2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13,191]

I'm not sure I understand what you think the mischaracterization is.

Riiiight

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

 

 

Riiiight

 

I'm being sincere.   How do you interpret the first two reasons Bernie gives for why Warren is starting to catch up to him in the polls?  I hear him saying that the reasons are that some voters want a woman, and others want someone younger.   

[bad_teammate 13,191]

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm being sincere.   How do you interpret the first two reasons Bernie gives for why Warren is starting to catch up to him in the polls?  I hear him saying that the reasons are that some voters want a woman, and others want someone younger.   

"The" is a definite article and using it to pick two things out of a longer list creates the impression that the rest of the list doesn't exist, which is where the misleading headline comes from and your continuation of that mischaracterization.

Bernie didn't say that Warren is up because she has ovaries or even because she's a woman. The only thing he attributed to her as a candidate was that she is his friend and that she's running a good campaign. He said voters might want a woman and someone younger than him, both of which are true.

The question was about why people see her as "the more electable version of Bernie Sanders". His answer was accurate and fair.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Tulsi.

Why?

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,905]

hahahahahaha

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"The" is a definite article and using it to pick two things out of a longer list creates the impression that the rest of the list doesn't exist, which is where the misleading headline comes from and your continuation of that mischaracterization.

Bernie didn't say that Warren is up because she has ovaries or even because she's a woman. The only thing he attributed to her as a candidate was that she is his friend and that she's running a good campaign. He said voters might want a woman and someone younger than him, both of which are true.

The question was about why people see her as "the more electable version of Bernie Sanders". His answer was accurate and fair.

So your issue is that he gave being a woman as one reason she's catching up, but the title of the article implies that he said it is the only reason?   I guess that's fair, but the subheading and text all make clear that he listed it as one factor.  Seems to me like a pretty mild complaint.   And your suggestion that Bernie wasn't referring to her with the "woman" and "younger" factors is more than a little precious.  It's clear in context that those were the first two reasons he gave for her catching up to him. 

[Fozzz 152]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Tulsi.

Why?

 

I agree with her broader point.  

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

So your issue is that he gave being a woman as one reason she's catching up, but the title of the article implies that he said it is the only reason?   I guess that's fair, but the subheading and text all make clear that he listed it as one factor.  Seems to me like a pretty mild complaint. 

The subheading does nothing to make it clear that there is a larger list of factors. You're just wrong.

Headline: SANDERS: WARREN IS SURGING BECAUSE SHE’S GOT OVARIES
Subhead: Bernie referred to the desire to see a woman in the Oval Office as a “problem” his campaign is facing.

Quote

 And your suggestion that Bernie wasn't referring to her with the "woman" and "younger" factors is more than a little precious.

I didn't say he wasn't referring to her, I was saying that he attributed those desires to voters, not that he was saying that Warren was running a "vote for me, I'm a woman" or "vote for me, I'm young" campaign.

Liz is 70, so the "younger" thing doesn't really apply.

[Js1 85,275]

30 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Tulsi.

Why?

 

“Ooh ooh, pick me as Veep, Joe!!”

[David Dennison 18,849]

4 hours ago, Fozzz said:

This is why Biden will easily navigate his embarrassing past and his current gaffes.  You gotta hit him with something stronger that challenges not just him but the establishment itself.  

 

 

John Lewis is part of the establishment.

OK.

[Hank Kingsley 20,905]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I agree with her broader point.  

About civility in Washington and the U.S.,  and the ability to reach across the aisle and work with those who we disagree with in Congress? 

[David Dennison 18,849]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

About civility in Washington and the U.S.,  and the ability to reach across the aisle and work with those who we disagree with in Congress? 

Or in the case of Joe Biden and the segregationists in question, working within your own party.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

John Lewis is part of the establishment.

OK.

Yep. 

[David Dennison 18,849]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yep. 

Uh huh.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The subheading does nothing to make it clear that there is a larger list of factors. You're just wrong.

Headline: SANDERS: WARREN IS SURGING BECAUSE SHE’S GOT OVARIES
Subhead: Bernie referred to the desire to see a woman in the Oval Office as a “problem” his campaign is facing.

I didn't say he wasn't referring to her, I was saying that he attributed those desires to voters, not that he was saying that Warren was running a "vote for me, I'm a woman" or "vote for me, I'm young" campaign.

Liz is 70, so the "younger" thing doesn't really apply.

Huh?  Bernie is 77.   She's younger by like 7 years.   And the subheading says "a" problem, which is accurate.  And yes, he attributed that desire to voters.   As a reason she's catching up to him.   She's catching up to him in part because she's a woman, and he's not a woman, so some voters are choosing her over him based on her sex.  That's what the article is complaining about. 

