please mister deceit i am just trying to have some rational debate. are you scared of facts and logic??
-
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
Honest to God you are a major hypocrite lmao
Last edited:
What's on track is the RCP average's new #1 in Iowa AND New Hampshire is continuing the campaign of laying down the smack down on Joe Biden with Foreign Policy as the lead in on mainstream media. He's going after the Biden audience on Biden's electability.
I mean as awful as this war with Iran is, you can't help but notice bitter-sweetly that this is doing amazing things for the Sanders campaign-- allowing to underline Biden's awful record/message, Trump shooting his own favorability, and Bernie taking the lead in real legislative action.
Also Vox accidentally posted the logic to get Wine Moms onboard with the Bern-- "Don't worry about his Revolution talk, Sanders is a seasoned, pragmatic, reasonable legislator who can unite the party, keep Progressives happy even when progressive legislation fails, and has a strong electability case and track record of winning."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/7/21002895/bernie-sanders-2020-electability
So...Yang. How do you guys see him faring? He seems to be the only candidate that Republicans dont seem to dislike that much.
You don't see Republicans talking about Yang because Yang doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell at securing the nomination; Yang didn't even qualify for the next debate. And in any case, how likable a candidate is to Republicans is completely irrelevant to their odds of winning against Trump; presidential job approval ratings in the modern age are highly partisan, with Gallup's polling giving Trump a job approval typically in the 85 to 90 percent range among Republicans and 5 to 10 percent range among Democrats.
So, given this, if you ask Republicans which candidate they like the most, they'll say Joe Biden - because Trump can beat him. We're seeing Trump relentlessly attacking Bernie Sanders because he's afraid of Bernie Sanders. He isn't afraid of Biden.
Anyway, in any case, I find it upsetting that we're a few weeks away from the Iowa caucuses and we still haven't seen one of either Sanders or Warren drop out of the race. It's becoming increasingly clear that it's just causing the progressive vote to split, which isn't good for anyone but Biden (and, therefore, as discussed before, Trump)
Well, we might be on the real precipice of this rodeo, with Politico and CNN's absurd articles coming out, and #RefundWarren trending on Twitter.
To Zoroark or all others-- thoughts on this online drama? For those who don't know:
-An account with only 1 previous post posted in the Bernie Sander's Volunteer Slack posts the suggestion to use the following script: “I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]” the script begins. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.”
-Mods in the Slack delete the post promptly and inform the user that the campaign does not allow volunteers to use negative contrasts with other candidates.
-Politico picks up on the post, and writes an article describing the script as one Bernie is having his volunteers use against Warren: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594
-Asked for comment, Warren says she's disappointed with Bernie, and that Democrats need a candidate that can unify and avoid the factionalization of 2016:
-Neera Tanden/Hillary Crowd cheers Warren's version of the unity message and booms on Twitter
-Progressive outrage at Warren and #RefundWarren booms on Twitter too, with folks asking Warren for their donations back
-CNN also alleges that Bernie told Warren before the campaign that he thought a Woman couldn't win the Presidency (nevermind that he... you know, was begging Warren to run and challenge Hillary in 2016...)
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html
So it's getting ugly, right before the next debate. It might allow the two progressives to start swinging. Bernie will not go after Warren, but she and all the other candidates will be highly incentivized in going after him with the polls as they are. This is actually good for Bernie, and I think the other candidates have largely avoided taking him head on because they know he's much much better at counter-punching than going after others proactively. For Warren and all others, trying to attack Bernie in the debate comes with real risk.
My opinion is that besides being stupid, ridiculous, and obviously cooked up by enemies of both progressive campaigns, this is potentially not good for Bernie, but really not good for Warren.
The progressive voters that she may be competing for Bernie with, will read the fine print, see the details, trust Indie media more than MSM. Progressives have had issue with the campaign over Medicare for All, this spat will not put them on her side-- though with AOC, Ilhan, Talib, and the bulk of environmental groups and progressive groups including Sunrise endorsing Bernie already, perhaps the progressive ship had already sailed as far as Warren's team was concerned. It may cost her a Sander's VP spot though.
On the other hand, this obviously curies more favor with the liberal party-faithful and woke-faithful-- Hillbots & disaffected Harris supporters (who Warren was already popular with). Obama backing Warren in the background, endorsement by Castro, and maybe endorsement by Booker and/or Harris too might turn Warren's support with them from 30% enthusiasm to 50-70%... but it's not a winning coalition when Biden especially still commands so much support from the establishment/party faithful and competition from Buttegieg/Bloomberg. And none of this, not the victim narrative nor the voters she can win help her with the #1 issue of the campaign, the #1 issue of HER campaign-- electability.
I foresee Liz staying in the early states, but depending on the results there, no telling how it'll go from there.
Last edited:
It seems strange that the Warren campaign thought this attack on Bernie Sanders would stick, given that it's at odds with the fact that he's been saying the opposite since before much of today's electorate was even born - and while Warren was a Republican, mind you. In any case, this can only do bad things for Warren's campaign; ActBlue is reporting more refund requests than normal, and with the fact that #RefundWarren was trending showing that the refund requests are coming from people who donated to Warren, it's clear that people aren't buying it.
