US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Ormond said:

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

On the generational cutoffs, I prefer to think of Gen X as starting around 1960-1965, so Obama kind of straddled the two generations - and in that way will probably be our only "Gen X" president in history.  But that's just how I see it, operationalizing generations into specific intervals is inherently debatable.

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Darryk said:

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.

I hesitate to get involved here, but... so far as I understand, Bloomberg could easily have met the donor qualification for previous debates. But he chose not to. Thus it follows that he could have got into the debates at any point. And therefore the idea that he's just now buying his way in, is fatally flawed and dead on arrival.

[Darryk]

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.

Yeah you seem to use that one a lot: "I don't have to bother responding to your argument because it's just typical cultist bullshit etc etc". If that's the case then why not just...not respond...instead of constantly wasting people's time with your condescending drivel.

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.

If you can't wrap your head around the idea that publicity that comes with debates is somewhat different from that which comes with ad buys, then how about I just pull a DMC and be like "I do, however, claim broad rights to point out how completely blind, ludicrously ignorant blablabla *insert more pompous as fuck asshattery here*

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

I hesitate to get involved here, but... so far as I understand, Bloomberg could easily have met the donor qualification for previous debates. But he chose not to. Thus it follows that he could have got into the debates at any point. And therefore the idea that he's just now buying his way in, is fatally flawed and dead on arrival.

Look, I think we need a Scotsman to argue with a South African about the nuances of US political machinations and democratic party requirements. AND YOU'RE THE GUY TO DO IT. 

[Fragile Bird]

I guess we can basically write off the Iowa caucus results?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

It's just ridiculous that results haven't been released yet. 

Weirdly, MSNBC has a running clock counting down to the release of the votes (expected release time is like an hour from now I think).

[Darryk]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

I hesitate to get involved here, but... so far as I understand, Bloomberg could easily have met the donor qualification for previous debates. But he chose not to. Thus it follows that he could have got into the debates at any point. And therefore the idea that he's just now buying his way in, is fatally flawed and dead on arrival.

Funny, except in order to meet that requirement he'd have had to receive donations, which he point blank refuses to do because he believes outside donations compromise his campaign. The rule change allowed him to enter the debates without having to take any outside donations.

The possibility is there that he actually doesn't want to participate in the debate but the DNC has been pressured to find a way by the Warren campaign because they want him to face scrutiny, but the fact that he donated 300k to the DNC in November seems too convenient to ignore.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Funny, except in order to meet that requirement he'd have had to receive donations, which he point blank refuses to do because he believes outside donations compromise his campaign. The rule change allowed him to enter the debates without having to take any outside donations. 

The possibility is there that he actually doesn't want to participate in the debate but the DNC has been pressured to find a way by the Warren campaign because they want him to face scrutiny, but the fact that he donated 300k to the DNC in November seems too convenient to ignore.

That'S one way to look at it.

Warren's point of view is a bit more sound imho. Atm all the debates are a bit in the shadow of Bloomberg's absense. A bit like Twitler skipping the GOP during their last primary season. So Warren (and all the other candidates I imainge) would like to get him onstage so they can battle with him on even terms. And not just the imaginary empty podium. That argument really is pretty convincing imo, esp. with Bloomberg apparently polling fourth.

[Zorral]

Who ever dreamed that nothing would go wrong with new tech that hadn't been tested, and because the people using it are volunteers, evidently couldn't be trained and it couldn't be tested?  And even, according to an interview with the DNC guy in charge of all this he said he hadn't learned to use it well himself because he didn't have time.

Many of the Dems in charge of Iowa are blaming the media for this cluster eff / eff up, because the media pressure to get the results out as fast as possible ....

