even when your ally is a corrupt authoritarian figure is just how things go in washington. if your only real problem is with the fact that tulsi supports countries that may be hostile to america's interest, rest assured, she's going nowhere with that shit. aside from the fact that shes not polling too well, there are plenty of ways to remove someone like that from their position if they pose a serious threat to "national security" or whatever. incidentally, this is also how you can tell that trump is not a danger to the political establishment.
In other news my phone gives me news notifications once a day usually about gaming stuff cuz it knows Im a Gamer tm
Well in the past 5 or so days I've gotten 3 news alerts about Buttigieg and how he's apparently doing so well and like... how do I opt out LMAO
Get ready for people trying to revive Buttigieg and shove him down your throat again. :/
Well in the past 5 or so days I've gotten 3 news alerts about Buttigieg and how he's apparently doing so well and like... how do I opt out LMAO
Get ready for people trying to revive Buttigieg and shove him down your throat again. :/
There was no evidence of collusion, and not enough evidence of obstruction. Did Trump do things that were necessarily good? No not really, but the focus was supposed to be on Trump's involvement with 2016 election meddling (until the goal posts were shifted every 5 minutes, much like what's going on with Ukraine right now). It was built upon a now-proven blatant and motivated lie via the Steele dossier. If the Mueller report found anything damning, why isn't everyone and their dogs still talking about it? Because it concluded no evidence of collusion, there is no point to, it's done. Finito. You're only lying to yourself.
The claim "the Mueller report comes out to nothing but wasted tax dollars" is erroneous in a few, specific ways. For starters it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding as to the scope and mandate of the report, which was to investigate any links between the 2016 Trump campaign and and the Kremlin, and most importantly in this instance "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" (primary source). The second point is especially important because the bulk of the investigation indeed centered on discerning the associates and links between the two accused parties. What you call goal post shifting the justice department calls following the mandate laid out on 5/17/17, and exploring the tangible links (Manafort, etc) between Russian interference and the Trump campaign.
If you had actually read the report when it was released, as every citizen should rather than just adhering to whatever your favored news station says, you would understand that the Steele Dossier was not the reason that the investigation took place. If you had read the report you would understand that "And within a week of the release [of DNC documents by WikiLeaks], a foreign government [Australia] informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."
To say that the Mueller report "wasted tax dollars" shows that you have a limited understanding as to how those criminal proceedings work. Mueller brought forth 199 charges against 34 people and three companies. The Mueller report in total cost ~$32 million. Manafort's criminal plea deal alone involved asset forfeiture of an estimated $42 million. The Mueller campaign operated in the black, wrt cost to the taxpayer, how you can say that they wasted tax dollars when they came out as a net positive is interesting, maybe you simply were not aware of this (source, suggest independent research to corroborate this claim as it is not a primary source).
I think that the Mueller report was indeed amplified due to the political environment at the time of conception and investigation, and that the media overwhelmingly played a negative role in the report. After personally watching Robert Mueller give his own testimony on CSPAN, however, I am under the impression that it was a most fair and thorough investigation. I think it ignorant that you say the Mueller report "found [nothing] damning." Whether you believe in the veracity of the claims or not, the Mueller report explicitly states that an organization based out of St. Petersburg created "a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States;" they also found extensive evidence that the Russian Government carried out "cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations." Additionally, "the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations— violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft."
The reasons that the Mueller report did not culminate in the ultimate liberal catharsis of courtroom indictments is that there is a lot of contention surrounding the limits of the Executive office as the head of the Department of Justice; the report outlines that it is not the Special Committees task to try any criminal activity, hence why Mueller handed off people like Manafort to seperate departments of the government. Trump was not tried by Mueller because the decision was not up to Mueller but up to Congress; as you are probably aware there is currently a great amount of contention between the House and the Senate, and impeachment is a very real possibility long after the Mueller investigation has concluded. I would hope you wouldn't think that these types of proceedings are easily wade through.
Once again Dece1t I would highly suggest reading the actual report; it is linked here for your convenience. You seem intelligent enough, though frankly I don't see much difference between you or Celticpride or Mikedawg in this manner. Read the primary source and not whatever talking point is uttered on Fox News and come up with your own opinion, but base it in fact and not media echolalia.
