Running a national campaign costs money. You can't raise money to campaign across the country if you aren't winning anything. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't need money because her campaign consists of appearing on FOX News once a week and suing Hillary Clinton for a statement in which she never even mentioned her name. And her one delegate from American Samoa won't get her a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.
Gabbard has money, and used it to run TV ads amongst other things, but I guess never let the facts interfere with the American left's bizarre contempt for people who run for reasons other than a good shot at winning.
So what's your explanation as to the persistent gap in support where less men than women voted for Warren? Or that she was found to be less "electable" than people with objectively less successful political careers than hers?
Oh, and while we're at it, what's your explanation for why women are routinely found to be considered less qualified and more liberal by the public than men who have similar experience and political positions? This is a very consistent phenomenon, after all.
You are describing "sexism", not "misogyny". The former is a bias against women--they are emotional, flighty, less rational, etc, the usual crap people think--while the latter is actual *dislike* of women in general. We are still at least a generation away from sexism playing less of a factor in people's decision-making, but we'll get there.
Far too many people still do no research whatsoever before going to vote, then either blindly hit "D" or "R" *or* vote for a candidate based on *their name*, which tells you absolutely nothing about that person whatsoever. Case in point: Ryan Sitton lost his re-election bid for Texas Railroad Commission to James "Jim" Wright, of whom I heard nothing before the election. I had to hunt to find his campaign website, which consists mostly of just a posed campaign picture and a couple of splash pages of the usual political schtick people put on bumper stickers. How did he win against Sitton's established and funded campaign? Simple--a lot of people remember a Texas politician named "Jim Wright" from years ago, so they voted for him. No, I am not kidding.
No, I am much better at the baccarat tables than the lottery--the odds are also better. I am not afraid to make a prediction because I am not personally invested in them--if I wind up being incorrect then I am incorrect, which is no big deal.
What is your assessment of Biden's health, both physically and mentally? Physically he can probably handle it; mentally....I wouldn't bet any money on that one. Too many gaffes as of late. Running for Senate? His son was Attorney General of the U. S.? And, you know, that "thing" from the Declaration of Independence.
It's possible he has failing mental health, but I doubt it, since he has handled the pressure of a campaign and the debates without collapsing. If he were that bad off, he would have been pressured to withdraw and endorse Bloomberg before South Carolina ressurrected his campaign.
He's just old. Like Trump and Sanders. Old people forget things and misspeak more often than younger people, but as long as they remain mentally active, there's a good chance that it doesn't indicate anymore than that.
People hold politicians to weird standards. I'm over 40 and few of my peers could handle themselves as well as Biden in a public debate, and absolutely none of them don't misremember things or say weird shit occasionally. The president is but a man (or woman, or other) and they have lots of help in discharging their tasks.
If he were that bad off, he would have been pressured to withdraw and endorse Bloomberg before South Carolina ressurrected his campaign.
Nancy Reagan forced everyone to cover for Ronald during most of his second term, when he was beginning to develop Alzheimer's. Biden's people are covering for him now.
You are describing "sexism", not "misogyny". The former is a bias against women--they are emotional, flighty, less rational, etc, the usual crap people think--while the latter is actual *dislike* of women in general. We are still at least a generation away from sexism playing less of a factor in people's decision-making, but we'll get there.
misogyny
/mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
You're describing a distinction without a difference. I'll grant some usage of misogyny is simply because it's perceived as a harsher term (like using racist instead of prejudiced), but that doesn't make it inaccurate.
Beyond that, tho, it seems we mostly agree. Happy days!
Far too many people still do no research whatsoever before going to vote, then either blindly hit "D" or "R" *or* vote for a candidate based on *their name*, which tells you absolutely nothing about that person whatsoever. Case in point: Ryan Sitton lost his re-election bid for Texas Railroad Commission to James "Jim" Wright, of whom I heard nothing before the election. I had to hunt to find his campaign website, which consists mostly of just a posed campaign picture and a couple of splash pages of the usual political schtick people put on bumper stickers. How did he win against Sitton's established and funded campaign? Simple--a lot of people remember a Texas politician named "Jim Wright" from years ago, so they voted for him. No, I am not kidding.
You can't change this, though. It is inherent to the process of democracy. It is why compulsory voting just means people take their cue to vote from some other arbitrary source (in Australia, whichever party was at the entrance to the polls handing them a "how to vote" card). Most people just vote for whoever their parents did, or whoever they voted for before. Et cetera.
It's a problem. But how to fix it without making things even worse is not an easily-solved issue.
