Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

I like the bearded guy looking around during the dance, thinking to himself, "Are they all seeing how into this I am?  I'm so getting laid tonight by one of these broads."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21034

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Js1 said:

55% is too high if Warren can’t cut Biden’s lead with black voters. Otherwise he cleans up the south and wins it. Her base of white liberals is not the base of the party. 

Warren is definitely making strides with POC. And Biden’s lead with black voters will weaken as it’s made clear he’s not the shoo-in candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11364

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Candidate who leads basically everything and always has: 25% chance
Candidate who had to scrape and claw to a tie for 2nd: 55% chance
Candidate that's also tied for 2nd: 10% chance

#punditry

Candidate who stands to gain the most from other candidates dropping out.

Biden's poll numbers are about as high as they'll go, while Warren is just getting started

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Biden's poll numbers are about as high as they'll go, while Warren is just getting started

She is not "just getting started". Warren is 8 months into her presidential campaign and she started as the 3rd-most-well-known candidate. At the beginning of this process, Bernie and Biden were in the 90s for name rec. Liz was in the 80s. Next behind them was Harris and Booker in the high 40s and Beto in the low 40s.

The only major candidate who has overperformed their starting name rec is Pete Buttigieg.

She has been tangled up with Bernie for 2+ months at this point, all with the entire professional media class desperate to drown Bernie's campaign in the bathtub and spread the Gospel of Liz.

There is nothing inevitable about Warren taking this process over. It's going to require thousands of volunteers putting in thousands of hours of actual work.

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Apparently it’s disrespectful to share our opinions on the primary?

Disrespectful? lol what

I'm just mocking the punditbrain disease that infects everyone who pays too much attention to politics.

If you don't have Biden as the favorite to win this thing you're just not looking at things in any way that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11364

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

She is not "just getting started". Warren is 8 months into her presidential campaign and she started as the 3rd-most-well-known candidate. At the beginning of this process, Bernie and Biden were in the 90s for name rec. Liz was in the 80s. Next behind them was Harris and Booker in the high 40s and Beto in the low 40s.

The only major candidate who has overperformed their starting name rec is Pete Buttigieg.

She has been tangled up with Bernie for 2+ months at this point, all with the entire professional media class desperate to drown Bernie's campaign in the bathtub and spread the Gospel of Liz.

There is nothing inevitable about Warren taking this process over. It's going to require thousands of volunteers putting in thousands of hours of actual work.

So you either don't read good, or you're not good at the maths, either way, you might just want to step away from the keyboard until you catch up.

In the first CNN poll Biden was at 33%, while Warren was at 9%.  In the last RCP Average of all polls she's at 19.8% and Biden's dropped to 30.2%.

Who do you think will pick up the lion's share of the voters from the other candidates...most of whom are left of Biden, BTW...when they eventually drop out? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21034

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm just mocking the punditbrain disease that infects everyone who pays too much attention to politics.

If you don't have Biden as the favorite to win this thing you're just not looking at things in any way that makes sense.

The pundits think Biden will win this primary. I don't. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

In the first CNN poll Biden was at 33%, while Warren was at 9%.  In the last RCP Average of all polls she's at 19.8% and Biden's dropped to 30.2%.

OK

Quote

Who do you think will pick up the lion's share of the voters from the other candidates...most of whom are left of Biden, BTW...when they eventually drop out? 

This has nothing to do with anything. Biden isn't #1 because he's at the fattest part of the ideological distribution curve, he's at #1 because he's the most well-known and familiar of the candidates. According to your numbers above, his drop is a grand total of 2.8% as he has physically and mentally disintegrated on national television.

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The pundits think Biden will win this primary.

I haven't seen the pundits making that kind of call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11364

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK

This has nothing to do with anything. Biden isn't #1 because he's at the fattest part of the ideological distribution curve, he's at #1 because he's the most well-known and familiar of the candidates. According to your numbers above, his drop is a grand total of 2.8% as he has physically and mentally disintegrated on national television.

I haven't seen the pundits making that kind of call.

I'm guessing that whatever you do for a living doesn't require a lot of statistical analysis...not that there's anything wrong with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85536

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hypothetical:  say Biden collapses and his supporters blame Trump for rigging the primary with this Ukraine nonsense.  Do they have a case? 

