2020 Democratic Nominee

[Anastasis 23,485]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

I find it very annoying that we are judging the viability of candidates by their fundraising ability.

[Biff Tannen 45,735]

So many quotes from that scene, so not sure how I'm supposed to take it.

[Anastasis 23,485]

Let's start with "this is our concern dude" and "the goddamned plane has crashed into the mountain" and go from there.

[Biff Tannen 45,735]

Nothing is fucked?!?!

[bad_teammate 13,224]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I find it very annoying that we are judging the viability of candidates by their fundraising ability.

We're trying to figure out what's going on, so we use as many metrics as we can (including polls), but the best indicators of enthusiasm are when people actually do things. It's all a jumble of imperfect metrics.

# of volunteers

# of donators

# of dollars raised

# of endorsements

Lots of ins, lots of outs.

[atomheartbevo 89,792]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I find it very annoying that we are judging the viability of candidates by their fundraising ability.

Some see it as a gauge on voter enthusiasm and candidate organization.  Both of which are very important.  

[henrygandorf 29,194]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I find it very annoying that we are judging the viability of candidates by their fundraising ability.

fundraising = sustainability of a campaign

i wouldn't rank them and judge them exactly the same, but anyone who's gonna go the distance has to show the ability to raise money.  overall though, fundraising rankings are like polls this early - pretty meaningless.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Biff Tannen 45,735]

I get why it is used as a metric to gauge interest, but the fact that the system is such that you more or less have to out-fund raise your opponents for viability is fucked up.  

[tantric superman 4,667]

I actually thought that the internets would allow people to become rock stars and win elections with far fewer resources.  Not quite turning out that way.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I find it very annoying that we are judging the viability of candidates by their fundraising ability.

It's almost like a popularity contest. 

/subtle sarcasm 

[gmr548 16,615]

I actually thought that the internets would allow people to become rock stars and win elections with far fewer resources.  Not quite turning out that way.

 

It allows longshot-type candidates to become rock stars and expand their reach like never before. You still need astronomical resources to win, but it gives an underdog candidate a viable way to start from scratch. Obama is an early example, but to some degree Trump, Bernie, Beto, and Pete B, just to name a few, have all pulled it off.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

48 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

A more statistically normalized view...

But Nate is wrong-headed in the analysis part of this ("not spectacular (especially for Beto)"), because he's comparing Bernie & Beto's fundraising to Obama/Clinton in '07 and completely ignoring the reality that Beto has 2.3x as many donors as Obama at the same point (Sanders has 5x what Obama had in '07).

Obama raised $25M in Q1 from 100k donors. Beto has 2.3x as many donors, and if Beto took big money from big donors and bundlers like Obama and Clinton did in '07, he would have annihilated $25M.

It's a different time and the Dems have different fundraising priorities.

I was part of Obama's "OH MY GOD THE GRASSROOTS!!!" campaign in 2007 and it was still HUGELY corporate. Having 100k individual donors in a few months was absolutely mind-exploding 10 years ago.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Looking at money as evil is a narrow view.

If the money is only coming from PACs and corporations and special interests and giant donors, sure.

But every single one of these democrats are raising their money from individual voters in dollar amounts ranging from $3 to at most $2-300. Only 2% of Kamala’s digital donors were $200 or greater. Bernie, Beto, and Pete all had average individual donations in the neighborhoods of $25-45.

That’s how money in politics should work.

This kind of money in politics is the ultimate polling. Voters willing to put their dollars on the line to say “I support this person. I want to help them keep going. I want to see them on the debate stage.” are engaged voters.

They aren’t fat cats buying favors or expecting a quid pro quo.

Until we get fully federal funded elections, give me this kind of money in politics all day as opposed to the old way of doing things.

Running for President is fucking outrageously expensive.

Another good data point for Beto -

[bad_teammate 13,224]

allegory of the cave hell yes

 

[UTDD 362]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Looking at money as evil is a narrow view.

If the money is only coming from PACs and corporations and special interests and giant donors, sure.

But every single one of these democrats are raising their money from individual voters in dollar amounts ranging from $3 to at most $2-300. Only 2% of Kamala’s digital donors were $200 or greater. Bernie, Beto, and Pete all had average individual donations in the neighborhoods of $25-45.

