Jump to content

US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

In short, Trump's incompetence and desire to sweep things under the rug has enabled the outbreak in precisely the same way that the authoritarian values of China did, with almost certainly the same kinds of results. 

I hope that dems are jumping on this as a hammering point over and over - that when the chips are down and the US and the world hit a crisis, the Trump admin is entirely incapable of dealing with the pressure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know, it's all conspiracy theories that the Democratic establishment is actively working to stop Bernie's nomination. But here's a New York Times article going into how the Democratic party would rather destroy the party than let Bernie win.

If this happened, I would honestly just not vote. I'm so tired of this. These assholes would rather lose the election by dividing the party because there's no way Bernie could win? Idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

I know, I know, it's all conspiracy theories that the Democratic establishment is actively working to stop Bernie's nomination. But here's a New York Times article going into how the Democratic party would rather destroy the party than let Bernie win.

You trust the NYT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Everyone knows that birds are liars most fowl. 

Fun bird facts:

1. Owls, while often associated with intelligence, are among the dumbest birds on the planet.

2. Crows, despite getting a bad rap, are possibly the smartest birds on the planet. 

3. Penguins are O-VER RA-TED (clap, clap, clap clap clap)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Warren taking heat from Sanders supporters, and Sanders reversing his 2016 position, it is more nuanced than most of the rhetoric flying around.  Sanders and his campaign did NOT write the current rules, they pushed for no super delegates when the rules were hammered out in 2018.

Yeah, in 2016 Sanders tried to use every possible rule to get the nomination, particularly asking superdelegates from states that he'd won to back him.  Now he's saying the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates should be approved by the super delegates *whether or not they have the magic number.  Which is what he fought for in the rules changes unsuccessfully in 2018.  

From what I've seen, it's Warren's characterization of Sanders "writing the rules" or "helping write the rules" that Sanders' supporters are taking issue with.

Everyone loses with a brokered convention, and it's shitty that people encouraging primarying a progressive like Warren.  But she did twist a complicated scenario to make Sanders look like hypocrite answering that douche at the townhall and that's what triggered the response.  The Warren/Sanders in fighting is fucking stupid but I really think it's a very small portion of both their crowds pushing this stuff.   That's gonna happen when there a few million people involved.

Eta: also, as a counterpoint to that very large study that shows Sanders needed massive youth turnout to win, he is doing better than everyone else in likely swing states.  Yes, it's all very close:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Eta: also, as a counterpoint to that very large study that shows Sanders needed massive youth turnout to win, he is doing better than everyone else in likely swing states.  Yes, it's all very close:



 

That's the RCP averages though - and those polls are absurdly old that they're averaging. Michigan is pretty reasonable - latest polls have it at 5/7. But Ohio, the last poll was in October and there are precisely two polls. Minnesota is similar with one poll, ever, back in October. Pennsylvania is at least recent, but it's only +3/2 for recent polls. 

And the Wisconsin one appears to be simply wrong, period.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_sanders-6850.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/27/dnc-superdelegate-convention-gop-donor/

But remember, the Democratic establishment is only opposed to Sanders' platform on electability grounds. 

Ah, great, The Intercept publishes some bullshit article based on a single superdelegate to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Totally unlike them.  They have cornered the market on hipster neckbeards.

In general, can we please stop with the superdelegate bullshit?  Pretty please?  Like Michael told Carlo at the end of 1, it insults my intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why stop with it when 80+ super delegates thought it was prudent to come out and say they won't support Bernie if he has plurality?

The Dem establishment wants to stop Bernie, and everyone sticks their head in the sands acting like it's not happening. Who will they hand the nomination to? How will they choose the nominee in any way that won't fuck up this election in every possible way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Why stop with it when 80+ super delegates thought it was prudent to come out and say they won't support Bernie if he has plurality?

The Dem establishment wants to stop Bernie, and everyone sticks their head in the sands acting like it's not happening. Who will they hand the nomination to? How will they choose the nominee in any way that won't fuck up this election in every possible way?

That is a good question. If Sanders is such a stupid choice, who should we select? Bloomberg? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

That is a good question. If Sanders is such a stupid choice, who should we select? Bloomberg? 

Supposedly Sherrod Brown has been getting a call or two if reports are to be believed. Not the worst choice if they are going to fuck over Bernie, but I still think it would be a disaster, and would guarantee a Trump victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Why stop with it when 80+ super delegates thought it was prudent to come out and say they won't support Bernie if he has plurality?

The Dem establishment wants to stop Bernie, and everyone sticks their head in the sands acting like it's not happening. Who will they hand the nomination to? How will they choose the nominee in any way that won't fuck up this election in every possible way?

Based on what?  The NYT article?  They spoke to 93 superdelegates.  Just because the NYT wants clicks doesn't mean there's any need to freak out.  A reporter - Lisa Lerer - interviewed a lot of the Dem establishment and, shocker, a lot of them have reservations about Sanders being the nominee.  So?  When have the superdelegates done anything ever?  Oh, that's right, never.  When was the last time anything meaningful was decided at a convention?  Not sure, but I think it was replacing Wallace with Truman as FDR's VP in 1944.  Give me a break, Sanders will be the nominee as long as he's the clear winner of the primaries - even if it's just a plurality.  Stop preemptively whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Based on what?  The NYT article?  They spoke to 93 superdelegates.  Just because the NYT wants clicks doesn't mean there's any need to freak out.  A reporter - Lisa Lerer - interviewed a lot of the Dem establishment and, shocker, a lot of them have reservations about Sanders being the nominee.  So?  When have the superdelegates done anything ever?  Oh, that's right, never.  When was the last time anything meaningful was decided at a convention?  Not sure, but I think it was replacing Wallace with Truman as FDR's VP in 1944.  Give me a break, Sanders will be the nominee as long as he's the clear winner of the primaries - even if it's just a plurality.  Stop preemptively whining.

Should I stop now? Is that a command from you? Because I take very little of what you say in this subject seriously. Bury your head, but yeah, the NYT as a source over you seems pretty legit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

That is a good question. If Sanders is such a stupid choice, who should we select? Bloomberg? 

Clinton, maybe? I mean, the Democrats aren't worried about Bernie not being able to win, they're worried about him bringing the party back to slightly left of center. I suppose they're so in bed with big donors, they can't feasibly separate themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Simon Steele said:

the NYT as a source over you seems pretty legit. 

All superdelegates are worth 16.2% of the overall delegates - on the second ballot.  That's 771.  The reporter interviewed 93, which is 12 percent of the 16 percent.  You are whining about nothing because a NYT article told you to.  That's the reality.  Deal with it as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...