US Politics: Presidential Harris-ment!

[JGP]

The Biden campaign has picked up 30 mil since the VP announcement? 

Whew.

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Week said:

The KHive didn't exist 5 years ago - the media is reporting on year five of frothing BernieBros

I agree it's a false equivalency.  Just saying I also understand where GT's coming from in terms of the political media's biases.

[The Anti-Targ]

So much for being committed to freedom of speech, Twitter...and the Republican party / Trump campaign https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/122408020/wellington-company-penalised-by-twitter-for-poking-fun-at-donald-trump

Quote

Don't poke fun at the Don: It is a lesson learned the hard - and bemusing - way by a Wellington company penalised by Twitter for doing just that.

EightyOne executive creative director Chris Bleackley was the brains behind the "Trumbers" twitter campaign that came with its own typeface and had one purpose: to poke fun at US President on social media platform Twitter.

Things were going swimmingly as more than 600,000 people saw it but, inevitably, the Republican Party and Trump himself were tagged in.

What followed was a flurry of hate mail then what Bleackley saw as an effective ban from Twitter which meant that, while he could send tweets, they were not visible to others unless they went specifically looking.

“In the two weeks leading up to the ban we were averaging 18,300 impressions every day. When the ban kicked in that dropped to near zero.”

 

[Fragile Bird]

Oh, Antifa is part of the Democrat's campaign, is it?

[Fragile Bird]

What great US city is run by Republicans?

[Larry of the Lawn]

The city on the hill.

[Fragile Bird]

Good grief I want to throw a shoe at the tv!

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

The Warren situation is different in my mind. That wasn't a situation where it was just standard supporter on supporter hostilities, a lot of Bernie folks were pretty hurt by her actions, not that it excuses the whole snake thing. It was so clear that the establishment candidates were all going to present a mostly united front against Bernie and Warren, and then to see Warren pull that shit in the debate was a blow because it wasn't going to help her, but seemed to be meant to damaged Bernie. It felt like a betrayal.

What shit did she pull? She was asked the question, she didn't volunteer it out of nowhere in the debate. As we know from the Intercept's reporting on this, Warren had referred to the event months ago in a closed session where several journalists were present off the record:

Quote

NOT LONG AFTER meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Donald Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said that Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.)

From there, the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream, circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print. On Monday, it finally did, with CNN’s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting” — Sanders had told Warren, according to CNN’s paraphrasing, that “he did not believe a woman could win.”

It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren’s campaign had planted the story. Indeed, CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air. But Burnett was merely making an assumption and had no inside knowledge of the sources, two CNN sources told The Intercept.

On Monday, Warren told The Intercept that her campaign did not intentionally plant the CNN story. That Warren told a number of journalists about the meeting a year ago adds context to that statement. If Warren had only told her closest advisers about the meeting, then it would be logical to assume that her campaign dictated the timing of the story, dropping it just ahead of a debate, and just weeks before the primary, to undercut Sanders. But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN’s sources could have come from outside the campaign. The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source, but it opens up other possibilities as well.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

She never meant this to become public, but when asked on the debate stage about it, what was she supposed to do? Lie? Knowing that plenty of reporters would call her out on her previous statement then?

The whole event was the nail in the coffin of the story that Bernie Bros get undue bad press, for me. I saw live that that's just a cover for atrocious behavior, a complete disregard for fact and a rabid sense of loyalty not to the Left, but to Bernie himself. It was a cult of personality no better than the cult of personality that surrounds Trump. And Warren wasn't the only person on the left burned by it. AOC faced it too, when she made the very reasonable point that Bernie should do more to reign in his online supporters.

You know who's online supporters didn't harass other Dem's supporters? Whose voters in a recent NYC poll said they'd vote for Biden even more completely than Biden's own primary voters (this is likely a statistical artifact, but still)? Warren. And that's because as a candidate she didn't signal or stand for that kind of behaviour, and always made it clear that she wasn't interested in a "my way or the highway" election. Even before she dropped out, she'd always make a point of saying, unprompted, that she would unreservedly support whoever the nominee was against Trump. That has an impact. 

[Week]

Aaron Rupar always has great coverage of the propaganda briefings. This one ... jesus fuck, you are going to try to paint Joe Biden as senile when this is going on:

 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is Pence even allowed to be in the same room as Harris?  I don't know how those rules work?

It's okay as long as Mother is there.

 

 

 

 

 

How ICKY is that?!?!?

[fionwe1987]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's okay as long as Mother is there.

 

 

 

 

 

How ICKY is that?!?!?

Very. That whole Mother thing gives me the shudders.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

How ICKY is that?!?!?

Hey, if Mother! is Jennifer Lawrence, can you blame him?