That’s how money in politics should work.

This kind of money in politics is the ultimate polling. Voters willing to put their dollars on the line to say “I support this person. I want to help them keep going. I want to see them on the debate stage.” are engaged voters.

They aren’t fat cats buying favors or expecting a quid pro quo.

Until we get fully federal funded elections, give me this kind of money in politics all day as opposed to the old way of doing things.

Running for President is fucking outrageously expensive.

Another good data point for Beto -
 

He's in good shape for now.  He just needs to avoid mistakes and start developing real policy parameters with enough detail to matter but not so much detail he can't be pegged as a one trick pony by others.  I would give this same advice to Warren too who is in danger of that very issue even though I think far and away she is the smartest (pure IQ/policy development) candidate in the group so far.  If he can prove he is a not a lightweight and can actually fight with Trump, I think later you will see some bigger bundlers/donors breaking in his direction as my sense from (admittedly a small sample size) the rich Dem donors I personally know is that they are not sold on Biden, Bernie, or Warren at all to beat Trump but are waiting and more curious on Kamala and Beto.  They are more open to Biden than the other two, but I keep hearing he is not exciting enough and especially not disciplined enough like an Obama to stick to a great strategic plan and not deviate from it or create issues that hurt the plan.  Keep in mind this type of Dem (at least the ones I have worked with or know) is generally more moneyed and a little more corporate friendly/institutional so it also makes sense who they might like a little more if you look at it in depth.

Edited April 3, 2019 by UTDD

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Let’s say Bernie becomes president, what exactly do you expect him to accomplish and how is he going to accomplish it?  He isn’t exactly the pragmatic progressive. 

Perhaps the counter revolution President Bernie would galvanize would do more harm than good.  

I’m glad Bernie has moved the Democratic Party to a place with better ideas, conversations, and solutions but I’m not exactly optimistic with him in the White House.

Of course he’s light years better than Trump and I’d vote for him over any republican but I don’t understand why he alone needs to be president when there are more palatable alternatives that could do a better job of furthering his causes in the White House.

(runs for cover from BT).

The whole “getting shit accomplished” bullshit red herring is how Hillary got the nomination. The only way to “ get shit accomplished” is for the dems to take over not only the house, but the presidency and the senate. Then we can all worry about what “get’s accomplished.” 

Otherwise who really cares? If the dem wins the presidency but the senate stays republican it don’t make a shit who the dem president is gonna be, liberal, moderate, Hillary, Bernita or whoever,  shit aint “getting accomplished.” 

Just win baby. 

[LonghornJudas 1,102]

All the money pulled in by candidates should be equally distributed among them.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

"Getting accomplished"? The fuck?

Amazon has a $15/hr minimum wage because of Bernie Sanders

Disney is raising pay to a living wage because of Bernie Sanders

The DNC dramatically altered its nomination rules because of Bernie Sanders

AOC and Ilhan Omar are in Congress because of Bernie Sanders

The ENTIRE Democratic primary is terrified of courting big money because of Bernie Sanders

The ENTIRE Democratic primary field is playing defense against real universal healthcare because of Bernie Sanders. All of them are terrified

Hell, Beto wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ground work Bernie laid in 2016 with Beto literally hiring Bernie's staff to run his 2018 Senate campaign and make him relevant

Kiss the fucking ring, plebs.

Edited April 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Enchubben 5,510]

26 minutes ago, LonghornJudas said:

All the money pulled in by candidates should be equally distributed among them.

Yea it’s not fair that some started out with more than others. I say we take it from Beto/Biden/Bernie and distribute it out to those that are less fortunate so we get an even playing field.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

On 3/30/2019 at 10:51 AM, Js1 said:

So Al Franken takes a funny photo and Gillibrand destroys him.  

Why do people keep saying bullshit like this?  Gillibrand called for him to step down (along with 12 other female Dem Senators, including Kamala Harris), and Franken then resigned, after 7 other women accused him of either fondling their asses or trying to forcibly kiss them on the lips.   It wasn't the "funny photo."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Franken did the right thing because he recognized the importance of the moment, he put country over party by resigning.  

It started as a political hit job though and from a purely political standpoint, Gillibrand and the others were all too eager to make their own political hay at Franken’s expense. 