There sure is a lot of blame to go around, and plenty of legitimate objects on which to throw it.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/frank-rich-iowa-and-the-rolling-democratic-calamity.html
 

Quote

 

.... But at least The Music Man has a happy ending. What makes yesterday’s disaster even more depressing is that it is entirely consistent with a national Democratic primary process that, as I have been arguing for months, has been botched from the start. While we may never have trusted numbers for yesterday’s caucuses — or know which of the promised “three sets of numbers” (if any) we should care about — we do have the hard ratings numbers for the televised debates. Voters started tuning out in droves after having had their fill of overpopulated and undernourished formats too often hijacked by the also-rans. Then there is the unreformed primary calendar itself. It remains a mystery that a party which prides itself on offering an alternative to the old white GOP still kicks off its race for the presidency in a state whose electorate is nearly all white. None of the three states next to come — New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — is demographically representative of America either. Yet for all the Democrats’ rightful rage about minority vote suppression and the anti-democratic tilt toward rural red states in the Senate and Electoral College, they failed to bring meaningful change to their own blatantly anti-democratic electoral process....

 

 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Yeah you seem to use that one a lot: "I don't have to bother responding to your argument because it's just typical cultist bullshit etc etc". If that's the case then why not just...not respond...instead of constantly wasting people's time with your condescending drivel.

First off, seems you need a refresher on the quote function, it's getting annoying.  Second, I clarified what I did not want to respond to - and then responded to the point I did want to respond to.  That's generally how discussion boards should work, ideally.

20 minutes ago, Darryk said:

If you can't wrap your head around the idea that publicity that comes with debates is somewhat different from that which comes with ad buys

No, I don't know how debates gain Bloomberg any added value.  In fact I strongly suspect he thinks the same thing too, which is why he was happy to avoid them.  Debates rarely have an effect on electoral outcomes.  And when they do, most of the time it's because candidates make mistakes and their opponents capitalize on that.  I assume Bloomberg wanted to avoid that.  The DNC altering the qualifications in a way to make sure he can't point to them as an excuse to avoid the debates is pretty clearly a positive thing to any objective observer.  Which I am - I have not had this little preference in who comes out of the Dem primary since 2004.

You and a certain other poster have a strong tendency to ignore facts that contradict your arguments even when confronted with them.  E.G. the claim "primaries only allow Democratic voters," which is just basically wrong, or that "Bloomberg is buying his way into the debates," when it's manifestly clear his camp didn't want in on the debates in the first place.  It's very frustrating for the rest of us.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Funny, except in order to meet that requirement he'd have had to receive donations, which he point blank refuses to do because he believes outside donations compromise his campaign. The rule change allowed him to enter the debates without having to take any outside donations.

The possibility is there that he actually doesn't want to participate in the debate but the DNC has been pressured to find a way by the Warren campaign because they want him to face scrutiny, but the fact that he donated 300k to the DNC in November seems too convenient to ignore.

How is it convenient? Bloomberg has lots of money and wants to beat Trump, the DNC needs lots of money and wants to beat Trump. Bloomberg has given money to tons of pro-Democratic organizations, the DNC being just one of them. He's also promised to spend money on behalf of whoever the nominee is, even Sanders or Warren, to help them beat Trump. I don't think it has anything to do with trying to influence DNC rules. He gave that money before he even declared his candidacy, it was two months ago; and there's been debates since then that he was not part of.

Also, he absolutely could've set up a sham donation process if he wanted to game the system and qualify for the debates. Something like, donate $1 to the campaign and he'll donate $2 to the charity of your choice. He didn't do that, because he didn't care about the debates. The debates give candidates a chance to get media attention and a platform to contrast themselves with their opponents to look better in the eyes of voters. Bloomberg has so much money that he doesn't need that at all, he can (and has) blanketed the airwaves with his ads. There's a reason why he's shot into 4th place in national polls when no other late entrant has done anything. Going to the debates are only a potential downside for him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Look, I think we need a Scotsman to argue with a South African about the nuances of US political machinations and democratic party requirements. AND YOU'RE THE GUY TO DO IT. 

Only a "True Scotsman" though. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Who ever dreamed that nothing would go wrong with new tech that hadn't been tested, and because the people using it are volunteers, evidently couldn't be trained and it couldn't be tested?  And even, according to an interview with the DNC guy in charge of all this he said he hadn't learned to use it well himself because he didn't have time.

Many of the Dems in charge of Iowa are blaming the media for this cluster eff / eff up, because the media pressure to get the results out as fast as possible ....

