2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't see how that would be attributable to the DNC primary system.   Maybe in 2016, but this time around there are many alternative candidates to make the case for themselves, and the DNC is giving them more than enough opportunity to do so. 

When I say DNC primary system I mean the big donors, the media shills, the corporate oligarchs, and the whole establishment apparatus.  It’s been one massive influence campaign to prop up Joe Biden.  

Over the last year we’ve been inundated with polls pushed by the media designed to create a perception that Joe Biden is the most electable and most likely to beat Trump.  This wasn’t an accident.  Most people don’t understand how name recognition artificially inflates polls early on in the process.  This vulnerability in our democratic process has been exploited.  In fact, it’s the foundation of Joe Biden’s entire campaign and he’s openly running on it, which is fucking nuts. 

We could have been informed on the actual candidates and their positions instead of the media giving us a feedback loop of what they think we’re thinking prior to being presented substantive information about the choices.  

[6th Street 6442]

Like I said, people have fond memories of the Obama years, and believe Biden can take us back there. Warren and Sanders cause too much friction, and have too aggressive policies for these middle of the road folks.

[Biff Tannen 45694]

15 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

Is he going to come out in a Matthew Lesko suit?

[zork 629]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Is he going to come out in a Matthew Lesko suit?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Like I said, people have fond memories of the Obama years, and believe Biden can take us back there. Warren and Sanders cause too much friction, and have too aggressive policies for these middle of the road folks.

Not what the betting markets are saying:

[zork 629]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not what the betting markets are saying:

Welp, lots of money to be made on Beto if you still believe(less chance than Hillary at this point). Edit: Selling that .11 for Yang seems like easy money.

Edited August 30, 2019 by zork

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Over the last year we’ve been inundated with polls pushed by the media designed to create a perception that Joe Biden is the most electable and most likely to beat Trump.  This wasn’t an accident.  Most people don’t understand how name recognition artificially inflates polls early on in the process.  This vulnerability in our democratic process has been exploited.  In fact, it’s the foundation of Joe Biden’s entire campaign and he’s openly running on it, which is fucking nuts. 

 

What are you saying exactly?

- The media is rigging polls?

- The media is only pushing polls that show Biden in the lead?

- The media should not talk about polls?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

What are you saying exactly?

- The media is rigging polls?

- The media is only pushing polls that show Biden in the lead?

- The media should not talk about polls?

The media should exchange their poll coverage for policy and candidate coverage.  They can mention polls but they don’t need to plaster them all over the screen 24/7. 

Keeping the population relentlessly informed of polls is not giving voters the most useful information to make informed voting decisions.  

So much time is wasted in MSM just talking about the current polls.  

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The media should exchange their poll coverage for policy and candidate coverage.  They can mention polls but they don’t need to plaster them all over the screen 24/7. 

Keeping the population relentlessly informed of polls is not giving voters the most useful information to make informed voting decisions.  

So much time is wasted in MSM just talking about the current polls.  

It's not the media's job to make sure the best candidate wins. 

[zork 629]

Maybe the DNC is pied pipering Biden like they did Trump?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It's not the media's job to make sure the best candidate wins. 

No shit, the media’s job is to make as much money as possible. My argument is the consumers of that media should demand a product that better informs voters. 

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

No shit, the media’s job is to make as much money as possible. My argument is the consumers of that media should demand a product that better informs voters. 

That hasn't been your argument at all. You're mostly just crying about the media doing for-profit corporation things.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

That hasn't been your argument at all. You're mostly just crying about the media doing for-profit corporation things.

Yeah no, describing the media influence has on our election process isn’t crying about it.  A good enough candidate should be able to overcome the built in structural advantages given to a Joe Biden.  

I believe Elizabeth Warren is in the process of proving it.  

That doesn’t mean I can’t acknowledge the scales have been tilted against her.  Nevertheless, she persisted.

[Hawndoh 2386]

Americans never demand better products. The only thing Americans ever demand is cheaper and more plentiful products. We are hell bent on consuming as much cheap crap from China as we possibly can. 

To expect Americans to demand better media is foolish. We're only ever going to get cheaper media. Which means easily digested, sensationalized, sound bites that can spit out around the water cooler to sound informed. It has nothing to do with being better. 