No.

Because he was sucking wind long before Trump started the Ukraine nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26523

Posted
Posted
EFKAZfJWwAA7qnK?format=jpg&name=large
yuk
Apparently the president (who has terrific instincts) has been worrying out loud that he may have gone in on Warren too early.
If I understand what I’m looking at, that’s not only shocking, but if it holds up it -may- indicate that Elizabeth Warren is fully inoculated at this point. She would benefit from a central unifying theme and I’m troubled by her tendency to scold rather than lift, but I’m very impressed by what she’s doing.
I thought her window closed in 2016 and clearly I was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Berners have also declared war on Nate Silver but who cares.

Obviously you care a great deal, but to the actual issue here...

Silver referred to Bernie's non-white voter base as the "residue" of what is left when white liberals go somewhere else. It's the white professional media class finally saying the quiet part out loud and it confirms every negative thought that POC/marginalized people have about the millionaires paid by billionaires to be pundits. So yeah, if you're not one of those white liberals who is considered the desirable thing, being called "residue" by this guy is going to rankle.

Nate_Silver_in_Conversation_with_NY1's_P

 

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And BTW, this is what a direct comment at another candidate looks like. And I have zero problem with it. State your case.

Yep.

I wouldn't do this, personally, but I'm not a black woman who was just called "residue" by the white media establishment who is fully in the tank for Elizabeth Warren. I think the oblique method of pointing out the differences between Warren and Sanders is better, but I'm a white guy who all the candidates fight each other over and I don't get dismissed as trash, so as long as it's not nasty or personal and is substantive, it's hard for me to poo-poo Brie's Tweets here.

The distinctions between Sanders and Warren are real and need to be discussed.

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s like they were looking for an idea that would make affordability worse than local rent control does.

The promise of Warren's housing plan in January was great; a huge focus on building a TON of public housing.

Her moves in the last two months have been really really poor. Her goal is to reduce the rate of rent increases by 10% over 3 years. Which is ... what?

And her state's rights argument against national rent control is just garbage. The "what they do down in Washington might work in the BIG CITY but it won't work for GOOD AMERICANS OUT HERE IN THE SMALL TOWNS" thing is white identity politics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

National rent control.   Wow.  

It’s helpful to get reminders of what bad_teammate and Bernie actually believe every so often instead of just horse race commentary.   It puts things into perspective.

I know, it's awesome, right? So glad you are feeling inspired! I encourage you to join us and volunteer to help spread the word!

e-mail Joe to 3.... oh .... 3? 3... oh? 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Apparently the president (who has terrific instincts) has been worrying out loud that he may have gone in on Warren too early.
If I understand what I’m looking at, that’s not only shocking, but if it holds up it -may- indicate that Elizabeth Warren is fully inoculated at this point. She would benefit from a central unifying theme and I’m troubled by her tendency to scold rather than lift, but I’m very impressed by what she’s doing.
I thought her window closed in 2016 and clearly I was wrong.

What about anti-corruption as a central unifying theme?

Also, Trump thinks it's him, of course, but Warren inoculated herself by maxing out the issue months ago.   I said on this board at the time, taking the DNA test was a smart move.   Get everything out of the way, apologize, burn it out, and it's old news by now.

It caused a short term ruckus, but if she hadn't done it, Trump would be going non-stop, "If she thinks she's an Indian, why won't she just take a DNA test to prove it.  I'll pay for it!"  He'd start holding up a 23andme testing kit at rallies.   He even let it slip that he was planning that:

And that would have played well.   Now Trump is botching fractions of Indian blood and has nothing to put back on her to do.  And she can completely ignore his taunts, while independent fact checkers do the work of calling out Trump's lies and pointing out that she does have Indian blood:     https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/the-facts-on-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/

The issue won't disappear entirely, but she's in a much stronger position as a result. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I said on this board at the time, taking the DNA test was a smart move.   Get everything out of the way, apologize, burn it out, and it's old news by now.

I said the same.  She disarmed Trump a bit with the DNA test.  She hurt herself and took the short term hit but she largely removed the issue from the table for the long game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

JFC

Is it not true? Or are we just not supposed to say it out loud?