If you had actually read the report when it was released, as every citizen should rather than just adhering to whatever your favored news station says, you would understand that the Steele Dossier was not the reason that the investigation took place. If you had read the report you would understand that "And within a week of the release [of DNC documents by WikiLeaks], a foreign government [Australia] informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."
To say that the Mueller report "wasted tax dollars" shows that you have a limited understanding as to how those criminal proceedings work. Mueller brought forth 199 charges against 34 people and three companies. The Mueller report in total cost ~$32 million. Manafort's criminal plea deal alone involved asset forfeiture of an estimated $42 million. The Mueller campaign operated in the black, wrt cost to the taxpayer, how you can say that they wasted tax dollars when they came out as a net positive is interesting, maybe you simply were not aware of this (source, suggest independent research to corroborate this claim as it is not a primary source).
I think that the Mueller report was indeed amplified due to the political environment at the time of conception and investigation, and that the media overwhelmingly played a negative role in the report. After personally watching Robert Mueller give his own testimony on CSPAN, however, I am under the impression that it was a most fair and thorough investigation. I think it ignorant that you say the Mueller report "found [nothing] damning." Whether you believe in the veracity of the claims or not, the Mueller report explicitly states that an organization based out of St. Petersburg created "a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States;" they also found extensive evidence that the Russian Government carried out "cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations." Additionally, "the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations— violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft."
I highly suggest reading through the document one more time (if you have read it at all). For starters, 'collusion' is not a legal term and not what the Mueller committee was investigating. What they were investigating was conspiracy to defraud the United States, to which they found numerous charges to bring forth to various individuals, six of which were connected directly to the Trump campaign. Regardless, I understand what you meant by 'no evidence of collusion,' and interpreted it as Trump was completely cleared, which was not the case. The report explicitly outlines that "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
The reasons that the Mueller report did not culminate in the ultimate liberal catharsis of courtroom indictments is that there is a lot of contention surrounding the limits of the Executive office as the head of the Department of Justice; the report outlines that it is not the Special Committees task to try any criminal activity, hence why Mueller handed off people like Manafort to seperate departments of the government. Trump was not tried by Mueller because the decision was not up to Mueller but up to Congress; as you are probably aware there is currently a great amount of contention between the House and the Senate, and impeachment is a very real possibility long after the Mueller investigation has concluded. I would hope you wouldn't think that these types of proceedings are easily wade through.
Once again Dece1t I would highly suggest reading the actual report; it is linked here for your convenience. You seem intelligent enough, though frankly I don't see much difference between you or Celticpride or Mikedawg in this manner. Read the primary source and not whatever talking point is uttered on Fox News and come up with your own opinion, but base it in fact and not media echolalia.
I actually did read the Mueller report, thank you very much, and certainly not from Fox. Pretty insulting to insinuate that I haven't. Yes, people were convicted, but many of them were perjury charges/campaign finance violations. Others, like Paul Manafort, yes were more serious charges, but none of them had to do directly with Trump is my point, and this is something that I have expressed to you a while back now. The Democrats tried to use the Mueller report as a means to undo 2016. This is also why I believe they're following through with this Ukraine bullshit, especially calling for an impeachment inquiry when the evidence wasn't even out yet (which we all know Trump released the next day). It does make all of this look incredibly politically motivated. I'm not gonna do a super massive reply because that was not the point of me posting here again in the first place. I'm addressing that it's pretty shitty Tulsi is accused of being a Russian hack. Granted I don't like very much of her policy if at all, let alone her foreign policy, but I damn well have enough respect for her to not go that low, especially on a US soldier. I'll at least reply to bits and pieces of this, or at least what I feel needs to be replied to.
I'll start with this, legally, that bold part especially, I found that to be an extremely poor statement on Mueller's part. Any legal prosecutor knows that it's based on evidence, no one is completely exonerated from any crime, but what he did was bad lighting. That's why you base your decision off of evidence, because many more times than not, we don't fully know what specifically happened with any given crime--we can only make do with what's available. Additionally, he had every right to recommend to Congress to prosecute this matter, he decided not to. Even there (side point), it is hard to obstruct what you didn't collude. I get people being concerned about him mouthing off about firing Mueller, for instance, yes that would be concerning. But that's the thing: all he did was mouth off, he never went through with it. Comey was a different story, there was legit reason to believe there was corruption and motive, and personally I think he did the right thing firing him.