I mean, yeah, the main heading should have said "in part" because she's a woman.  It just seems to me like quibbling, because the main point of the article is reasonable. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I’m glad Bernie is still hanging around.  He will keep sandbagging Biden because that’s all he can do. 

[David Dennison 18,849]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m glad Bernie is still hanging around.  He will keep sandbagging Biden because that’s all he can do. 

Unless he starts sandbagging Warren.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Unless he starts sandbagging Warren.

Now you’re making me excited.  I hope he tries but I don’t think he’s that stupid.   

Edited June 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Why didn’t Bernie do something like this? 

[Dolemite 143]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

$20 Bernie orders a water, no ice.  Liz probably is a Diet Coke drinker. 

Commies don't drink water.

[BradInATX 9,208]

I’m glad Bernie is still hanging around.  He will keep sandbagging Biden because that’s all he can do. 

Throwing random grenades hugo > Mueller nerd hugo

[Zonahorn 8,079]

29 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Commies don't drink water.

My god, look at this fucking guy.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

Huh?  Bernie is 77.   She's younger by like 7 years. 

Liz is old and that's just the basic truth, take yourself out of sparring-with-a-Bernie-Bro mode and be objective about it. She is not going to entice anyone who wants a younger candidate; she cannot be in that lane. Let's not delude ourselves into believing that she's going to seem young and vital to the voters at large when she's 70 up against actual younger candidates like Beto, Buttigieg, and Harris. There's a LOT going for Liz, but age ain't one of them.

Quote

 And the subheading says "a" problem, which is accurate.  And yes, he attributed that desire to voters.   As a reason she's catching up to him.   She's catching up to him in part because she's a woman, and he's not a woman, so some voters are choosing her over him based on her sex.  That's what the article is complaining about. 

Complaining about the reality and truth of that statement or Bernie's rudeness for mentioning that obvious truth?

Quote

I mean, yeah, the main heading should have said "in part" because she's a woman.  It just seems to me like quibbling, because the main point of the article is reasonable. 

You haven't actually read the article, have you? Be honest.

Here's the opening paragraph:

Why is Senator Elizabeth Warren surging in the polls? Is it because she’s rolled out comprehensive plan after plan after plan for how she would tackle everything from crippling student debt to soaring wealth inequality to the outrageously high cost of child care? Is it because a growing number of Americans think she would be the best person, among a clown car of Democratic candidates, to serve as the 46th president? Or is it because she has two X chromosomes and voters are all eh, you’ll do? According to Senator Bernie Sanders, it’s the latter.

Here's the next paragraph, wherein the author clips Bernie's statement in precisely the place where her first paragraph would be proved a lie.

Appearing on CNN on Wednesday night, Sanders was asked by Chris Cuomo, “What do you think the reason is that Elizabeth Warren is catching up to you in polls? Do you believe that people see her as the more electable version of Bernie Sanders?” To which the lawmaker from Vermont responded, “Well, I think we are running against a lot of problems.” He then proceeded to describe said problems. “I think that there are a certain number of people who would like to see a woman elected, and I understand that,” Sanders said. “There are people who would like to see somebody who is younger, and I understand that also. There are a lot of factors out there.”

The point of this article is to mischaracterize Bernie's statement to make him sound like a sexist. You can acknowledge this plain reality and not be a Bernie Bro, I promise.

[BradInATX 9,208]

It depends on what the definition of "the" is

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Complaining about the reality and truth of that statement or Bernie's rudeness for mentioning that obvious truth?

Ah, I see the core of our continuing disagreement.   What is Bernie's basis for asserting that part of Warren's increase in poll numbers over the last few weeks is because of an influx of voters driven by wanting a woman as president? 

In my view, that factor was baked in from the start, as is Bernie's support from voters who don't want a female president, or who want the first non-Christian president.   And the last several weeks have been marked by major policy proposals from Warren and effective appearances telling her personal story at big Dem events, none of which involved people finding out for the first time that she is a woman.  She also has built a machine in Iowa and has been doing a great job keeping consistently strong messaging nationwide. So asserting that the recent surge is based at all on her sex strikes me as lazy and sexist.

But I admit that my take would be wrong, if there is evidence to the contrary.    Perhaps a swarm of female-only voters switching to Warren from Harris?  I haven't seen that reflected in the polls.   So what is Bernie's basis? 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13,191]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So asserting that the recent surge is based on her sex strikes me as lazy and sexist.

And here you are again acting like gender was the only thing he said. #sad

Quote

Perhaps a swarm of female-only voters switching to Warren from Harris?

You are being disingenuous by conflating that with "female-only", but you're doing that because you want to keep arguing despite the fact that you didn't read the article and know what you were defending before you jumped into the fray.

