The Swamp

Yeah, there should be a delineation between “other candidate” and “wouldn’t vote” there.

Deleted

Fucking infuriating.

I've been saying this dude is nothing more than a damn diet Republican this entire time:

Sorry for the duplicate post.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:54 am Fucking infuriating.

I've been saying this dude is nothing more than a damn diet Republican this entire time:

Biden is probably just posturing but a GOP Congress would impeach him so fast if he actually did that and got elected.

On another note, here's a thing that's happening today... It's been over a month and a half since any early-state Democratic Primary poll that matters has been released. Obviously, those polls are important because they're what determines whether you qualify for the debate stage. Because of the lack of polls, Booker, Yang and Steyer have essentially no chance to be in the next debate. They're basically shrinking the stage by just not giving them a chance to qualify.

The other part of it that's obviously corrupt is that for every other debate until the January one, the polling time period has started the day after the prior debate. This time, it was backdated a few days before the debate, so that two polls would be counted that would allow Amy Klobuchar to qualify for January.

I had thought that the DNC had learned their lesson after putting their thumb on the scales last time around, but apparently not.

Hard to work up a lot of sympathy for the candidates consistently polling under 5 percent especially when you consider the DNC has literally almost zero control over when these independent polls are conducted.

imagine the accusations of conspiracy/corruption if the DNC conducted its own polling

Are you sure? Can the DNC commission more polls? These candidates feel they have improved since November.

I agree with you that there isn't much sympathy but could the optics look bad?

every candidate feels like he/she has improved

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:22 pm every candidate feels like he/she has improved

I feel like I’ve improved since November, too. If only there were polls to confirm it...

you're always within the margin for error though

Nice.

Still a ways to go before any votes are counted, but it's pretty clear that Sanders has significant polling and fundraising momentum. The AOC endorsement helped a lot, and Warren also made a significant mistake by diluting her own support for M4A. It's pretty clear that Warren's team advised her to be more like a conventional Democrat after she started getting targeted by Pete and Biden, but the whole reason people liked her so much in the first place is that she isn't a conventional Democrat.

Yup. I’m sure history here will show I thought Warren running Bernie’s platform was the best bet but I’m out on that. Bernie running Bernie or bust.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:20 am Yup. I’m sure history here will show I thought Warren running Bernie’s platform was the best bet but I’m out on that. Bernie running Bernie or bust.

By the admittedly low standards of the last 50 years of American history, I think Warren would be a very good President. Certainly better than Biden or Buttigieg. I just think Bernie is more committed to transformational change, is significantly better on foreign policy, and is a stronger candidate for the general election (barring any further health issues). But I will happily vote for Warren if Bernie slips before the Missouri primary and the realistic alternatives are Biden and Buttigieg (or worse yet, Bloomberg).

I wouldn't put too much stock in this Warren/Sanders kerfuffle today. I'm more convinced than ever that if Biden wins Iowa and Sanders wins NH, which is a real possibility right now, that Warren will pull out and endorse Sanders by the end of February (depending on how she does in NV and SC).

Obviously there's a lot of moving pieces, but I believe the two genuinely like each other and mostly support each other's policies and neither is going to allow an obviously impossible path to the nomination to drag on any longer than necessary.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:40 pm ...neither is going to allow an obviously impossible path to the nomination to drag on any longer than necessary.

I disagree with this. Barring health issues, I don't see Bernie dropping out before the Convention. He rode all the way last time when the math had long since been figured out. I assume he will be doubly determined this time especially if Biden becomes presumptive nominee. This is likely his last shot at the Presidency and he will have to be dragged off the stage.

Rams Fanny wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:02 pm

brian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:40 pm ...neither is going to allow an obviously impossible path to the nomination to drag on any longer than necessary.

I disagree with this. Barring health issues, I don't see Bernie dropping out before the Convention. He rode all the way last time when the math had long since been figured out. I assume he will be doubly determined this time especially if Biden becomes presumptive nominee. This is likely his last shot at the Presidency and he will have to be dragged off the stage.

I think it'll be different just because there was only Clinton last time and he wanted to push the platform at the convention as far left as possible. (I personally think he could have signaled that a little better, but nevertheless...)

But in a scenario where Warren has a surprise win in Iowa or NH and then say wins Nevada and Biden wins SC (the latter of which seems especially likely), then Sanders could decide to make sure Warren gets the nomination over Biden.

Of course, all that said it's all speculation based on zero information at this point. None of this means anything until Iowa.

CNN trying to pit Sanders against Warren? No way! They are the paragon of journalistic integrity. And right before a debate hosted by CNN. Huh. Weird.

Seriously, they wanted Trump to be president. And every time Trump says "CNN is fake news" Jeff Zucker cums in his pants.

The Bloomberg campaign's twitter feed is trying to be ironic, cool and funny.

https://twitter.com/mike2020?lang=en



I find it irritating as hell.

Your Jeopardy bro agrees?

From the NY Post:

After the tweet storm, Bloomberg tweeted a serious message to Democrats and President Trump, arguing the election will be won in battleground states carried by Trump in 2016 like Wisconsin.

“Now that my team @mike2020 has your attention, I think it’s important that you see what @realDonaldTrump said to voters in Wisconsin tonight. Battleground states like Wisconsin will decide the 2020 election. This is not a joke,” the former mayor wrote.

This Slate article pisses me off. I want CNN to burn along with Fox News so bad right now.

The Night the Media Realized Bernie Could Win

I cannot fucking wait to vote for Bernie in the primary for NM in June.

Ratings Johnnie. Ratings. US has no news. It really is fake news.

I'm fortunate to be able to watch CBC and CTV and it is mileage ahead.