Wikileaks was a part of this, but the Steele Dossier did jump start a lot of this, it's very very hard to deny that. It was used as backing for even looking into Trump. And yes, after the report came out it was revealed that the dossier was off of completely consequential evidence, and not only that, it was clearly politically motivated. Not to mention, Trump did not ask Wikileaks to leak the goods on Hillary's emails, he just accepted it when it came. The most that happened was he was given heads up on it. I want to make clear, I do not like that he didn't condemn that once so ever, but it is not criminal. Just dirty politics. I will comment though, there's substantial evidence that the DNC did this with Ukraine, so if you're gonna apply law equally, I find it rather hypocritical. The DNC and the Clinton campaign did ask Ukraine to find dirt on Trump prior to the 2016 election. Four US Democratic Senators later write to Ukraine threatening to withhold aid if they do not comply with the mueller probe. I wouldn't take so much issue if the scrutiny was applied equally. It's appearing like it is not.
If there was this massive social media campaign, why haven't we seen it all over the place? This "social media campaign" was pretty minimal. I will say, is it good? No it really isn't, heave my words on that, but my point is you can't use that as your clear-fire scapegoat to say that completely dissuaded the 2016 election results. Wikileaks on the other hand, yea that was pretty major. To play devil's advocate for a moment though, would it have been better to not know about her emails and the corruption behind that? It's similar to how that Hollywood access clip of Trump came out, damning him. Neither are good, once so ever. I didn't love either of the candidates in the 2016 election, and this was coming from a time when I was still admittedly liberal.
So on the whole, to use the Mueller report as a club against Trump (like you commented, how the media and the Democratic party ran with it), yes I do take issue with the amount of attention and money going towards it. We know now that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians, and it was nothing more than a rumor. All of this trouble could have been avoided. Like I mentioned above as well, it does look pretty suspicious now that this Ukraine impeachment bs is now the talk of the town to reverse 2016 (and I explained this more in detail in the first paragraph why I believe so). Especially when it's one after the other (aside from the fact that Dems didn't even want to vote on it to make it an "official" impeachment inquiry, despite labeling it as one, and the Ukraine situation running surprisingly similar to Mueller with how the goal-posts are still moving on what Trump did exactly that's impeachable), it does seem extremely politically motivated, and it's hurting the country. Our country is more divided than ever before, and the wounds will only be deeper if this continues. I'm pushing for unity and for actual policy to be discussed above all else, and as I said, the premise of my previous reply was in agreement that we should not be clubbing people as Russian hacks left and right.
I'm sorry you interpreted my post that way that wasn't my intention. My post is merely meant to be a synopsis to what I considered false points in your above post, and to perform as an expository piece to those interested. For the record, whether you have read it or not I still highly recommend multiple rereads (as I do myself when the time arises, as it did today).
I'm not really sure what you mean by these statements, or what, in particular, you are alluding to. The initial statement you made was "the Mueller report did not find anything damning" (paraphrased), to which I responded with the total charge count. I do not see why perjury charges / campaign finance violations are an exception to this, as you seem to indicate with your prepositional phrase 'but.' To go over all the charges real quick:
George Papadopoulos: perjury / obstruction (lying to FBI)
Paul Manafort: perjury, financial fraud, obstruction of justice (25 various counts were attributed to him alone)
Rick Gates: conspiracy and perjury
Michael Flynn: perjury / obstruction (lying to FBI)
13 Russian officials and 3 Russian companies: conspiracy to defraud the United States government, identity theft (charges related to the russian interference campaign)
Richard Pinedo: identity theft (in connection with Russian indictments)
Alex van der Zwaan: perjury / obstruction (lying to FBI)
Konstantin Kilimnik: witness tampering / obstruction
12 Russian GRU officers: election tampering and conspiracy to defraud the United States
Michael Cohen: tax fraud, campaign finance violations, perjury, obstruction
Roger Stone: perjury, obstruction, witness tampering
Sam Patten: not registering as a foreign agent (working with Ukraine)
Above I have highlighted the charges that fit what you just said, that "many of them were perjury charges/ campaign finance violations." Of the 34 indicted individuals, 7 have either perjury or campaign finance violations as an accused offense. Of these, the ones most notable would be Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, van der Zwaan, and Papadopoulos. only 4 individuals who did not have any other charges. I would say your statement is seemingly belittling those charges too; signifying that some of the charges were only perjury charges signifies that you think it is an alright offense. I for one think that lying to the American government during a committee investigating the President is malignant and criminal
I think this is true, and you are correct. While impartiality was exhibited by the Mueller team itself the process of investigation is indeed politically motivated; more accurately the process of investigation and the lens through which the public eye could view it was politically motivated, which resulted in slanted journalism. I too think that calling someone a Russian asset with little tangible evidence is problematic, and in large part is motivated by a grandiose conspiracy of the establishment Democrats to debase opinions they do not agree with, as mentioned in a post I made above responding to Celticpride. I do think that partial understandings of politically neutral events should be corrected as soon as possible, which is why I made the post above.