In the long run, I think this will make Warren have to drop out sooner than she would have had to otherwise - which would put an end to the vote splitting caused by having multiple progressive voices in this race. She's also managed to cost herself a chance at being his running mate; at this point, I would expect to see a Sanders/Yang or Sanders/Gabbard ticket as opposed to a Sanders/Warren ticket.
Agreed. I was in the camp of looking to Warren for VP over Tulsi because of just how low her favorability with Dems is. That said, she played this Emmaculately
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786
DES MOINES, Iowa — The controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.
You're spreading literal fake news
Who are the 3 officials and where is the quote? Politico's article is missing key info, and they've been bad actors now and this whole campaign.
The sad thing is that even if the script was real, it's pointing at real differences between the campaign that are related to the candidates' comparable electability-- and the demographic differences pointed to in the script were facts that Politico itself reported on in polling data. (So even if the script is real, it's more of a reflection on the framing of Politico/victim attitude of Warren campaign than on the Sander's campaign).
And the CNN issue is where the real problem lies-- since Warren maneuvered to make this a direct contest of Trust between the two. That is not going away.
Given that Politico got hit with allegations of anti-Semitism regarding their coverage of Bernie Sanders earlier in the campaign, I’d certainly take anything they say about Sanders with a grain of salt. And in any case, giving them the benefit of the doubt - candidates make arguments to vote for them and not their opponents. What else is new?
there is some serious moving the goalposts, strawmans, and other issues in the two above posts lmao
You come across as equally blinded in your support of a candidate as the supporters of a certain other 2020 candidate who must not be named.
You come across as equally blinded in your support of a candidate as the supporters of a certain other 2020 candidate who must not be named.
The bit on Politico's anti-Semitism isn't much of a debate if you actually look into the matter; it's hardly an issue of blind loyalty. Non-independent media (aka the vast majority of outlets) bias against Sanders is one of the most persistent trends (a & b) to emerge from coverage of the past two presidential election cycles, and it's not particularly hard to understand why mass media chooses the overly adversarial angle with regards to Bernard: non-independent media is beholden to their advertisers; their advertisers do not want their precious undertaxed (or completely untaxed) profit margins to go into anything other than stock buybacks and padded executive bonuses; non-independent media does not want to estrange their sugar daddies by giving an earnest soc dem earnest coverage. Think of the idea behind the adage "don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Additionally, the parallel you're (implicitly) drawing between Sanders and Trump relies on the (false) assertion that the two have comparable ideological consistency; without control for that variable, you cannot determine whether (perceived) loyalty to the candidate is actually loyalty to ideas/substantive policy or attraction to a cult of personality. Spoilers---Sanders' ideological consistency is a stark contrast to Trump's complete lack of a coherent ideology or guiding principles---between Trump 180-ing on the matter of outsourcing, backtracking on his non-interventionist talk on the campaign trail (honestly I could link a million different things here, but this doesn't get talked about enough---the assassination of Soleimani is a super recent example), railing against the corruption of the corrupt swamp that is the Washington establishment only to become the swamp himself, and a million other things, it's quite clear that Trump's only genuine interest was winning the most powerful office in the world.
If you were a Trump supporter in 2016 and are still one in 2020, you are either
a) borderline apolitical and lack the frame of reference to make meaningful, well-informed judgements,
b) rich and like trillion dollar tax break giveaways above all else,
c) so hung up on xenophobia and/or racism that you're willing to blatantly vote against your own interest (or you are caught up by another no-budge kind of issue that the Republican establishment preys on),
d) or compelled by the cult of personality Trump has cultivated (sort of a key part of the whole strongman thing so who is surprised this has traction?)
Sanders has not had a remotely comparable ideological dissonance between his 2016 endeavors and now... or 1990 and now... or the 1970s and now. It is unreasonable to suggest that someone consistently loyal to a vision of social democracy and libertarian-left principles cultivated support purely for his superficial qualities; it especially doesn't make sense when you consider that the dude won't shut up about substantive policy, like, ever. What does he even have to offer outside of policy?
None of this is to say that ideological consistency is the single most vital component in a candidate (at least to me---current policy platform is king), but it is hard to buy changes of heart (like Trump's) when they very conveniently align with establishment interests. Warren was a Republican until the 90s, but that's at most fifth on my list of criticisms of her as a candidate. Gabbard had pretty conservative social views due to her upbringing when she was much younger. You don't have to lock in your political alignment at age 20, but if there's an obvious money trail behind your change in perspective, there is likely no genuine change in principle or view.
The bottom line is that one of these candidates is calling the other a liar and a sexist, the other has not levied any charges.
The bottom line is that even if both sides say they want de-escalation, one side has been reactive, the other has actively maneuvered herself into a conflict from which the other side has no ability to de-escalate.
Bernie cannot step down from or compromise on having been called a liar and a sexist.
Warren brought things to this destination knowing that. This is a situation entirely created by the media, and by Warren; at no point did Sanders have an option to do anything but what he did. Warren could have forwarded her campaign with or without driving this conflict with Sanders-- she chose this fight.
The bottom line is that even if both sides say they want de-escalation, one side has been reactive, the other has actively maneuvered herself into a conflict from which the other side has no ability to de-escalate.
Bernie cannot step down from or compromise on having been called a liar and a sexist.
Warren brought things to this destination knowing that. This is a situation entirely created by the media, and by Warren; at no point did Sanders have an option to do anything but what he did. Warren could have forwarded her campaign with or without driving this conflict with Sanders-- she chose this fight.
Bernie’s campaign thanking supporters for 1.7 million dollars from 100k donations— biggest 24h haul ever
You really shouldn't sound so proud when announcing your candidate earned a ton of money after being accused of sexism, even if you do not believe these accusations...
Bernie Sanders loves war actually. Super duper wants to bomb every country. Any one who likes him after this should be ashamed of themselves. All the money he earns is tainted now.
It's not just that the accusations are unbelievable its that they are diametrically opposed to everything Sanders has said for decades.
It's not just that the accusations are unbelievable its that they are diametrically opposed to everything Sanders has said for decades.
it's pretty obvious that the sexism accusations are an attempt to do what the british press and political establishment did to corbyn. it's a known fact that sanders's progressive policies are popular so it's hard to discredit him based on those, so instead the purity of his character is called into question. the thing with accusations of sexism (or any other type of discrimination that is generally condemned by the general population) is that even if theyre not based on any serious evidence and pretty obviously made for political reasons, many people who consider themselves progressive are compelled to at least treat such accusations seriously because dismissing concerns over misogyny offhand is what you might call "a bad look." what you saw in the UK is that Labour was so preoccupied with the antisemitism accusations and questions over corbyn's leadership, that Labour never managed to make the elections about their policies. it's not unlikely that sanders will end up in a similar position, constantly having to defend himself from flimsy accusations which, even if they don't convince people that he's a sexist, will at least prevent him from talking about the issues that make people actually want to vote for him. in a country where a large part of the population knows very little about politics, simply preventing people from knowing bernie's platform is vastly more destructive than directly attacking his platform.
Actually, you're completely wrong about this. For starters, 78% of all US workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck, 58% of all Americans have less than $1000 in savings and the average US household is in $137,063 of debt. Most people know first-hand that things are pretty damn bad right now. The cost of living is insane, house prices are insane, college tuition is insane, and the list goes on. You can't lie to people about this, because they are living it.
As zf pointed out to you, just because "the economy" is "doing well" doesn't mean that the majority of workers within that economic system are doing well. The fact of the matter is that under capitalism, the majority of people work their asses off to make a small percentage of people at the top rich. Wealth accumulates at the top while the bread crumbs are fought over at the bottom. This is becoming more and more obvious to everyone by the day.
That's why Bernie Sanders has become incredibly popular, because he's the only candidate who's challenging this rotten system that keeps us all down.
The government is not the workers. People want to keep their individual wealth without it being taxed to living shit on subsidized and inefficient programs. Marxism has failed in every single country its been tried, because it turns into a new government centralizing control over people and everyone under it going into poverty. Few conservatives agree with a centralized government, they believe in as little government as possible in a majority of cases.tfw ur worldview is so fragile that u have to ironic laughing react a post that is essentially just reporting economic indicators
You're also one to tout about the "bad" state of the economy when the unemployment rate is at its lowest across the board, and the economy is doing so good even Taco Bell is paying managers six figure salaries. You can only go so far about how people are paycheck to paycheck, yes there are jobs with minimal requirements that don't pay a lot (that's why they're called entry level), how about the amount of people lifted out of poverty? Ever consider that?
You know you have a fragile world view when you ignore everything else good around you lmao. Im only laughing because Im not taking what youre saying seriously, this is practically a comedy club.
Last edited:
Could it be? That there's more at stake than "having a job"? I don't know why it's an obsession of conservative economics to think that business owners magically create jobs that improve everyone's life. I can give you a job right now to shovel pig dung for minimum wage, would u be happy that you have a job?
Inflation exists, cost of healthcare rises every year (and don't try to blame this on Obamacare lol, prices have been rising since forever https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ivately-insured-than-for-medicare-or-medicaid), housing prices rise every year, cost of renting an apartment rises evey year, isn't it cool how every 20 years money becomes half as valuable yet the purchasing power of the holy minimum wage has never increased in 40 years?
ever consider how statistically upward economic mobility in america is dead? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparna...her-metric-of-economic-mobility/#1eaf9a246a7b http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/abs_mobility_summary.pdf), and workers have not enjoyed the benefits of massively increased economic output in the last 50 years? https://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/11/...productivity-and-real-hourly-wages-1964-2008/
Oh but of course EVEN the poor can afford luxuries like refridgerators and smartphones. Truly we are reaching utopia.
Myzo: a small portion of the country is taking the money from the working class
You:
This is like the 5th time people have tried to tell you that life aint so great for a lot of ppl and continuously all you ever do is say BUT THEY GOT JOBS!! When it doesn't matter dude