There sure is a lot of blame to go around, and plenty of legitimate objects on which to throw it.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/frank-rich-iowa-and-the-rolling-democratic-calamity.html
 

 

Perhaps go to a single primary day for the entire country?  Who says this horserace crap needs to continue?

[Darryk]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

How is it convenient? Bloomberg has lots of money and wants to beat Trump, the DNC needs lots of money and wants to beat Trump. Bloomberg has given money to tons of pro-Democratic organizations, the DNC being just one of them. He's also promised to spend money on behalf of whoever the nominee is, even Sanders or Warren, to help them beat Trump. I don't think it has anything to do with trying to influence DNC rules. He gave that money before he even declared his candidacy, it was two months ago; and there's been debates since then that he was not part of.

Also, he absolutely could've set up a sham donation process if he wanted to game the system and qualify for the debates. Something like, donate $1 to the campaign and he'll donate $2 to the charity of your choice. He didn't do that, because he didn't care about the debates. The debates give candidates a chance to get media attention and a platform to contrast themselves with their opponents to look better in the eyes of voters. Bloomberg has so much money that he doesn't need that at all, he can (and has) blanketed the airwaves with his ads. There's a reason why he's shot into 4th place in national polls when no other late entrant has done anything. Going to the debates are only a potential downside for him.

Because he's the only candidate who has donated to the DNC, and he ends up being the only candidate benefiting from a rule change.

But I accept it could just be his willingness to donate to anyone and everything that gives a chance of beating Trump.

Admittedly, as Andrew Yang says, the change seems tailor-made to get him into the debates, but it's not clear whether he actually wants that. Personally I can't see how he would not want the opportunity to talk about how crazy he thinks Bernie's ideas are, and give voters a chance to put a face to his name.  Either way he apparently called legalizing marijuana “perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done” so I hope he doesn't get much more traction.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

On the generational cutoffs, I prefer to think of Gen X as starting around 1960-1965, so Obama kind of straddled the two generations - and in that way will probably be our only "Gen X" president in history.  

As a Gen Xer I'm proud of the fact that we' are the least significant and most inconsequential generation in recorded history, that nobody will remember. Is it necessary to muck up our perfect record of doing nothing by making Obama a Gen X president?

I think our motto was expressed in a quintessential Gen X movie, Office Space, when the guy said "I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be."

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

You and a certain other poster have a strong tendency to ignore facts that contradict your arguments even when confronted with them.  E.G. the claim "primaries only allow Democratic voters," which is just basically wrong, or that "Bloomberg is buying his way into the debates," when it's manifestly clear his camp didn't want in on the debates in the first place.  It's very frustrating for the rest of us.

Aren't about a third of the primaries closed?  And only another third allow independents? 

I believe it's been changed now to a later date, but in NY in 2016 you had to register by Oct 2015 to participate in your parties primary.  

This country needs so much voting reform, between the all-over-the-place primary system and voter disenfranchisement.  Leaving all this shit up to the states has been pretty shit.

 

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Either way he apparently called legalizing marijuana “perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done” so I hope he doesn't get much more traction.

Too bad he isn't going to be in the debates where he doesn't fully control the narrative and could be asked about such comments ... (And his history of comments re: stop and frisk) ... Oh wait ...

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Perhaps go to a single primary day for the entire country?

A national primary (day) would be my ideal solution, yes.  Make it a national holiday too.  Figure that's the best you can do with federalism constraints.

34 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think our motto was expressed a quintessential Gen X movie, Office Space, when the guy said "I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be."

Heh.  Yeah, I suppose Office Space is the Gen Xer's thesis statement.  And it's pretty damn awesome.  As an "old" millennial, I obviously grew up with comedians that were/are Gen Xers, so I'm very sorry to even deign to attempt to put the responsibility of Obama upon your shoulders.

29 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Aren't about a third of the primaries closed?  And only another third allow independents?

Here's the link, again.  Only 9 states are "completely" closed.  That said, it's fair to say there's some pretty important states in there - Florida, New York, Pennsylvania.  Then there's the 7 "partially" closed states - mostly small states other than NC.  Again, all other states, which would be 34 out of 50, allow the opportunity for independents/unaffiliated voters to participate in whichever primary they prefer.  The page of that link was updated in June of 2018, but I'm pretty sure this was basically the same situation in 2016.  I don't think many, if any, states have changed their primary procedure since at least the last presidential cycle.