They didn’t have to defend him but they should have given him more of an opportunity to some reconciliation process.  

Unless you think Franken is some kind of dangerous sex predator, it could have been handled better.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

All the money pulled in by candidates should be equally distributed among them.

 

I don’t know if you’re being a smart ass or not but that’s why everyone should be throwing $10 bucks to Unify or Die every time we give to Bernie or Pete or Kamala or Beto.

 

Because while we’re all throwing poo at each other, the RNC is all giving their cash to the same place and hoarding it up to unleash hell on whoever the last person standing is come June 2020.

 

And that person - no matter how great they are at raising cash - will have spent a lot of it to win the nomination. So they’re going to need a war chest to pull from immediately to complete with Trump and his PACs from hell.

 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/unify-or-die?refcode=tw_20190207_launch&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=20190207_launch

 

Bookmark that link and throw them some cash when the “I don’t care who wins the nomination! I just want to beat Trump!” thought crosses your mind.

 

Every bit of those donations go straight to the nominee immediately after the convention.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Franken did the right thing because he recognized the importance of the moment, he put country over party by resigning.  

It started as a political hit job though and from a purely political standpoint, Gillibrand and the others were all too eager to make their own political hay at Franken’s expense. 

They didn’t have to defend him but they should have given him more of an opportunity to some reconciliation process.  

Unless you think Franken is some kind of dangerous sex predator, it could have been handled better.

It wasn't a political benefit to turn on Franken.  Just the opposite; it probably killed Gillibrand's presidential campaign in the cradle.   What is political is all of the people who defend this kind of thing when it's their guy but attack when it's the other side.   And it's a sad irony that the handful of people who are willing to call out their own side are always the ones who get accused of being political opportunists.

[tantric superman 4,667]

Which democrats are actively in favor of reparations or are trying to pacify those who want reparations for slavery by promising to study the issue?

Because they're out of the gang. 

What a dumb, vote-losing issue.

[EuroHorn 3,268]

Are we going to get more casinos?

[Brothahorn 10,087]

"Getting accomplished"? The fuck?
Amazon has a $15/hr minimum wage because of Bernie Sanders
Disney is raising pay to a living wage because of Bernie Sanders
The DNC dramatically altered its nomination rules because of Bernie Sanders
AOC and Ilhan Omar are in Congress because of Bernie Sanders
The ENTIRE Democratic primary is terrified of courting big money because of Bernie Sanders
The ENTIRE Democratic primary field is playing defense against real universal healthcare because of Bernie Sanders. All of them are terrified
Hell, Beto wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the ground work Bernie laid in 2016 with Beto literally hiring Bernie's staff to run his 2018 Senate campaign and make him relevant
Kiss the fucking ring, plebs.

Not Joe F’ing Biden. Shotgun Joe is going to wipe the floor with that bum.

[Anastasis 23,485]

Am I crazy to think that Warren improves her market after a couple debates this summer? She looks like the best value on this board.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Which democrats are actively in favor of reparations or are trying to pacify those who want reparations for slavery by promising to study the issue?
Because they're out of the gang. 
What a dumb, vote-losing issue.

Well, I’ve heard none of them actively campaigning on the issue, making it part of their platforms, or proactively bringing up the issue.

Some have been asked about it in interviews and have answered that they are open to exploring the issue, which of course generated click bait “CANDIDATE X IS FOR REPARATIONS” headlines.

But you have repeatedly brought up this nonsense red herring issue as a personal deal breaker for you and a potential disaster and democrat-killer in the making, when it’s literally getting zero play anywhere other than places like Breitbart and Zero Hedge.

Seriously, it’s not a thing.

[tantric superman 4,667]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

But you have repeatedly brought up this nonsense red herring issue as a personal deal breaker for you and a potential disaster and democrat-killer in the making, when it’s literally getting zero play anywhere other than places like Breitbart and Zero Hedge.

Seriously, it’s not a thing.

 

I think I've brought it up once and it seems to be a thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/politics/reparations-democratic-party/index.html

 

[horncyclist 1,391]

36 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think I've brought it up once and it seems to be a thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/politics/reparations-democratic-party/index.html

 

Not to derail the threat but discussing reparations isn't crazy. I don't know what's right, but we should have the discussion. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

"Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."