[bad_teammate 13219]

1 minute ago, Hawndoh said:

Americans never demand better products. The only thing Americans ever demand is cheaper and more plentiful products. We are hell bent on consuming as much cheap crap from China as we possibly can.

Hot take train crashing into the station.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Hawndoh said:

To expect Americans to demand better media is foolish.

No one expects this.  I’m arguing American SHOULD demand better. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19426]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

That's bullshit. As much as I don't want Joe to win, he has a real and substantial following among moderate and old Democrats. If he wins, he wins. 

My Mom runs around with a bunch of the Save our Springs/ Hill Country Conservancy folks. Lots of old hippies and "Keep Austin Weird" types. Last time I talked to her, she had been to one of the guy's 70th birthday party, and said that whole crowd is supporting Biden. She said when she pressed them on it, it's because they think he has the best chance to beat Trump. (Mom's supporting Warren) 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Seems to me that what Tulsi thinks is "a lack of transparency" is just really a lack of preparation and organization from her campaign. 

[bad_teammate 13219]

lol Tulsi with the Joe Biden, "Look everyone here is tired I don't have time to talk about it." move

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Seems to me that what Tulsi thinks is "a lack of transparency" is just really a lack of preparation and organization from her campaign. 

Are you telling me that a grifting gimmick wasn't serious and prepared!?!?!??!?!

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

lol Tulsi with the Joe Biden, "Look everyone here is tired I don't have time to talk about it." move

Are you telling me that a grifting gimmick wasn't serious and prepared!?!?!??!?!

But you prefer her on the debate stage over other candidates? 

 

[Js1 85447]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Seems to me that what Tulsi thinks is "a lack of transparency" is just really a lack of preparation and organization from her campaign. 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Big Liz fan, but this really bothers me. 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

36 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

But you prefer her on the debate stage over other candidates?

Yes, because her gimmick is actually more engaging than the completely pointless existence of the Harris, Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar campaigns. If you were to make a list of the standout policy ideas of those 4 and compare them to a list for either Sanders or Warren alone, you would realize how little they offer.

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

46 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Big Liz fan, but this really bothers me. 

 

 

 

Lol at the Bernie Bro twitter account as if Bernie would unilaterally disarm and swear off super pacs to win in the general.  

Why does it bother you?  You think she’s just going to bend over to the big money for helping her get elected?  If you do that’s on you

Edited August 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Seems to me that what Tulsi thinks is "a lack of transparency" is just really a lack of preparation and organization from her campaign. 

the lack of transparency is so staggering that you're not able to even see the lack of transparency. 

fucking deep.

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol at the Bernie Bro twitter account as if Bernie would unilaterally disarm and swear off super pacs to win in the general.  

Why does it bother you?  You think she’s just going to bend over to the big money for helping her get elected?  

No, but acting pious about her primary fundraising strategy compared to other candidates while admitting (at least she's honest) that she'll take dark money and PAC money in the general? Fuck that. What else changes with her campaign strategy from primary to general? 

[bad_teammate 13219]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol at the Bernie Bro twitter account as if Bernie would unilaterally disarm and swear off super pacs to win in the general.  

Bernie will not be doing big money fundraisers with the rich and powerful during the general election. You should pay attention.

Quote

Why does it bother you?  You think she’s just going to bend over to the big money for helping her get elected?  If you do that’s on you.

If it's not a problem, why not do it during the primary?

[bad_teammate 13219]

11 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes, zero is the correct number for listing how many policies those people are introducing that aren't just weaker versions of what better candidates are offering.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No, but acting pious about her primary fundraising strategy compared to other candidates while admitting (at least she's honest) that she'll take dark money and PAC money in the general? Fuck that. What else changes with her campaign strategy from primary to general? 

Uh, because she wants to build a grassroots movement?  

She’s being really up front about this. She’s not lying or being deceptive.  She’s saying in the general “I’m going to do everything to win, there’s too much on the line.”

And this is a problem for you?!? Really?  

The purity tests are absurd.

Edited August 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13219]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Uh, because she wants to build a grassroots movement?  

For what purpose? Seriously, what's the long-term goal of building a grassroots movement if the plan is to actually just do big fundraisers later on?

If those things do not conflict, why not also do it in the primary? Is it an advertising strategy? Is it virtue signalling?

