US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honestly? why is ignoring its own rules and allowing Bloomy to debate a legitimate action, while keeping the rule standing for Booker, Castro, etc.?  That is as very very very ugly look, DNC.

Looks like Maith just ninja'd me, but to reiterate, the DNC did not change the polling threshold (even increased it), they just axed the donor thresholds.  Most candidates had an easy time hitting the donor threshold.  The fact Booker, Castro, et al. didn't hit the very minimal polling thresholds they needed to is the fault of the Democratic party electorate, or I suppose the pollsters that try to measure the preferences of the Democratic party electorate, not the DNC.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

[DireWolfSpirit]

2 hours ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I can't shake the feeling. This whole thing feels shady as hell to me.

Exactly.

[Maltaran]

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never heard Hanlon’s Razor

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Maithanet]

It's just ridiculous that results haven't been released yet.  Having a ton of problems with an app is one thing, but this process was done without an app in just a few hours many, many times in the past.  Even if the state DNC needed to take the extraordinary measure of having the caucus leader of every single location physically drive to DNC state headquarters and drop off the results, they still should have been able to do that by noon. 

I assume they're working in an excess of caution, but they seem to really be underestimating the damage they're doing with every additional hour of waiting.  This isn't just people being impatient, there is rumormongering (no doubt with an assist from the Russians) that the DNC is corrupt, that the vote is rigged, etc.  The longer this goes on, the more and more fuel there is on this fire. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never heard Hanlon’s Razor

Oh, they've heard it, they're just in the same birther set of people who are always willing to attribute actual designed malice to accidents when they're against the people they care about. 

What makes me especially mad is that when actual malice does come about - like Russia's campaign to mess with the election - it also gets dismissed as ranting, despite having a whole lot of backing from a very large amount of sources and tons of actual data. It's one more way that the truth doesn't matter and everyone can have a view, and therefore no one knows what is going on. And it is a direct road to authoritarian rule.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Maithanet said:

It's just ridiculous that results haven't been released yet.  Having a ton of problem with an app is one thing, but this process was done without an app in just a few hours many, many times in the past.  Even if the state DNC needed to take the extraordinary measure of having the caucus leader of every single location physically drive to DNC state headquarters and drop off the results, they still should have been able to do that by noon. 

I assume they're working in an excess of caution, but they seem to really be underestimating the damage they're doing with every additional hour of waiting.  This isn't just people being impatient, there is rumormongering (no doubt with an assist from the Russians) that the DNC is corrupt, that the vote is rigged, etc.  The longer this goes on, the more and more fuel there is on this fire. 

Part of it is that they changed reporting requirements, and that's totally new. They didn't have to report the total number of votes in the same way they do now, nor did they have to report the first/second choice split, and they're having to do both. That's one of the things that the app was supposed to help with, but now they have nothing.

Those reporting requirements, BTW, were changed largely in part due to Sanders wanting more transparency (good!) and were mostly because of the DNC overhauls the Sanders team requested. 

[sologdin]

Booker and Castro met the donor threshold, but failed to meet the polling threshold.  Bloomburg easily meets the polling threshold, since he's polling in 4th place, but refuses to accept donors as a matter of strategy. 

doesn't this explanation confirm rather than overcome the objection that the rules were changed for the rich white guy but not for candidates who do not meet the rich, white, and guy standards?

[Darryk]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Great, you have examples of pundits being mean to your candidate.  Congrats.  I especially like this example though.  So, DWS was complaining about MSNBC's coverage of her, when she was DNC chair, and that's somehow an example of their complicity with the DNC.  We're down the rabbit-hole folks.

No, it's entirely directly related.  Before the DNC changed the debate rules, Sanders - and other campaigns - were complaining that he was using the DNC qualifications to shirk the debates.  I thought that was a legitimate criticism - it does appear as if Bloomberg has no interest in old-school or what I would call "legitimate" persuasion and just rather wants to carpet-bomb Super Tuesday states with his billions.  So then, the DNC says, ok, we'll relax the rules so Bloomberg has no excuse not to debate.  Should be a good thing right?  Nope, then it's the DNC is "subsidizing" billionaires.  It's the epitome of horseshit.  Trumpian levels.  Like when he creates a problem then takes credit for "fixing" it.  No matter what the DNC did in this situation, there's verifiable evidence that the Sanders campaign was going to bitch about them.