[tantric superman 4,667]

Until we reckon with inequality of opportunity while phasing out all race-based politics and policy, America will never be whole.

Not advocating forgetting history.  Advocating focusing on actual solutions for people facing real problems now.  Based on their situation now, not some historical wrong that affected every person differently.

Edited April 4, 2019 by tantric superman

[wildcat09 29,384]

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Until we reckon with inequality of opportunity while phasing out all race-based politics and policy, America will never be whole.

Not advocating forgetting history.  Advocating focusing on actual solutions for people facing real problems now.  Based on their situation now, not some historical wrong that affected every person differently.

It is impossible to reckon with our inequality of opportunity without also reckoning with our history of racial oppression and violence.

[Chrispy 132]

2 hours ago, horncyclist said:

Not to derail the threat but discussing reparations isn't crazy. I don't know what's right, but we should have the discussion. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

"Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole."

Oh, please democrats, please do this. Also, please start collecting in poverty stricken Appalachia first. Thanks. 

[David Dennison 18,946]

Uh oh. Reparations talk. White people might get their feelings hurt.

[tantric superman 4,667]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Uh oh. Reparations talk. White people might get their feelings hurt.

Well, as a Hispanic, I'm in the clear, since I am sure I will get an exemption/rebate from any program because my folks didn't get here until after the Civil War, and were too damn poor to own slaves, or employ blacks at slave wages.

I do think, sincerely, that the win win on these issues would be need based affirmative action of all types.  I think it would benefit the historically oppressed, and be based on a color blind approach in a country that is continuing to continue to muddy the race issues through intermarriage. 

It's not a question about whites getting their feelings hurt.  It's a question about what will almost certainly  be an unwieldy, unfair system designed not to help people in need, but to garner votes.  I don't think Dems are the only one's who play an ugly game of identity politics, but I think this can only be misinterpreted and is a bad move. 

And Bama Chick may be right, and this may fade away, so no sense escalating it if it is going to die down.

Edited April 4, 2019 by tantric superman

[DigglerontheHoof 21,236]

Reparations will never happen and it's a losing plank for the Dems.  In a POTUS election where independents are CRITICAL for the Dems, this is regarded.

 

JFC, concentrate on real and pressing matters we face right now.  

[David Dennison 18,946]

33 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Reparations will never happen and it's a losing plank for the Dems.  In a POTUS election where independents are CRITICAL for the Dems, this is regarded.

JFC, concentrate on real and pressing matters we face right now.  

The failure of Reconstruction is a real and pressing issue for the United States right now. Just not for you personally.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Tantric, you are legit acting as if every black person is going to get cut a check for $10,000. Most of these candidates are talking about making sure black owned businesses can get loans (which is still a huge issue), low-income families who are disproportionately black are helped, etc. You are going to hear this word brought up again because it's becoming something that black voters are asking about, try not to be gross and dismissive of them.

[Incredulity 11,683]

18 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Tantric, you are legit acting as if every black person is going to get cut a check for $10,000. Most of these candidates are talking about making sure black owned businesses can get loans (which is still a huge issue), low-income families who are disproportionately black are helped, etc. You are going to hear this word brought up again because it's becoming something that black voters are asking about, try not to be gross and dismissive of them.

Probably would be better to just cut checks.  Loan officers/underwriters can really be pieces of shit.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

The problem with cutting a $10k check is that it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of wealth inequality.

If we actually wanted to level the playing field by median family wealth, every black family would get a check for $160k. Let's say 13 million black families in America. We're talking a one-time $3T payment.

And I'm not even saying I'm against that, but let's be honest about the terms of the discussion.

Without changing the underlying system of capital that whites already control, however, even that $3T spend would be largely useless.

[Hank Scorpio 17,731]

Someone probably already posted this but I don't care I just like watching it. 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hank Scorpio

[Incredulity 11,683]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The problem with cutting a $10k check is that it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of wealth inequality.

If we actually wanted to level the playing field by median family wealth, every black family would get a check for $160k. Let's say 13 million black families in America. We're talking a one-time $3T payment.

And I'm not even saying I'm against that, but let's be honest about the terms of the discussion.

Without changing the underlying system of capital that whites already control, however, even that $3T spend would be largely useless.