Quote

The purity tests are absurd.

Isn't this what Peteheads and the KHive are saying about Warren's primary fundraising position?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If you can’t tell Warren had a plan and it’s currently working like clockwork then you’re fucking clueless.

You either trust her to do the right thing in the interests of the people of the United States or you don’t.

Judge for yourself. 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The purity tests are absurd.

LOL! Her grassroots D primary fundraising is a purity test. And she’s campaigning on it  against other D candidates.

[bad_teammate 13219]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you can’t tell that Warren had a plan and it’s currently working like clockwork then you’re fucking clueless.

You either trust her to do the right thing in the interests of the people of the United States or you don’t.

Judge for yourself.

Liz deserves better than cultist logic, Hugo. It's alarming how obsequious you are with regard to every authority figure that catches your interest.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Liz deserves better than cultist logic, Hugo. It's alarming how obsequious you are.

bad_teammate said this. 

[bad_teammate 13219]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

What has the Harvard Rhodes Scholar who gives the most articulate answers in the field done to demonstrate superior intellect to ANY of the candidates in the field?

Yes, that's the question. I'm not impressed with him being a Harvard Rhodes Scholar, that's class signalling BS that means basically nothing. It's for grandmothers.

Quote

Is he really smarter than Gaffe Machine Biden (now with dementia!), old lunatic crank Bernie, Kamala “I still don’t even know what my own policies mean even after six months of media interrogation on the same issue” Harris, or Marianne f’n Williamson?   It’s just too close to call!

Is he? What demonstrates it other than being a Good Boy Achiever in school?

Quote

If Pete were exactly the same but never had McKinsey on his resume, you’d fucking love him

Cory Booker was a Rhodes Scholar to Oxford

I don't care.

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

bad_teammate said this. 

My vicious brutality and harassment for Bernie is based on a consistent ideology (not me hopping from one Strong Daddy/Mommy to the next as you love to do) and I am very happy to talk about all the ways in which Bernie needs to #DoBetter.

- He is all about Senate decorum niceguy and I hate that.
- He is as bad as the rest of the Dems on the border. Which is bad. (His "Oh god, there are so many poor people!" response was a nightmare response and he's done/said nothing to show improvement.)
- He isn't going NEARLY hard enough on nationalization of industry, although his Green New Deal points to that in the future.
- His public housing development plan isn't ambitious enough to make much of a difference.
- He should be pushing for closer to a $20/hr minimum wage AND a shorter work-week. $15/hr was bold stuff 10 years ago.
- The frequency of his fundraising e-mails is annoying.
- He is monotone.
- He isn't a dynamic speaker.
- He is SO GOD DAMNED OLD it's depressing because even though his brain isn't in full decline, he's going to be dead soon and his cognitive faculties could start deteriorating at any minute (though he's starting from a better place than everyone he's running against so he has a ways to fall)
- His estate tax proposal is not strong enough

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No, but acting pious about her primary fundraising strategy compared to other candidates while admitting (at least she's honest) that she'll take dark money and PAC money in the general? Fuck that. What else changes with her campaign strategy from primary to general? 

Why would you expect anything else to change, when she's totally open about this change upfront? 

[bad_teammate 13219]

24 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I like how not going hard enough on nationalization of industry (not healthcare, but “industry”) was slipped in there along with things like “monotone speaker” and “sends too many campaign emails.”

I am just going to throw it out there that maybe someone who is a Maoist might have opinions slightly outside the mainstream on what makes a politician intelligent and which candidates are worthwhile in America.

We absolutely need to nationalize many vital industries (energy production/distribution, for instance).

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why would you expect anything else to change, when she's totally open about this change upfront? 

Warren is campaigning hard to D voters about her strictly grassroots fundraising campaign. Anyone that is following her is reminded of it constantly, and she throws subtle shade at other candidates for doing any type of fundraisers. She is touting her values when it comes to donations. 

But those particular values dissipate if she's the nominee. Then it's all hands on deck, PAC money, dark money, anything to compete and beat Donald Trump. I'm glad she's upfront (though it doesn't seem like media is interested in reporting on it, which is weird) about it, but if she's running 2 completely different fundraising campaigns, is it foolish to think her rhetoric might change in the general as well?