Not just "my" candidate but anti-establishment candidates in general.

I guess pointing out that the DNC, as an abundance of evidence shows, is corrupt and favors insiders, is some kind of "truth that must not be spoken" and anyone who dares speak it gets quickly hushed up and relegated to "har har, you're just a whiny Bernie Bro" status, even when it's not even Bernie Sanders being discussed. 

Regarding Bloomberg, the issue is that Bloomberg is the only candidate who made a donation to the DNC and, lo and behold, he ends up being the only candidate for whom the debate rules are magically changed to accommodate him. That's really all that matters in this particular instance. How the Sanders or Warren or whatever campaign may have interpreted it (Sanders campaign was not the only one who took issue with it by the way, Andrew Yang said the rules change was tailor-made to get Bloomberg on the debate stage, and Tulsi accused Bloomberg of buying the DNC) is completely unrelated to this particular example of DNC corruption. 

That said, of course outsider candidates are going to be suspicious of anything the DNC, does because DNC has given them countless reasons to be so, as much as you're gonna stick your head in the sand and yell that the DNC is completely pure and transparent and it's only nasty Bernie Bros who say otherwise.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Darryk said:

Not just "my" candidate but anti-establishment candidates in general.

I guess pointing out that the DNC, as an abundance of evidence shows, is corrupt and favors insiders, is some kind of "truth that must not be spoken" and anyone who dares speak it gets quickly hushed up and relegated to "har har, you're just a whiny Bernie Bro" status, even when it's not even Bernie Sanders being discussed. 

When it's Sanders surrogates who are doing the whining, it reflects on Sanders. When Sanders wants Bloomberg to debate and thinks that it's horrible he's not, and then says that it's horrible that he can debate - well, that's on Sanders, not on Bloomberg or the DNC. 

As to pointing out corruption -  great! Cool beans. So far you've used it to back up why something that is unrelated should be related, and used it to deflect criticism. 

1 minute ago, Darryk said:

That said, of course outsider candidates are going to be suspicious of anything the DNC, does because DNC has given them countless reasons to be so, as much as you're gonna stick your head in the sand and yell that the DNC is completely pure and transparent and it's only nasty Bernie Bros who say otherwise.

One can say that the DNC is not doing wrong here AND also not say that the DNC has always been great. Only a sith deals in absolutes.

[SpaceChampion]

Looks like the turnout is down entirely due to Gen-X, held steady with boomers, up with millenials and way up gen-z.

Way to go Gen X!  Still holding on to that "meh!" attitude after all it's done for you!

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Looks like the turnout is down entirely due to Gen-X, held steady with boomers, up with millenials and way up gen-z.



Way to go Gen X!  Still holding on to that "meh!" attitude after all it's done for you!

Wait,  Gen X is 45-64? GOD DAMNIT. I don't feel like I should be grouped with people born in 1955. 

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait,  Gen X is 45-64? GOD DAMNIT. I don't feel like I should be grouped with people born in 1955. 

I don't either. The oldest Gen Xers will be 55 this year if you can believe that. But lumping in 45 year olds with senior citizens? 

Our "whatever" attitude has kept us relatively sane. We just sit back and watch the boomers and the millenials go at it and pop the popcorn. 

[Darryk]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When it's Sanders surrogates who are doing the whining, it reflects on Sanders. When Sanders wants Bloomberg to debate and thinks that it's horrible he's not, and then says that it's horrible that he can debate - well, that's on Sanders, not on Bloomberg or the DNC. 

As to pointing out corruption -  great! Cool beans. So far you've used it to back up why something that is unrelated should be related, and used it to deflect criticism. 

One can say that the DNC is not doing wrong here AND also not say that the DNC has always been great. Only a sith deals in absolutes.

The Sanders and Warren campaigns changed their tune because they were acting on incomplete information; they didn't actually know whether Bloomberg wanted to compete in the debates or not, but they assumed that the DNC was going to give Bloomberg what he wants.

So when the DNC suddenly changes their rules to accommodate Bloomberg in the debates, plus it's revealed Bloomberg made a sizable donation to them, the original assumption that Bloomberg was dodging the debates doesn't seem so likely anymore, and Sanders / Warren camps start to wonder if Bloomberg is buying his way into the debates after all.