There are also voters who will never consider Warren because they only want a man. If Liz were to say, "one of the problems we face is that some voters want a man" then she would be correct in saying it and it would be no slight or attack on any of the men running. It would be an accurate characterization of the attitudes of the voters, which you know is true.

Do you believe gender is a non-factor or are you just arguing that Bernie shouldn't say true things?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And here you are again acting like gender was the only thing he said. #sad

You are being disingenuous by conflating that with "female-only", but you're doing that because you want to keep arguing despite the fact that you didn't read the article and know what you were defending before you jumped into the fray.

There are also voters who will never consider Warren because they only want a man. If Liz were to say, "one of the problems we face is that some voters want a man" then she would be correct in saying it and it would be no slight or attack on any of the men running. It would be an accurate characterization of the attitudes of the voters, which you know is true.

Do you believe gender is a non-factor or are you just arguing that Bernie shouldn't say true things?

I don't know why you keep making all sorts of false claims about me or my motivations.  It's bizarre.  I even edited your "sad" quote for accuracy before you responded.   You're just way off, over and over again.  Even worse, it's just irrelevant. 

No, I don't think Warren being a woman is a factor in her recent surge.   I think she has jumped in the last few weeks based on her policy proposals, effective personal appearances, and hard work, all of which has been on display leading up to and during her surge.   I think each polling gain she has made is from someone who knew she was a woman before supporting her, but only switched towards her because of one of the other things I cited.

Your chart doesn't reflect anything about the shift in polling numbers in recent weeks.  What is your basis for claiming that her sex or gender has played a role in her recent polling spike? 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Bernie needs to do another Fox News town hall. 

[bad_teammate 13,191]

Quote

No, I don't think Warren being a woman is a factor in her recent surge.

Do you see how the evidence of many Democratic voters actively wanting a woman might factor in even if you don't believe it had any impact? Do you think the pollsters are lying or that people are misreporting their own preferences?

Quote

I think she has jumped in the last few weeks based on her policy proposals, effective personal appearances, and hard work, all of which has been on display leading up to and during her surge.

So her "running a good campaign"? I know a guy who agrees with you and who said that when asked about her rise in the polls.

Quote

 I think each polling gain she has made is from someone who knew she was a woman before supporting her, but only switched towards her because of one of the other things I cited.

And gender can't factor in alongside other considerations? Everyone is motivated by a single thought at a time?

Quote

What is your basis for claiming that her sex or gender has played a role in her recent polling spike? 

What is my evidence that the preferences of voters factors into their allegiances? Is this a joke?

Elizabeth Warren has been the policy candidate since January, that's not new. She hasn't changed or turned over a new leaf. She's been great for 6 months. Her recent rise in the polls isn't simply the result of her personal virtue finally being recognized and rewarded in a meritocratic polling system.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you see how the evidence of many Democratic voters actively wanting a woman might factor in even if you don't believe it had any impact? Do you think the pollsters are lying or that people are misreporting their own preferences?

So her "running a good campaign"? I know a guy who agrees with you and who said that when asked about her rise in the polls.

And gender can't factor in alongside other considerations? Everyone is motivated by a single thought at a time?

What is my evidence that the preferences of voters factors into their allegiances? Is this a joke?

Elizabeth Warren has been the policy candidate since January, that's not new. She hasn't changed or turned over a new leaf. She's been great for 6 months. Her recent rise in the polls isn't simply the result of her personal virtue finally being recognized and rewarded in a meritocratic polling system.

Sure gender can factor in.   I just think that you should actually have evidence that it has if you're asked why she's surged and it's the first reason you give (yes, of several alluded to factors).  For example, a poll of recent converts to Warren showing that for X% it was a factor in their switch.  That would do it.   But it rubs me the wrong way to just assume that being a woman was a factor in her spike when she's been killing it out there on the stump.  Especially given that each of the candidates has identity-based advantages and disadvantages that could easily cancel out this one.   So I'll just have to disagree with you on it being an "obvious truth" that was an appropriate thing to say. 

[bad_teammate 13,191]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

I just think that you should actually have evidence that it has if you're asked why she's surged and it's the first reason you give (yes, of several alluded to factors).

Between the two of us, who has provided at least an attempt at "evidence"?

Quote

For example, a poll of recent converts to Warren showing that for X% it was a factor in their switch.  That would do it.   But it rubs me the wrong way to just assume that being a woman was a factor in her spike when she's been killing it out there on the stump. 

So it's not about evidence, it's about what rubs you the wrong way?