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26509]

Your mom is campaigning hard to the D

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Warren is campaigning hard to D voters about her strictly grassroots fundraising campaign. Anyone that is following her is reminded of it constantly, and she throws subtle shade at other candidates for doing any type of fundraisers. She is touting her values when it comes to donations. 

But those particular values dissipate if she's the nominee. Then it's all hands on deck, PAC money, dark money, anything to compete and beat Donald Trump. I'm glad she's upfront (though it doesn't seem like media is interested in reporting on it, which is weird) about it, but if she's running 2 completely different fundraising campaigns, is it foolish to think her rhetoric might change in the general as well?

 

Her rhetoric might change in the general, but I don't see why that possibility would be made more likely by a position that she's open and up front about during the primaries.  Maybe if she were refusing to answer questions about how she will fundraise in the general, but she's answered the questions, so there's nothing about it that hints that she will be pulling surprises in the general.

Personally, I hope the D nominee does whatever it takes within the law to beat Trump, so I'm happy about this position.   To me, the primary is a completely different situation than the general.  The primary is about picking the best Democrat.   The general is about beating Trump with whichever Democrat is the nominee, even if it is a shitty Democrat like Biden and there is a better, totally pure third party candidate available.   Foregoing the donor class in the primary serves that end, and so does playing the money game in the general. 

But I can understand if you think fundraising method is a matter of uncompromisable principle.   I don't — I think we should drastically change what money can do in the general, but not tie our hands before the laws are changed, giving Republicans a huge advantage. 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Personally, I hope the D nominee does whatever it takes within the law to beat Trump, so I'm happy about this position.   To me, the primary is a completely different situation than the general.  The primary is about picking the best Democrat.   The general is about beating Trump with whichever Democrat is the nominee, even if it is a shitty Democrat like Biden and there is a better, totally pure third party candidate available.   Foregoing the donor class in the primary serves that end, and so does playing the money game in the general. 

I think there should be some semblance of consistency. Why is she slyly criticizing other D candidates for doing fundraisers, when she's on record saying she'll fundraise in every which way possible in the general? She's selling herself to Democrats as a "purer" candidate than others, then she'll pivot to whatever it takes in the general?  It's definitely a strategy, but I don't like it. 

 

[zork 629]

35 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Warren is campaigning hard to D voters about her strictly grassroots fundraising campaign. Anyone that is following her is reminded of it constantly, and she throws subtle shade at other candidates for doing any type of fundraisers. She is touting her values when it comes to donations. 

But those particular values dissipate if she's the nominee. Then it's all hands on deck, PAC money, dark money, anything to compete and beat Donald Trump. I'm glad she's upfront (though it doesn't seem like media is interested in reporting on it, which is weird) about it, but if she's running 2 completely different fundraising campaigns, is it foolish to think her rhetoric might change in the general as well?

 

Didn't she also use her Senate warchest a lot to fund things while following the above?  That Senate warchest that didn't espouse the rules she is expecting others to follow now?  I thought I read that but could be wrong.

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Yes, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

hypocrisy aside, maybe it's time that someone on the left just did whatever it took to win.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

hypocrisy aside, maybe it's time that someone on the left just did whatever it took to win.

That’s kind of her campaign slogan. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think there should be some semblance of consistency. Why is she slyly criticizing other D candidates for doing fundraisers, when she's on record saying she'll fundraise in every which way possible in the general? She's selling herself to Democrats as a "purer" candidate than others, then she'll pivot to whatever it takes in the general?  It's definitely a strategy, but I don't like it. 

 

She's purer than everyone but Bernie.  It's just a fact, and that's exactly what she's openly selling.   I don't buy the notion that there can be no sense of scale or relativity in politics.   That's the bullshit that bothsiders push.   She's better than Kamala and Pete and Biden on fundraising, and that's something to tout versus them.   For those who want even more purity on this issue, Bernie's there for you. 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

I’m not looking for purity. It comes off as pandering to Ds specifically, and I think the vast majority of her supporters do not know about her fundraising pivot in the general.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I’m not looking for purity. It comes off as pandering to Ds specifically, and I think the vast majority of her supporters do not know about her fundraising pivot in the general.

“I’m not looking for purity but I’m looking for purity.”