The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

But it didn't help that Warren didn't shake his hand yesterday. That just fueled it more unless you think that's being manufactured as well.

What's even better is his presumed logic, that a woman would have a tougher time against Trump, is dead on and exists in large part because the media has absolutely no idea how to handle Trump's misogynistic attacks on women (see: Trump vs Kelly, Megyn). ANNNNNNND ... wouldn't someone objective note that in the past Warren has utilized minority status in her own interest on shaky factual grounds?

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am What's even better is his presumed logic, that a woman would have a tougher time against Trump, is dead on and exists in large part because the media has absolutely no idea how to handle Trump's misogynistic attacks on women (see: Trump vs Kelly, Megyn). ANNNNNNND ... wouldn't someone objective note that Warren in the past has utilized blurry logic to use minority status to promote her own interests?

Even if it's dead on, it can't be said in today's culture. This is the current debate.

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

I don't believe anyone enough to think this is "ffs"-level impossible.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:15 am

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am What's even better is his presumed logic, that a woman would have a tougher time against Trump, is dead on and exists in large part because the media has absolutely no idea how to handle Trump's misogynistic attacks on women (see: Trump vs Kelly, Megyn). ANNNNNNND ... wouldn't someone objective note that Warren in the past has utilized blurry logic to use minority status to promote her own interests?

Even if it's dead on, it can't be said in today's culture. This is the current debate.

Sure it can.

Does anyone remember what the big kerfuffle was at the previous debate? (No, neither do I.)

This doesn't matter either. Iowa is in three weeks. We all need to do whatever it takes to make sure either Bernie or Warren is the nominee. The centrists in the party and probably a lot of the professional media are invested in making sure to pit Bernie and Warren against each other.

rass wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:21 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:15 am

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am What's even better is his presumed logic, that a woman would have a tougher time against Trump, is dead on and exists in large part because the media has absolutely no idea how to handle Trump's misogynistic attacks on women (see: Trump vs Kelly, Megyn). ANNNNNNND ... wouldn't someone objective note that Warren in the past has utilized blurry logic to use minority status to promote her own interests?

Even if it's dead on, it can't be said in today's culture. This is the current debate.

Sure it can.

Talk about shifting the fucking blame. Sanders would be right that any non-white male will have an issue against Trump because Trump is a racist/misogynist/bigot who will implicitly or explicitly target literally any difference a person has from him; Buttigieg for being gay, Warren for being female, Booker for being black, etc, etc. Sanders himself would likely say he'd be less open to attack if he weren't Jewish. That's not reflective of any prejudice on the person making the observation's side, its a clearly accurate statement about the current state of affairs. Even an ounce of introspection would have everyone working in media realizing their part in being complicit because, while they quote what he says, they don't fight what he says. Quoting drives ratings, fighting would prove bias.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

But it didn't help that Warren didn't shake his hand yesterday. That just fueled it more unless you think that's being manufactured as well.

I do. I think she's trying to save face. That allegedly happened in 2018 and her campaign leaks it right before the debate after she takes a significant drop in the polls? If they're supposed to be friends, why didn't she address this with him before? Why not come out and implicitly state that you don't think he's sexist?

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

We’re also supposed to believe that Bernie said something terribly sexist to Warren in a meeting 15 months ago but that Warren not only didn’t say anything about it at the time, she continued to refer to Bernie as a close friend for more than a year? This whole “Bernie is a misogynist” bullshit is a ridiculously transparent and cynical attempt to hurt his candidacy without actually addressing the merits of his policy positions.

A_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:19 am

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

I don't believe anyone enough to think this is "ffs"-level impossible.

He said in 1988 that a woman could be president! And if this is really just about beating Trump, that would still be a ridiculous thing to say after he just got beat by 3 million votes by a woman 3 years ago. It's just nowhere in his character at all.

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:40 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:13 am

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:10 am The MSM trying to paint Bernie as a misogynist is off the charts insane. Last night, Bernie vehemently denied ever saying a woman couldn't be president and FFS, of course he didn't. Regardless of what I think, one of them has to be lying, right? So the question that the woman asked Warren immediately after was "How did it make you feel when Bernie said a woman couldn't be president?" That is shit journalism.

But it didn't help that Warren didn't shake his hand yesterday. That just fueled it more unless you think that's being manufactured as well.

I do. I think she's trying to save face. That allegedly happened in 2018 and her campaign leaks it right before the debate after she takes a significant drop in the polls? If they're supposed to be friends, why didn't she address this with him before? Why not come out and implicitly state that you don't think he's sexist?

I like Warren but I think her campaign has handled this poorly. I think either she or someone on her campaign decided to try and stem her slip in the polls by playing the “Bernie Bro” card to target staunch HRC supporters who are backing Biden or Buttigieg. You’re right that the timing and the way it’s been handled completely smells.

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:40 amIf they're supposed to be friends, why didn't she address this with him before? Why not come out and implicitly state that you don't think he's sexist?

Its very telling what a person does when they're facing the choice to either accept losing the right way or deciding to try to win the wrong way.

Make Warren look like a (typically) hysterical woman.
Make Bernie look like a sexist or a hypocrite.

You're all falling for the bait. This nominating election isn't about Bernie vs. Warren.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:47 am

Jerloma wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:40 amIf they're supposed to be friends, why didn't she address this with him before? Why not come out and implicitly state that you don't think he's sexist?

Its very telling what a person does when they're facing the choice to either accept losing the right way or deciding to try to win the wrong way.

Not to mention counterproductive because obviously she wants to win but more importantly, if she wants the progressive policies in place that she thinks we need so badly right now, turning her supporters against him seems really dangerous.