Nancy Reagan forced everyone to cover for Ronald during most of his second term, when he was beginning to develop Alzheimer's. Biden's people are covering for him now.
Reagan was the incumbent President. Absolutely different situation, there was much more at stake keeping him in position.
Besides, Reagan was also able to draw his faculties up to the point of having a decent debate, or he would have lost to Mondale (his first debate, where he did seem confused and out of it, was arguably the biggest scare in that campaign).
Running a national campaign costs money. You can't raise money to campaign across the country if you aren't winning anything. Tulsi Gabbard doesn't need money because her campaign consists of appearing on FOX News once a week and suing Hillary Clinton for a statement in which she never even mentioned her name. And her one delegate from American Samoa won't get her a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.
Gabbard has money, and used it to run TV ads amongst other things, but I guess never let the facts interfere with the American left's bizarre contempt for people who run for reasons other than a good shot at winning.
Tulsi Gabbard hasn't been relevant to the conversation since the second debate. She is running in a Democratic primary, and she has virtually no constituency among actual self-identified Democratic voters. This is also a major part of the problem Bernie has, but at the very least he has managed to push hard for policy positions a portion of the Democratic electorate is fully behind. The relevance of Tulsi Gabbard to the Democratic Presidential race on March 5, 2020 is exactly the same as the relevance of my neighbor's dog.
And no, not everyone who is technically running deserves equal treatment. Dwayne from Ohio could file to run for office as the candidate of the Toilet Paper Party. It doesn't mean he should be on a debate stage. Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar were/are meaningful because they actually had/have enough pull or support to shift their votes to another candidate. No one gives a rat's ass whether Tulsi endorses them or not because her influence would barely cause a rounding error in the numbers.
To be frank, the field was so comically large and anyone who had the support of their parents and five other people was allowed in. So we learned absolutely nothing about anyone for months as we had pointless shouting matches between a dozen people who maybe got 3 minutes of speaking time each. More than anything, this is what has allowed Biden to basically sleepwalk through the campign by essentially melding into the furniture while the majority of the field who had no shot at anything were busy throwing snowballs at each other. Now, the only actual debate that matters between Biden and Bernie won't take place until it's likely too late to alter the race mathematically. All because 8 or 9 people were engaging in vanity campaigns they were fully aware in short order were just that. These people aren't stupid. They can read polls. But "former Presidential Candidate" added to your bio will grab you alot of speaking gigs, cable TV appearances and book deals.
My top choice at the beginning, Kamala Harris, was a serious candidate in the beginning. She dropped off a cliff, she knew it, she recognized she had no path, and she did the right thing and moved aside. But the list of bullshit non-starters this go-round was absurd. Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, Tom Steyer, John Hickenlooper. Then Mike Bloomberg parachutes in and essentially starts lighting money on fire for shits and giggles. I'm interested in serious candidates with a serious chance of winning and finding out as much about them as possible. Because the position they are running for is serious business. And half the field was nothing but wasted airtime on the debate stage. It was awful.
Only five people EVER had any chance of winning this: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg. The last two had far less of a chance than the other 3. Which is exactly what happened. The polling threshold should have never been 1% for debates, but 5% minimum, I'd even say 10%. Kamala had about 48 hours of a bounce after the first debate and flickered out. Buttigieg did manage to "tie" Bernie in the caucus fiasco in Iowa. Never had any support outside the first two contests. Warren was stuck trying to be the bridge candidate between Biden and Sanders and it killed her.
The only thing I didn't see was the centrist field assembling like Voltron to jumpstart Biden 48 hours before Super Tuesday. He was always going to win the South. That was baked in. But Klobuchar literally handed him Minnesota for free, and the whole thing also likely got him Maine and Masschusets as well. Those were the knives to the gut for Bernie, not Alabama or Tennessee. I thought Buttigieg and Klobuchar would hang on by their fingernails and roll the dice on Tuesday. It went another way. And now we're here.
The system of voting by party members to decide leaders does seem to be somewhat problematic. In the UK major parties have moved over to that method over the past generation and it clearly has some unfortunate consequences for politics. The spectacle of the prime minister being chosen by a relatively small fee paying electorate for example, and the encouragement of some of the more corrosive tendencies of supporters of strongly left and right wing politics. Due to the electoral systems in the US & the UK it is somewhat easier to join an established party and pull it in your direction than to start a new party that has much chance of success...