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I don't think they're all meeting in a dark room with a slide projector light filtering through clouds of cigar smoke. Like Pete was/is, Liz is candy for a certain type of aspirational, climber white liberal. Her "I earned my way upwards with grit and determination to conventional Ivy league success" story validates the white establishment myth of meritocracy and her (and Pete) qualify as "smart" in a way that's different from all the other candidates.

Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter, it simply is the case and I am simply acknowledging the reality of what is there.

Why do you think there is such a tension between the media class's love of Warren and the wealth class's ambivalence/hostility regarding her financial politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

Or maybe Warren worked her fucking ass off and earned the media buzz and subsequent coverage? 

Bernie has probably spent as much time on cable news as anyone over the last four years.  

Maybe he’s not hitting the right notes?  I continue to be fascinated with the persecution complex and sense of entitlement with the Bernie campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)

It was the media that uncovered and roasted Warren for the Native American stuff.   The reason we aren't talking about her being destroyed by media attacks is that she overcame them through her own efforts.   I thought she was dead in the water as a presidential candidate a couple of years ago.  The media sure as hell didn't resurrect her candidacy. 

She's also taking plenty of hits right now for siding with Bernie on health care and banning private primary insurance.   And the Bernie supporters are trashing her for dodging on the tax increase and the other aspects that don't poll well.  Hmm, perhaps she's just better at handling the media attacks?  Nah, they've got to be in the tank for her. 

 

Edited by Mojo Hand
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Or maybe Warren worked her fucking ass off and earned the media buzz and subsequent coverage?

"earned"

Here we see the enduring rhetorical power of "the white establishment myth of meritocracy".

What is the hard work that Warren has been doing that other candidates have not? What special level of work did the previous two media darlings (Beto & Pete) do to "earn" their periods in the good graces of the pundit class?

Liz is great in a lot of ways. If the media is going to pick a horse (and they have), I'm glad it's her and not Biden or Harris or Pete or Beto.

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It was the media that uncovered and roasted Warren for the Native American stuff. 

Has it been part of the media narrative in the year 2019 at all?

Quote

She's also taking plenty of hits right now for siding with Bernie on health care and banning private primary insurance.   And the Bernie supporters are trashing her for dodging on the tax increase and the other aspects that don't poll well.  Hmm, perhaps she's just better at handling the media attacks?  Nah, they've got to be in the tank for her.

You are talking about her taking criticism from the right (on healthcare) and from the left (also on healthcare) and then calling those "media attacks"? Those aren't media attacks, those are ideological attacks from outside the media.

The media is on the team. It's obvious and it's weird that you're pretending it isn't obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

I continue to be fascinated with the persecution complex and sense of entitlement with the Bernie campaign. 


I think they’re stuck in the 2016 “WE WUZ ROBBED” mindset and it’s become a defense mechanism for his lack of “buzz” this go round.

Despite being 126 years old, Bernie was the shiny flashy new toy in 2016.

Now - in the eyes of television producers and editors - he’s old news. His story has been told. They think they know what they’re getting with him so they’ve moved on to the 20 new shiny toys.

The media attention was split two ways in the 2016 Democratic Primary. Now Bernie has to compete with 20 other candidates who are easier to cover because they’re generally unknown.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the way it is.

But it’s easier to fall back into the same defensive response than to acknowledge the shitty reality of the way we cover politics in America.

Like it’s a new season of television shows or a sporting event.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

But it’s easier to fall back into the same defensive response than to acknowledge the shitty reality of the way we cover politics in America.

Yeah, the critique coming from Bernieland isn't new. It's as old as popular mass media itself.

Here's Bernie himself talking about it in 1988.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh it's true.

But y'know, criticism of Liz is unallowed. 

It's not even a criticism of Liz, that's the thing that's so baffling about the anger that this media critique elicits from white liberals.

Liz didn't do anything wrong here. She didn't do something shady to influence the media, she's just doing what she thinks is best for her campaign.

Here's something similar: Imagine someone saying, "Bernie benefited in 2016 from only having 1 person to run against."

If you're super defensive and weird, you would yell and scream about how Bernie earned everything how dare you wah wah wah

Or you could just acknowledge the simple and plain reality that Bernie greatly benefited from only having 1 opponent, and that opponent had high unfavorables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...