[Fury Resurrected]

32 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

What shit did she pull? She was asked the question, she didn't volunteer it out of nowhere in the debate. As we know from the Intercept's reporting on this, Warren had referred to the event months ago in a closed session where several journalists were present off the record:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

She never meant this to become public, but when asked on the debate stage about it, what was she supposed to do? Lie? Knowing that plenty of reporters would call her out on her previous statement then?

The whole event was the nail in the coffin of the story that Bernie Bros get undue bad press, for me. I saw live that that's just a cover for atrocious behavior, a complete disregard for fact and a rabid sense of loyalty not to the Left, but to Bernie himself. It was a cult of personality no better than the cult of personality that surrounds Trump. And Warren wasn't the only person on the left burned by it. AOC faced it too, when she made the very reasonable point that Bernie should do more to reign in his online supporters.

You know who's online supporters didn't harass other Dem's supporters? Whose voters in a recent NYC poll said they'd vote for Biden even more completely than Biden's own primary voters (this is likely a statistical artifact, but still)? Warren. And that's because as a candidate she didn't signal or stand for that kind of behaviour, and always made it clear that she wasn't interested in a "my way or the highway" election. Even before she dropped out, she'd always make a point of saying, unprompted, that she would unreservedly support whoever the nominee was against Trump. That has an impact. 

It is 100% not true that Warren supporters didn’t harass anyone. I got bothered a ton by Warren fans for holding her indigenous Rachel Dolezal act against her

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Forgive me, I have to vent a bit. Whenever I think Republicans can stoop no lower... In my facebook timeline, some Americans post in support of Biden/ Harris. Now they get comments like "No Decent human would support this everyone knows She slept her way to the top" complete with a rather graphic blowjob emoji.

And Biden/ Harris memes with "Sniff & blow". How misogynist and racist can you get?!

The good news though (I'm reaching here) is that these have to people who'd never waiver from Trump anyway. Say want you want about Kamala, but she's fucking earned her spot in political leadership.

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Gotta say, I it's pretty funny to see the picture Trump is trying to paint of the Democrats. The idea that Biden is being puppeted by communists is super funny, and now he seems to be suggesting that Corey Booker is coming for white suburbanites, as if he was out there talking about how we need to cut down the tall trees.

Remember when Alex Jones was a big deal and would go do shit at major events? Now he is reduced to harassing lifeguards at Austin parks

 

Wow, Bill Hicks has really let himself go.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

My objection has always been how the media portrayed them. They became a liability because the media made a big deal of them in 2016, which in turn lead to a backlash among Bernie supporters who felt attacked and ended up doubling down against media types. I think the fact that most media folks tend to be of a centrist (or establishment) mindset and usually toe the party line of their corporate media employers who were already disinclined to like Sanders contributed to a bias against Bernie supporters that just ended up in a giant feedback loop.

Again, not really. Per actual measurables, they were a legitimate problem that a whole lot of non-media types got hit with, myself included. Again, there is nothing remotely comparable to Chapo. Not a single thing. 

They were possibly overblown by the media, but they became a liability back in 2016 to the point where the entire Sanders campaign basically gave up on outreach to people that weren't his base in 2020, and the whole strategy was divide and hopefully conquer. That's also, BTW, how I know that the BernieBro thing isn't just a myth - because their behavior was essentially a louder version of Sanders' whole campaign style. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

What great US city is run by Republicans?

San Diego? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

It's her online supporters/fans. [edit: they coined the name themselves]

They're definitely no bullshit, on the mean. They went after Warren a lot for allegedly cribbing Harris' policy proposals.

___

On another note, Bird, figured you'd like this doozy: 

 

When I saw this thread had popped since I last looked, I figured it was this. It didn't even get mentioned.
 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

They were possibly overblown by the media, but they became a liability back in 2016 to the point where the entire Sanders campaign basically gave up on outreach to people that weren't his base in 2020, and the whole strategy was divide and hopefully conquer.

This is just so wrong. Sanders made big inroads with Latino voters, especially young Latinxs, and among young Black voters. 

Were strategic decisions made that maybe weren't great in hindsight? Yes. But Sanders had no other choice but to take a run at the inside straight strategy. It even had a decent chance of working, and perhaps would have worked in a year where everyone wasn't understandably terrified of losing to Trump.

But to act as if Sanders didn't have an establishment hill to climb is just outright wrong.

I don't know if it's your dislike of Sanders that turns you off his supporters, or dislike of his supporters that turns you off of Sanders, but your mischaracterization of his outreach strategy is cartoonish.

[JGP]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When I saw this thread had popped since I last looked, I figured it was this. It didn't even get mentioned.
 

No shit lol

Like, can we even call them dogwhistles anymore? It's loud and clear to anything that has ears.