I have to say again how unprepared I think Biden is for a national campaign against Trump. I am not saying this to be mean, I'm not saying this to be ageist even though I have a TON of problems with the fact that every person running is getting well into their 70s. Something is not right with Joe Biden. He doesn't sound right, and frankly he doesn't really LOOK right. Even in a sit-down interview with CBS I watched this evening he is straining to keep it together. As I mentioned in my previous post, he has basically been hiding in plain site this entire campaign. He can't do this, especially against the most vicious bastard who has ever held the office of the Presidency.
And I also say this because frankly, despite his policies, I like Joe Biden. It's hard not to like Joe Biden. And I'm not at all looking forward to the slow-motion train wreck that he is about to cap his career off with. I mean, Trump is bad in this regard (cognitively) but Biden is WORSE, and we sure as hell can't keep making that point about Trump if Joe Biden is the damn nominee. I can't believe this isn't a bigger issue for the people pushing him. It's as clear as day.
And I don't even know how hard Bernie will be on him in the debate face to face, because he personally quite likes Joe. I'm not sure he has it in him to tear him down like that when he clearly isn't operating on the same level he was 4 years ago. This isn't a contest for grand marshal of the local 4th of July Parade. This is a national Presidential Campaign against a would-be authoritarian. And the answer is to put up somebody who, at best, rambles incoherently when asked on the spot questions?? People would rather go with THIS over Elizabeth Warren?? @Mathsorcerer was actually right when he said this is about nothing but name recognition.
For the record - I think people vastly overstate Biden's cognitive state. Yeah, he's not perfect, but he isnt nearly as bad as most people suggest. A lot of it is disingenuous (Like on Tuesday, when his Wife and Sister were behind him and they swapped spots before he noticed). He's a punching bag because people pretend they never fumble over their own words.
If anything, I think it humanizes him most of the time.
I have to say again how unprepared I think Biden is for a national campaign against Trump. I am not saying this to be mean, I'm not saying this to be ageist even though I have a TON of problems with the fact that every person running is getting well into their 70s. Something is not right with Joe Biden. He doesn't sound right, and frankly he doesn't really LOOK right. Even in a sit-down interview with CBS I watched this evening he is straining to keep it together. As I mentioned in my previous post, he has basically been hiding in plain site this entire campaign. He can't do this, especially against the most vicious bastard who has ever held the office of the Presidency.
And I also say this because frankly, despite his policies, I like Joe Biden. It's hard not to like Joe Biden. And I'm not at all looking forward to the slow-motion train wreck that he is about to cap his career off with. I mean, Trump is bad in this regard (cognitively) but Biden is WORSE, and we sure as hell can't keep making that point about Trump if Joe Biden is the damn nominee. I can't believe this isn't a bigger issue for the people pushing him. It's as clear as day.
And I don't even know how hard Bernie will be on him in the debate face to face, because he personally quite likes Joe. I'm not sure he has it in him to tear him down like that when he clearly isn't operating on the same level he was 4 years ago. This isn't a contest for grand marshal of the local 4th of July Parade. This is a national Presidential Campaign against a would-be authoritarian. And the answer is to put up somebody who, at best, rambles incoherently when asked on the spot questions?? People would rather go with THIS over Elizabeth Warren?? @Mathsorcerer was actually right when he said this is about nothing but name recognition.
Any functioning adult besides Trump 2020. We can't handle more partisan hack unqualified judges selected soley for 'loyalty' to one guy. We can handle more unqualified cabinet people sneaking misinformation into scientific fields. We don't need more loyalists, we need qualified people who are liars like the loyalists who will tell Trump whatever he wants to hear. Even more people will die over hunches and lies and policies where cruelty is the point.
Tulsi Gabbard hasn't been relevant to the conversation since the second debate. She is running in a Democratic primary, and she has virtually no constituency among actual self-identified Democratic voters. This is also a major part of the problem Bernie has, but at the very least he has managed to push hard for policy positions a portion of the Democratic electorate is fully behind. The relevance of Tulsi Gabbard to the Democratic Presidential race on March 5, 2020 is exactly the same as the relevance of my neighbor's dog.
That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that she does have money, did spend it on TV ads, and is not running a campaign entirely on Fox News, despite this being what you said she was doing.
And no, not everyone who is technically running deserves equal treatment. Dwayne from Ohio could file to run for office as the candidate of the Toilet Paper Party. It doesn't mean he should be on a debate stage. Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar were/are meaningful because they actually had/have enough pull or support to shift their votes to another candidate. No one gives a rat's ass whether Tulsi endorses them or not because her influence would barely cause a rounding error in the numbers.
I didn't say word one about any of this. You said a wrong thing, and I corrected you on saying a wrong thing. I don't know who you're fighting with in this paragraph, but it's not me.