Well, whether you find it a poor statement or not isn't really your place to judge; as far as I know you are not a United States legal scholar or attorney at law; Moreover a crime committed in a traditional courtroom is not the same as high crimes as was investigated.
He did, this was what the Mueller hearing was meant to clarify after the report was released. They go into depth during that hearing and I recommend watching it or reading a transcript.
The first part of this point does not make sense; if I am a 'witness' in a crime and I give false evidence or make the job harder for the investigators, I am still obstructing justice whether I am the main target of the investigation, a side character, or even completely unrelated. If Trump and those charged did not have anything to hide, why did they lie to the FBI, why did Trump fire and threaten to fire publicly? If I was Trump, and I knew I was 100% innocent, then I would simply let the investigation pass and let it clear myself, rip to other presidents but I'm different.
As to your second point, it reeks of opportune bias so I am not touching that. If we cannot agree that a lifelong veteran and Republican appointed to the special counsel handled a sensitive matter as impartially as he did then we can agree on very little as we are based in different realities and viewpoints of the world. Agree to disagree.
Your initial statement was that "it was built upon a now-proven blatant and motivated lie via the Steele dossier." Your argument now is backtracked to saying that the Steele Dossier was only a supplementary piece to the investigation. If you wish to disagree with the very statements found verbatim within the report then I will ask for evidence to point towards how the Steele Dossier was the primary motivating force behind the investigation; additionally I would like a source that it is "a now-proven blatant...lie," as while there are certain allegations that the Mueller investigation chose to close, there are also several allegations that have been proven to be true. Here is the Steele Dossier, so you may educate me as to the extent of its falsehoods, as it is possible I am not aware.
To the claims that "The DNC and the Clinton campaign did ask Ukraine to find dirt on Trump prior to the 2016 election" I will respond with this politifact report, which states that the individual at the core of the issue "was not an opposition researcher and that the DNC never asked her to seek dirt from Ukraine." There is no primary source I can point to for this so I will write it off as a politically muddled act that neither side can have any clear consensus on (since it is entirely possible she is simply lying to protect her own skin as is the DNC campaign, and it is also entirely possible that the circumstances are expedient enough for Charlie Kirk to deflect and gaslight.
As to the claim of "Four US Democratic Senators later write to Ukraine threatening to withhold aid if they do not comply with the mueller probe" I will respond with this primary document (the alleged letter), in which you can read for yourself the language they use. You can also see that they don't "threaten" Ukraine, rather they point to a self-ascription that Ukraine is worried if it cooperates with the Mueller probe that military and financial aid will be withheld, an all too real concern in today's age. Rather than reading the letter to you I strongly suggest you read it yourself to gain your own perspective.
I'm not really sure how I am supposed to respond to this. Do you wish me to point to specific swathes of now deleted social media accounts? Skepticism is healthy, to a degree, but you are bordering on tin foil skepticism.
I didn't and I'm not sure how you could interpret my post that way. I thought I was fairly transparent on my own personal ideas about how I think the media tweaked the report to suit its own political interests. I am simply repeating the facts as laid out in the primary documents rather than pointing towards any news sources. I also never made any claims that we should ignore the 2016 election results based off of the Russian interference, more pointing out its mere existence which you seemed to be ignoring.
Well, no, again that isn't what the report or my post said. The Trump campaign includes his campaign managers and higher up aids, 6 of the 34 of which were directly connected to Trump. This does not necessarily mean Trump himself is guilty but to say that "the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians" is false, as several members did indeed collude. These are statements you can read for yourself in the report.