ETA:  @larrytheimp  Sorry if I sounded like a dick there, or at least overly curt.  Guess I'm in a bad mood today.  Anyway, yeah you're right, about a third (48/16 = 3) are, or at least can be, closed.  Point is the rest of them are not.

[SpaceChampion]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

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

I didn't.  But that category overlaps most with Gen X.  The next category overlaps for the latter 6 years or so.  ie. 39-55.

 

[Zorral]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Perhaps go to a single primary day for the entire country?  Who says this horserace crap needs to continue?

The $me$dia$? The $political $ $cienti$t$? 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/iowa-caucuses-conspiracy-theories-debunked-trump-wins.html

You know how we used to comfort ourselves that bedbug was just too incompetent to succeed at what he succeeds at anyway?

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/in-iowa-the-democratic-partys-real-conspiracy-was-grift.html
 

Quote

 

.... It’s not a secret that party leaders and donors are ill disposed toward Sanders and toward left-wing insurgents in general. But that hostility is not proof by itself that a conspiracy derailed the Iowa caucuses. There are other, more realistic culprits, and only one sensible conclusion to reach: The national party is too incompetent to conspire successfully against any candidate. Its overweening reliance on consultants, lack of a cohesive message, and lackluster investment in its state affiliates render it weak and dysfunctional. If Democratic loyalists are looking for someone to blame for the divisive reaction to Iowa’s failures, they should blame the party itself. ....

.... As disasters go, Iowa’s was preventable. An app might look like a shiny new toy to some party officials, but it’s not necessarily the best way to simplify the process of reporting results. The security risks were real, the potential for error was profound, and, crucially, the app itself was unnecessary. A crowded primary field was always going to complicate the caucus process, but that is a problem that additional volunteers on the phones could have helped resolve. The party’s decision to go in a different direction, and use the hilariously named Shadow Inc. on an app, points to existing and widespread problems. It’s not as if the app was developed by high-school students, though they might have done a better job. According to the Des Moines Register, the third-party vendor worked with Harvard’s Defending Digital Democracy Project and “worked with campaign experts Robby Mook and Matt Rhodes.”The consultant class appears to function principally as a jobs guarantee for out-of-work campaign aides, but from email fundraising strategies to digital messaging to the infamous app, it doesn’t look like Democrats are getting much for the party’s money. Endemic grift could rot the party’s infrastructure to pieces.

Grift is its own conspiracy, in this case the disingenuous sale of hope in exchange for consulting work. Activists tend to accuse the party of other, more blatant sins, like the outright theft of votes or the rigging of primaries. What happened in Iowa is almost certainly not theft. But it’s understandable that supporters of Sanders, in particular, see malice where incompetence probably lies.

As disasters go, Iowa’s was preventable. An app might look like a shiny new toy to some party officials, but it’s not necessarily the best way to simplify the process of reporting results. The security risks were real, the potential for error was profound, and, crucially, the app itself was unnecessary. A crowded primary field was always going to complicate the caucus process, but that is a problem that additional volunteers on the phones could have helped resolve. The party’s decision to go in a different direction, and use the hilariously named Shadow Inc. on an app, points to existing and widespread problems. It’s not as if the app was developed by high-school students, though they might have done a better job. According to the Des Moines Register, the third-party vendor worked with Harvard’s Defending Digital Democracy Project and “worked with campaign experts Robby Mook and Matt Rhodes. ”The consultant class appears to function principally as a jobs guarantee for out-of-work campaign aides, but from email fundraising strategies to digital messaging to the infamous app, it doesn’t look like Democrats are getting much for the party’s money. Endemic grift could rot the party’s infrastructure to pieces.

Grift is its own conspiracy, in this case the disingenuous sale of hope in exchange for consulting work. Activists tend to accuse the party of other, more blatant sins, like the outright theft of votes or the rigging of primaries. What happened in Iowa is almost certainly not theft. But it’s understandable that supporters of Sanders, in particular, see malice where incompetence probably lies. ....