So, 160K and all the capital.  got it.  Will they take a post dated government IOU?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Tantric, you are legit acting as if every black person is going to get cut a check for $10,000. Most of these candidates are talking about making sure black owned businesses can get loans (which is still a huge issue), low-income families who are disproportionately black are helped, etc. You are going to hear this word brought up again because it's becoming something that black voters are asking about, try not to be gross and dismissive of them.

And just watch, people like Tucker Carlson and Hannity and Laura Ingraham and Rush will use reparations as a catch all term for any programs like mentioned above, start screaming about “Democrats want to take your tax money and blanket ‘the inner cities’ with blank checks for every ‘Tyrone, Keisha, and Jerome’ while you and your children get nothing!”

It’ll be another racist dog whistle garbage tactic and it’s easy to see in this thread who is already salivating at the prospect of being able to blow that whistle when they post things like “Oh please, I hope the democrats promote reparations!”

Know that translates into “I get to argue a racist position without having to look overtly racist “.

[Anastasis 23,485]

Reparations is a politically loaded term.  If you want to talk about minority business loan programs, helping low-income families through assistance programs, and minority scholarship programs, it would be most productive to talk about those programs specifically rather than talk broadly about "reparations". In much the same way that political opponents will latch on to the catch all nature of the term, political proponents deploy the term precisely because it leaves the interpretation of the meaning to ear of the target listener. There is a way to have a grounded conversation around the topic without it becoming a total shit show. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Tantric, you are legit acting as if every black person is going to get cut a check for $10,000. Most of these candidates are talking about making sure black owned businesses can get loans (which is still a huge issue), low-income families who are disproportionately black are helped, etc. You are going to hear this word brought up again because it's becoming something that black voters are asking about, try not to be gross and dismissive of them. 

I'm not gross or dismissive about anyone, black or white, who face oppression or economic struggle.  I'm open to any intelligent program that deals with a relationship between a current oppressive condition and the cause of that condition.

You outline a specific program and then I'll let you know if I am gross or dismissive of that specific program. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by tantric superman

[Brothahorn 10,087]

39 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Reparations is a politically loaded term.  If you want to talk about minority business loan programs, helping low-income families through assistance programs, and minority scholarship programs, it would be most productive to talk about those programs specifically rather than talk broadly about "reparations". In much the same way that political opponents will latch on to the catch all nature of the term, political proponents deploy the term precisely because it leaves the interpretation of the meaning to ear of the target listener. There is a way to have a grounded conversation around the topic without it becoming a total shit show. 

Exactly. The dog whistling is coming from those who pushing support of reparations during a political campaign. It's designed to do nothing but pander and buy votes. We all know damn well what will happen to this issue after the election.

There definitely needs to be a reckoning with regards to this issue, but not during a political campaign. 

And no amount of money is going to actually help the healing process. How do you decide who gets what? Do blacks with Jamaican ancestry qualify? Because the ADOS folks say no.

 

Not every black family needs a check/program/help from the government just for being black.  Although, I would take 40 acres and a cow.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Brothahorn

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Reparations is a politically loaded term.  If you want to talk about minority business loan programs, helping low-income families through assistance programs, and minority scholarship programs, it would be most productive to talk about those programs specifically rather than talk broadly about "reparations". In much the same way that political opponents will latch on to the catch all nature of the term, political proponents deploy the term precisely because it leaves the interpretation of the meaning to ear of the target listener. There is a way to have a grounded conversation around the topic without it becoming a total shit show. 

Ask yourself why it’s loaded and who loaded it.

[tantric superman 4,667]

8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Ask yourself why it’s loaded and who loaded it.

I don't think it's that relevant, but okay, just did.

Because reparations means the actions taken for and against the sons of the oppressed and the oppressors because of the actions of the oppressors.  That's always going to be a loaded issue.

Who loaded it?  A pretty long line from Gen. William T. Sherman to T. Coates.

Edited April 4, 2019 by tantric superman

[bad_teammate 13,224]

bErNiE cAnT gEt AnYtHiNg DoNe

Bernie introduces legislation to end involvement in Yemen and gets it through the Republican-controlled Senate and then it passes the House as well.

Will be vetoed by Trump, of course.

But Bernie gets things done.