I am not touching the first half of this paragraph. As to the second half, I do agree the country is divided. Right now, just from this interaction, I see two realities of America: one in which reality is based on whatever is convenient for "the cause," which is based in unfounded skepticism (Dismissal of Mueller report entirely, misrepresentation of facts, skepticism of the veracity of politically neutral events, and adherence to circumstantial evidence to support beneficial claims like Tulsi or Biden or yes, even Trump), and another side that is concerned with the blithe reiteration of facts. You continue to inject your own brand of politics into this back and forth rather than addressing the arguments or statements made themselves. It would help clear my own mind and possibly to understand your view if you were to respond appropriately to the arguments laid out; as of now you have not really "debunked" anything except to accuse the Mueller probe of being a DNC hack, to which I personally see no evidence. I would be happy if you could enlighten me.
Sure, I'm down.
My point still holds up. Many were indicted over what were imo petty crimes, but, fair is fair. I did make it a point to say that some of these were more serious though, and I did explicitly say Manafort. I do acknowledge that both Cohen and Papadopolos were also serious. By no means was I belittling the charges, sorry if it sounded like I was going in that direction. I did make it a clear point, however, that Trump was not directly involved in any of this, which does hold true for the most part.
I'm happy to hear we found some common ground.
I'm sorry, that hearing was a failure, maybe a joke at best. Mueller was not with it that day once so ever, and he did not seem well informed on his own report at times. I did see the hearing, I wasn't impressed, and frankly I found no reason to hold it. Aside from that, that doesn't change that he could've recommended prosecution. He didn't, and that's pretty much how Bill Barr released it.
Touche I suppose. I would imagine though that bipartisan aid would be withheld if respect for "rule of law" is lost.
If that's the case, then why didn't Mueller recommend anything? He was much more shaky on obstruction, but collusion seemed pretty clear cut. Do I like what happened? No I really don't, I frankly do not like the dirty politics of it once so ever. But is it criminal? You said it yourself, collusion isn't a legal term. Even there, no, Trump was not directly connected, it's hard to indict him directly. Even there, like I said, Democrats did the same thing to get dirt on Paul Manafort. I don't like that either, but I acknowledge it's not criminal. Also, are you entirely sure about all of that? This states that Mueller believed otherwise.
I get not touching the first half, that's fine. I'm just stating that it is kind of suspicious, take it or leave it. I didn't say the Mueller Report itself was a DNC hack, however it's hard to deny that Democrats (and as we both agreed, the media), did try to weaponize it. A lot of the Russian interference, mind you, was during the Obama administration remember. This article clears up best as to why I'm stressing the Steele Dossier so much. I do have reason to believe that the investigation was started on a partisan basis, even if it was not maintained as so during 2017-2019.
I have a feeling you're the type of person who thinks American security/foreign services are supposed to go Jason Bourne or whatever when a foreign asset assumes the presidency., and you're still trying to equate Trump and Gabbard's actions to Clinton not single-handedly destroying decades long standing diplomatic relationships with arbitrary dictators. Seriously, you're more focused on someone that hasn't been politically relevant for three years than Gabbard freaking out over Clinton talking about an unnamed Democrat that's a Russian asset
Pete never disappeared. If Biden wasn't Obama's VP and had his policies directly lined up against Pete's, I think you'd see more support in the polls for Buttigieg. As candidates like Warren and Bernie continue to go after Biden, you are going to Biden supporters look at alternatives, which in their case puts Pete as one of the most appealing. I have, and will continue to believe, that Buttigieg would be an excellent VP pick, as would someone like Beto, running alongside a progressive like Warren or Bernie. Both would help them considerably in the mid-west.
His support was down for a while after what I'm guessing is Warren took some of his supporters into her base. But now he is spending mad money on trying to be relevant again and his support is going up to the levels it had previously
Also right now the data for Biden voter second picks shows Warren and Bernie as the top second picks, so idk about too much of his support going to Butiigieg. Especially combined with the fact that Biden's base seems to largely be older voters, older black voters, and low educated people. Buttigieg's coalition is more elite and white and educated. So like, opposite bases despite both being
Also correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Bernie and Warren leading the pack in terms of donors and grassroots support from the midwest? It's been a while since I checked that.
I mean, ultimately the point of fundraising is to get your name out there, and so his surge is directly related to the amount of money he's receiving.