It would be idiotic to eliminate any factor that so commonly polls as important to voters simply because you feel that it detracts from the narrative you prefer to believe (i.e., that she is getting her reward for being a hard worker). That's not how politics work, it's not a meritocracy where voters give out what is due like some kind of invisible hand of the market. Warren is no better today than she was 4 months ago when her numbers were much lower. The difference has been the collapse of Joe Biden (#1 in the polls) due to his endless gaffes, the centrist and media attacks on Bernie (#2 in the polls) due to his unapologetic Democratic Socialism, and the media choosing a Warren-promoting moment in the midst of those two other things.

Go back a month and look at Pete. Did he rise because it was suddenly the case that he became a better candidate? Did he roll out a ton of policy? Did he give a bunch of great speeches? Not really, he got the media spotlight and took advantage. Warren came up with a good catchphrase that came from a viral moment that allowed a media narrative to form around what she was already doing (coming out with good policies, which she has been doing forever, because she's smart and great) and she has been leaning into it.

Advertising works, and free advertising is the best you can get. My ideal situation is the media swapping between Bernie-promoting (they'll come around) and Liz-promoting (this one will fade) cycles while Biden slowly drains.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[bad_teammate 13,191]

It's pretty easy to see who says what about which candidates, and it's pretty clear who supports both Warren and Bernie and who are the people actually trying to promote a non-existent fight and be divisive trolls.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Hahahaha

[BradInATX 9,208]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hahahaha

Grenades hugo > doesn't take the bait hugo > states obvious facts hugo > Mueller nerd hugo

[F250 28,764]

34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Castro has a way of sucking the life out of the room.

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Anyone saying people are choosing Warren now is because she’s a woman and younger is full of shit.

 

She’s literally putting out double the policy positions of any other candidate and just going out and being real and that’s attracted a lot of attention and thus grown her support.

 

There’s maybe 8% of voters who fall in the “Give me a woman or no one “ category. Being a woman has been proven to be an actual disadvantage with the majority of voters.

 

It’s a garbage argument that is quite insulting.

 

And younger???? She’s about to turn 70! Literally every other candidate except Biden is massively younger than Bernie. There’s no material difference in 70 and 77.

 

Another garbage argument.

 

Elizabeth Warren is gaining traction because she’s the best hands down at not just policies but putting those policies in context of her story and building a compelling narrative on how all those ideas intersect and comprise a picture of what she would be like as president.

 

For Bernie to dismiss that and make it about her vagina and the date on her birth certificate is dismissive of her hard work and how impressive she is.

 

[David Dennison 18,849]

Warren is in the lead for me at the moment.

[BradInATX 9,208]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Warren is in the lead for me at the moment.

I don't even like all of her policies but the fact that she's putting them out there is something else. Whether it's her or staffers writing it, I don't care. She's a refreshing break from the vagueries of politics from, well, my whole life. She just needs a little more nasty. I know I've said this before but if she would come out in the debate and just straight up say "Donald Trump is a mouth breathing moron", I'm all in. 

[bad_teammate 13,191]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

She’s literally putting out double the policy positions of any other candidate...

Not true, either literally or figuratively.

Quote

Elizabeth Warren is gaining traction because she’s the best hands down at not just policies but putting those policies in context of her story and building a compelling narrative on how all those ideas intersect and comprise a picture of what she would be like as president.

I don't know what it means to be "best at policies", but I'm 100% in agreement with the bolded version. She is engaging, her story is awesome (a mother who worked her way up to her position is EXTREMELY compelling), and she exudes confident leadership.

Quote

For Bernie to dismiss that and make it about her vagina and the date on her birth certificate is dismissive of her hard work and how impressive she is.

If he did that, I would agree, but he clearly didn't and you know that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[UTDD 362]

Warren's sex for me is a neutral factor.  I'll just come out and admit it -- her age is and always will be a negative for me, so I'd never lean in her direction for that sole reason no matter her age in relation to anyone else.  Bernie and Trump are also huge negatives for me with age in isolation to anything else, even more than Warren because...well...they are even older and they are also older males which does matter with age to me as I have less concern with an older female and health all things being equal.  (unless health shows something specific to that candidate, etc)  Character and issues trump that easily though versus a younger but deficient candidate in these areas.

[Fozzz 152]

Biden may be more racist than Trump.

 

 

[David Dennison 18,849]

6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Biden may be more racist than Trump.

 

 

Someone should ask him about this.

[bad_teammate 13,191]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Someone should ask him about this.

*leans in uncomfortably close and whispers*

"Malarkey"

[Zombie 284]

Castro has a way of sucking the life out of the room.
 

I think he's a good guy and would be a competent VP, but yeah, that guy has zero charisma.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Political Twitter is full up of tweets right now about how Beto just brought the house down at the SC Democrat convention.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[David Dennison 18,849]

He's going to make a good governor some day.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

And Biden’s speech got savaged.

Go to Twitter and click on the #SCDemconvention to see all the reactions.