It's perfectly natural to change your perception of what's happening based on new developments. It's not so much "we're gonna bitch about the DNC no matter what it does" as "we don't know for sure whether Bloomberg actually wants to be in the debate or not but, based on what we know about the DNC, whatever Bloomberg wants, they're going to make it happen eventually". So they see this as Bloomberg finally showing his cards.

Personally I think the idea that Bloomberg was trying to avoid the debates in order to avoid scrutiny was crazy, of course he was going to try buy his way into the debates eventually, he needs the publicity that goes with it if he's going to run a serious campaign.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Regardless of whether it's actually on the level, having your app made by a company literally called "Shadow Inc", which is run by the wife of one of the campaign staff for a candidate, and having the same candidate also making payments to Shadow Inc looks shady as fuck. And the appearance of corruption is a major issue even when there isn't actual corruption behind it.

Tech bros really need to stop naming their companies for the lulz.

Though for some people the existence of actual corruption does not seem to cause them any real problems

[Kalbear]

Just now, Darryk said:

It's perfectly natural to change your perception of what's happening based on new developments. It's not so much "we're gonna bitch about the DNC no matter what it does"

citation needed

Just now, Darryk said:

Personally I think the idea that Bloomberg was trying to avoid the debates in order to avoid scrutiny was crazy, of course he was going to try buy his way into the debates eventually, he needs the publicity that goes with it if he's going to run a serious campaign.

He's already polling higher than Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg. I don't think he needs that publicity at all. 

[Fragile Bird]

In an interview with Bloomberg's campaign manager on CNN, he revealled Bloomberg has ordered the ad buys to be doubled.

[Ormond]

13 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

I don't either. The oldest Gen Xers will be 55 this year if you can believe that. But lumping in 45 year olds with senior citizens? 

Space Champion was certainly wrong to equate "45-64" with "Gen X".

However, the official census bureau definition of "senior citizen" still starts at age 65, so the youngest decade of the Baby Boom are NOT "senior citizens" yet. (Yes, I know lots of commercial organizations will start "senior citizen discounts" at 55, but I think it's better to go with the census bureau on that.  )

P.S. By the way, it's the late Baby Boom and early Gen X who are most likely to identify as Republicans after the Silent Generation. So perhaps the reason the "45-64" age range is a lower percentage of Iowa Democratic caucus goers this time is simply because that's precisely the age range where Iowans are most likely to be Republicans? 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Remember in 2007/8 when it seemed like Obama and the Dems had a huge tech advantage?  Sure seems like a long time ago.

Then again, Obama would be among the younger (stereopyically more technology friendly) candidates in this field.

If you are now picturing Bernie yelling at his PC to update his Tinder profile, then my work is done.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Darryk said:

"har har, you're just a whiny Bernie Bro" status, [...]

Bernie Bros who say otherwise.

I don't have much to respond to here, because it's almost entirely just the same boilerplate bullshit and ignoring facts argumentation tactics that cultist supporters resort to, but I don't think I've ever referred to anyone as a "Bernie Bro" in conversation, on here or even when drunk arguing at a bar.  I don't really give a shit about the sexist or racist arguments against Bernie supporters - largely because I agree with what @Rippounet said around the beginning of this thread (may have been in the last thread) - that Bernie's bona fides there are pretty damn unassailable.  As a (still relatively!) young white guy, I don't think I have any credibility in trying to criticize any politician that actually participated in the CRM - in that aspect.  Just would make me sound like an ass. 

I do, however, claim broad rights to point out how completely blind, ludicrously ignorant, and blatantly hypocritical Sanders and most of his supporters are in "fighting against the establishment" when said establishment their actually whining about is bending over backwards to provide him a platform in the face of his 30-plus years of jackassery obstinance.

10 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Personally I think the idea that Bloomberg was trying to avoid the debates in order to avoid scrutiny was crazy, of course he was going to try buy his way into the debates eventually, he needs the publicity that goes with it if he's going to run a serious campaign.

So, Bloomberg is "buying" the election through funding campaign ads and enjoying disproportionate (what we call) paid media.  But then he also "needs" the publicity of the debate stage?  This is why Bernie supporters annoy any rational person so much.  At least pick a goddamn argument and stick with it.