He's currently destroying Biden in donations from SV
His support is increasing in key states like Iowa, which Biden previously dominated
Biden is down 6 points in SC while Warren and Pete are up 2 and 4 since August, respectively
His centrist ideologies and messaging liken him to the Obama's of the world
You are right, though, with Biden having strong support among black votes while Pete has almost nothing there. I'm ultimately viewing the two as a candidate for the middle-class white voter in the mid-west that overwhelming voted Trump in 2016. Both of those groups are going to gravitate towards someone like Biden if they're unhappy with Trump, particularly because that same group voted Obama in 08/12. However, if Biden starts to face fierce competition like we're currently seeing, those middle-class white voters are unlikely to move towards a far-left candidate and instead choose the closest alternative.
Last edited:
Silicon Valley is such a small slice of the American electorate though. I mean, Buttigieg is basically "elite donors, the candidate" which explains why he has such a huge amount of money while polling so low compared to the top 3 candidates, and SV is full of rich folks.
Iowa he's doing pretty decently now yeah. He's spending bookoo bucks there and I hear his ground game is really comprehensive. One thing to note from the poll you linked is Kamala Harris's fall- Biden slipped a lot but Kamala really dropped into obscurity there. I'm wondering if he received the votes from Biden or if he received the votes from Kamala. Or maybe a little of both. If it's mostly from previous Biden supporters that's I think more promising for him as there's more to be taken. But since Kamala's coalition and his are more similar than Biden's and his, I don't know if that's the case. We'll have to see moving forward what the trends look like but he's def on the up in Iowa especially.
Warren is getting more of the black women vote gradually, but I'm not sure who Pete is getting in SC. As of right now his black base is at like 1% or something which is abysmal so I think SC is not going to be possible for him at all unless he somehow pulls an Obama and wins Iowa and even then black voters just seem not to resonate with him. Plus there's the subpoena he might be getting over the case of him firing the first black police chief in South Bend which is def not a good look for him.
He's def centrist, but Biden's base I am not sure if they are all-in on him for the centrism or if it's because of his association with Obama and name recognition/trust in him. Like all things, it's prob a mix of both but still, him not being the second choice for a lot of Biden voters doesn't suggest he'll overtake Warren for example if Biden falls. At least at this point.
The most interesting thing is that of all the candidates, the two with over 10% support of Obama/Trump voters are Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang. So I'm wondering really if an Obama/Trump voter would go to Buttigieg. I'm just not seeing it. Remember Trump ran against his party on a populist message so a lot of his support came from people sick of the "same ol same ol" which Biden and Buttigieg represent.
But who knows. You're right to say Buttigieg is doing well in Iowa because he seems to be banking on a strong showing there to kinda set the mold for the rest. He's going super aggro on Iowa right now in his campaigning. Right now I'm predicting Warren clinching Iowa but I can still see it changing.
As for Pete for VP... I'm unsure if that'll happen. Bernie has already come out and said his VP would be a younger woman of color. Biden/Warren I don't know if they've said anything but I really don't see Warren picking a white guy as her running mate. She was criticized a lot for having a white coalition in the beginning (although that's changing and her coalition is becoming more diverse as time goes on). And Biden picking Pete would be really dumb imo, no diversity there- two white guy centrists. I think he's gonna go with Abrams if he makes it. And remember they're vs. Trump so pitting two white folks again Trump? Idk sounds unlikely to me.
He's not out of the race by any means especially cuz he's raised a ton of money, I just really don't like Pete Buttigieg so I want him to go away lmao.
...what a surprise. After starting off with such a promising field, once again, the only reasonable political position is #BernieorBust
so disappointed, Yang, Tulsi, Warren.
Updated list:
1. Bernie Sanders
—————————
2. No.
#PierreDelecto2020
RODAN
Banned deucer.
i just feel like ppl who still go on about warren have a problem, post progressive-bloc endorsements of Sanders, when they assert 'she made a plan for everything', 'she did her homework', etc. like yt ladies plz, poc also make plans. you shud learn about basic tactics for executing institutional change such as the inside-outside strategy, and think about how that type of solidarity relates to progressive politicians such as AOC, Ilhan Omar, and others who are trying to execute institutional demands while actually being accountable to say, ppl besides rich white bougie ppl that pay 1$ for subscriptions to WaPo and Nytimes. my thoughts on warren support currently, don't be dicks to warren supporters if you decide to borrow this take.
Last edited: