The Swamp

Everything is a purity test and you're always going to fail unless you're a True Believer. It's almost every bit as much of a cult as Trumpism.

NO ITS NOT BECAUSE IF BERNIE FLIPPED ON M4A LIKE MAYOR PETE OR WARREN HIS BASE WOULD ABANDON HIM THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:38 pm NO ITS NOT BECAUSE IF BERNIE FLIPPED ON M4A LIKE MAYOR PETE OR WARREN HIS BASE WOULD ABANDON HIM THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT

Would they?

I quit.

(Don't worry, its like you quit on the Lions. We'll keep doing this forever.)

Keep on pretending like you're above ad hominem attacks though. That was a fun 15 minutes.

Giff wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:12 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:09 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:52 pm I don't know, Brian? How much is just the right amount of harassment online for liking a different hockey team? Every large group has a segment of shit at the bottom, not every large group gets defined by that segment.

I am being harassed online by 100% of the Astros fans I know for being a grizzlies fan.

Dayum, TT. BURN.

I thought he was only a Texans fan...he got his own thread and what not.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:44 pm Keep on pretending like you're above ad hominem attacks though. That was a fun 15 minutes.

I’m not the one whining about them. This is exhausting.

YOU'RE the one trying to say Bernie fans like you get a bad rap.

So, OK, that's honestly a pretty fair take, it's at least defensible. But don't go proving the point just because I'm pointing out how a lot of people feel about his supporters. It's NOT just me and I think you know that.

And really, believe it or not, I don't want to belabor the point, but all I'm asking for is for Bernie to address his supporters -- especially if he wins most of the upcoming primaries and really does become the presumptive nominee - and express in very general terms the importance of making sure his coalition is as broad as possible.

If he doesn't, it's going to bite him (and more importantly the country) in the end I believe.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:16 pm is the app good to go in Nevada or will there be more problems?

Looks like they announced the plan today.

This all seems fine in theory. There aren't that many caucus locations either for early voting or on caucus day, so as long as the people running stuff aren't idiots should go OK.

Culinary endorsement is...no endorsement:



Looks like Hillary wasn't able to pull the strings of the Culinary on this day.

#KellyTaylor’d

Time to cancel AOC for essentially signing off on Warren and Mayor Pete's plan.

I said almost the same thing as AOC in this thread two weeks ago:

I think it’s fair to say that the GOP will vigorously oppose any Democratic proposals on health care. So rather than pre-comprise, I’d rather see the Dems stake out a very aggressive starting point. No reason for them to negotiate against themselves. And at this point there’s really no empirical evidence that a watered down proposal is necessary to be competitive in the general election.

The whole point though is that the GOP will viciously attack any Democrat’s proposal so if you compromise on the front-end you’ll get nothing. That much should be abundantly obvious after the Obama presidency. That’s why AOC talked about a public option as the result of a “deep compromise” rather than the opening offer.

You still have to win the presidency. You cant stake out a starting point so aggressive that it is off the playing surface.

Pretty strong data point here against the oft-repeated notion that Sanders has lost support since 2016.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:33 pm Tanden is vocally pro-Bloomberg and was outraged by the booing, where's the issue with Geier's comp?

Apparently Tanden is not only pro-Bloomberg, she gives him editorial veto power over CAP publications. Can’t believe Bernie Bros are so skeptical of CAP concern trolling about how mean they are.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:52 pm Pretty strong data point here against the oft-repeated notion that Sanders has lost support since 2016.

Dude, it's stuff like this that makes people believe that Sanders-ism is basically a religion.

Sanders got 152,000 votes in the New Hampshire Primary in 2016. He got 76,000 votes in the New Hampshire Primary in 2020. It's not a "notion" that he's lost support.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:41 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:52 pm Pretty strong data point here against the oft-repeated notion that Sanders has lost support since 2016.

Dude, it's stuff like this that makes people believe that Sanders-ism is basically a religion.

Sanders got 152,000 votes in the New Hampshire Primary in 2016. He got 76,000 votes in the New Hampshire Primary in 2020. It's not a "notion" that he's lost support.

Steve, how do you factor in the difference in the number of viable candidates between 2016 and 2020? Or is the fact that fewer people voted for him in 2020 is the only relevant part?

Mr. D already nailed it.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:23 am "Michael Jordan was voted more popular than LeBron James head to head 57% to 43% but then when we asked "who is your favorite basketball player of all-time" Jordan's share plummeted to a (still first place) 27%. The people truly hate Michael Jordan these days and clearly prefer one of the players with a lower percentage than him."

And if Sanders had lost popularity like Steve assumes, wouldn’t someone — anyone — be beating him head-to-head in that poll I linked?

ETA: This is a different poll BTW:

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:00 pm Mr. D already nailed it.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:23 am "Michael Jordan was voted more popular than LeBron James head to head 57% to 43% but then when we asked "who is your favorite basketball player of all-time" Jordan's share plummeted to a (still first place) 27%. The people truly hate Michael Jordan these days and clearly prefer one of the players with a lower percentage than him."

