Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear

US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I think everybody is having too much fun playing Name that thread!

But, yes.

U.S. Politics: Beware The BIRD! Lying To You About The Flu

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
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

Edited by Kalbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, did not see the dates on those

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.M.F.G!

CNN just showed the new Trump campaign to attract black voters: Black Voices for Trump.

The hat is white with the word ‘Woke’ in black letters. 
 

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the DNC decided to nuke Japan?

Anyway, I just wanted to say, how else can we ensure four more years of a braindead and dysfunctional US Federal Goverment if you take away the whining?

Be real here.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major apologies in the spirit of the whole "thread is moving fast" spirit, but on the superdelegate thing here's a question that I would have:

This came up to some extent in 2008 and in 2016.  Did reports like this (ie, won't vote for Sanders if...) come out in those years too?  If so, that would make me relax.  If not, it seems noteworthy of more potential for trouble this time.

Seems like Pelosi is feeling the Bern kinda sorta

ETA:  Sorry for the spirit redundancy

@larrytheimp

Stop apologizing for double-posts

#noapologies

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...