And if Sanders had lost popularity like Steve assumes, wouldn’t someone — anyone — be beating him head-to-head in that poll I linked?

If half the people who voted for you before chose someone else this time, you lost support. Tens of thousands of NH voters found someone else to prefer. Similar story in Iowa. It’s just math.

The only other way to look at it, is that a big chunk of his 2016 voters didn’t “support” him then, they just supported an alternative to Hillary. If that’s the case, then perhaps he didn’t lose support. But I’m not sure how much that helps.

And I don’t see how results of a series of head to head polls in 2020 has no bearing on whether his support today is less than, equal to, or greater than his support in 2016. To me it seems like a non-sequitur.

He does seem to have more support than any other individual candidate. That and those head to head results bode well for his chances in 2020. He very well could gain support as others drop out. So obviously he certainly can win the nomination. But so far his support, either in raw numbers or percentage of the electorate, is lower than it was in 2016.

Am I ageist to marvel at the fact - and not in a positive way - that 4 of the top 6 Democratic contenders are over 70 (and 3 are WAY over 70)?

I know Bernie has big support amongst the youngsters, but it really is strange. I mean Reagan was just shy of 70 when he was elected and that was pretty damn old. And when he left office he was younger than Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg will be on election day.

Part of the way the Democrats are fucking things up so badly.

The oldest guy has the youngest support and the youngest guy has the oldest support.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:44 pm Part of the way the Democrats are fucking things up so badly.

I really think that running Hillary in 2016 f'd things up. With Biden out, it should have been a whole bunch of young guns making a name for themselves.

Bernie win W&L's Mock Convention. Since 1948 W&L has only been wrong 2 times. The school puts on a big one for the out of office party each 4 years ( I represented Idaho in 96). The students who are involved research the shitn out of this.

Bring in great speakers. I missed most of it for lacrosse but did see some of the speakers. This year Trevor Noah was in town. In 92 Clinton brought his sax to a party on campus.

It was her time.

I feel like this is a big deal, but there will be people calling bullshit on it. Regardless, shotgun the truth out there over and over.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:44 pm Am I ageist to marvel at the fact - and not in a positive way - that 4 of the top 6 Democratic contenders are over 70 (and 3 are WAY over 70)?

I know Bernie has big support amongst the youngsters, but it really is strange. I mean Reagan was just shy of 70 when he was elected and that was pretty damn old. And when he left office he was younger than Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg will be on election day.

Part of the way the Democrats are fucking things up so badly.

Sometimes the grandparent of the household is better than all the aunts and uncles. All the cousins know better.

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:07 am

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:44 pm Part of the way the Democrats are fucking things up so badly.

I really think that running Hillary in 2016 f'd things up. With Biden out, it should have been a whole bunch of young guns making a name for themselves.

If you look at who else from the younger generation ran and flamed out (Harris, Booker, Castro, O’Rourke and Gillibrand), I think it’s a combination of (1) the candidates not having been very consistent throughout their careers on policy issues and thus not being able to articulate a clear theme for their candidacy and (2) at least in some cases voters being afraid to run a black/Latino candidate against Trump. To the second factor, YMMV, but I thought Castro was a pretty solid candidate who should’ve had a lot more support than he did.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 am I feel like this is a big deal, but there will be people calling bullshit on it. Regardless, shotgun the truth out there over and over.

I can't access the article itself ... do you know if those comparisons are to our present system? Or one of the other options for universal coverage?

Joe K wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:01 am

Rush2112 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:07 am

Pruitt wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:44 pm Part of the way the Democrats are fucking things up so badly.

I really think that running Hillary in 2016 f'd things up. With Biden out, it should have been a whole bunch of young guns making a name for themselves.

If you look at who else from the younger generation ran and flamed out (Harris, Booker, Castro, O’Rourke and Gillibrand), I think it’s a combination of (1) the candidates not having been very consistent throughout their careers on policy issues and thus not being able to articulate a clear theme for their candidacy and (2) at least in some cases voters being afraid to run a black/Latino candidate against Trump. To the second factor, YMMV, but I thought Castro was a pretty solid candidate who should’ve had a lot more support than he did.

I just wonder if folks like Castro or Harris had just sat quietly for the past several months like Klobuchar did, they'd still be in the race. Having a year-long campaign before the primaries start is so fucked up. And of course Biden thinking "only I can fix it" left little room for the liberal/moderate hybrids like Harris and Booker.

How did Pete navigate this successfully compared to the other yoots?

degenerasian wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:19 am How did Pete navigate this successfully compared to the other yoots?

By being a generic centrist.

Oh, and being a white male certainly helped.

Have to have money to be able to sit quietly.

I don't want to pay for that Lancet article either. I think universal health care is the way to go and I definitely believe it will save a lot of money and lives. But 68K lives per year? That seems WAY too high. How is that even possible?