To be frank, the field was so comically large and anyone who had the support of their parents and five other people was allowed in. So we learned absolutely nothing about anyone for months as we had pointless shouting matches between a dozen people who maybe got 3 minutes of speaking time each. More than anything, this is what has allowed Biden to basically sleepwalk through the campign by essentially melding into the furniture while the majority of the field who had no shot at anything were busy throwing snowballs at each other. Now, the only actual debate that matters between Biden and Bernie won't take place until it's likely too late to alter the race mathematically. All because 8 or 9 people were engaging in vanity campaigns they were fully aware in short order were just that. These people aren't stupid. They can read polls. But "former Presidential Candidate" added to your bio will grab you alot of speaking gigs, cable TV appearances and book deals.
My top choice at the beginning, Kamala Harris, was a serious candidate in the beginning. She dropped off a cliff, she knew it, she recognized she had no path, and she did the right thing and moved aside. But the list of bullshit non-starters this go-round was absurd. Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, Tom Steyer, John Hickenlooper. Then Mike Bloomberg parachutes in and essentially starts lighting money on fire for shits and giggles. I'm interested in serious candidates with a serious chance of winning and finding out as much about them as possible. Because the position they are running for is serious business. And half the field was nothing but wasted airtime on the debate stage. It was awful.
As usual, it bemuses me that how effortlessly so many people on the American left fail to understand that presidential campaigns can have goals and aims beyond winning the nomination, or indeed not have any real expectations of winning the nomination at all. That is how the system works and there are many, many examples of it historically.
Hell, Warren did a lot to influence the Democratic party with her campaign, shifted the window on discussion on several topics, and thus had an impact that was felt well beyond the number of delegates she won (that's not even counting her race-changing evisceration of Bloomberg). So did Bernie Sanders in 2016, who was certainly making a protest run at first (and probably beyond at first since he, as you say, can read polls and do math and therefore knew he was vanishingly unlikely to win).
This is all not even counting the fact that polls are a historically pretty bad indicator as to who can win a primary and who can't. That you think candidates can't rise out of seemingly nowhere to make a serious bid at a nomination reflects your ignorance of even recent political history.
Only five people EVER had any chance of winning this: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg.
Bloomberg polled higher at his peak than Buttigieg and had a far better chance of actually winning, but I guess why let facts stand in the way of bold claims?
The last two had far less of a chance than the other 3. Which is exactly what happened. The polling threshold should have never been 1% for debates, but 5% minimum, I'd even say 10%. Kamala had about 48 hours of a bounce after the first debate and flickered out. Buttigieg did manage to "tie" Bernie in the caucus fiasco in Iowa. Never had any support outside the first two contests. Warren was stuck trying to be the bridge candidate between Biden and Sanders and it killed her.
I could quibble with a lot of this (Harris' decline was quite drawn out, you contradicting yourself on Buttigieg's chances, the several candidates who didn't get traction primarily because Biden sucked up all the oxygen for them, etc.), but y'know, I can't help but think of a previous bit of expert analysis you provided:
Interesting you'll quote every single solitary word of my post EXCEPT for the paragraph where I explicitly admit to being wrong about Biden, and why. Because I'm actually well aware of what I said previously. So, to use your words, I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I already made your point against me for you preemptively, but you deliberately made the choice to leave that out.
He was not going to be the nominee if nothing changed but things did change. All the moderates colluded to throw their support behind biden the day before Supper Tuesday. This tactic was unfortunately very effective. So despite Biden's flaws it was enough to put him ahead.
Ultimately, the nomination is not his yet and things may change afain. Biden has momentum and if it goes to a brokered convention it will likely be stolen from Bernie because money prefers Biden.
This looks like it's only going to get worse for Bernie. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Biden yesterday, and the demographic breakdown of Michigan looks like it should be a major win for Biden. After that, the states dont get any kinder to Bernie.
538's forecasting model has an 88% chance Biden will enter the delegation with a delegate majority, not just plurality. Bernie is down to 2", with the remaining that neither candidate will have a majority.
Bernie is down in Florida by an absolute ton (like, 50ish points).
Bernie did win Michigan in 2016. That election was actually the most unlikely outcome of all of 2016 (far and away - including the actual presidential election). Bernie's going to need another miracle to stay competitive.
This looks like it's only going to get worse for Bernie. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Biden yesterday, and the demographic breakdown of Michigan looks like it should be a major win for Biden. After that, the states dont get any kinder to Bernie.
538's forecasting model has an 88% chance Biden will enter the delegation with a delegate majority, not just plurality. Bernie is down to 2", with the remaining that neither candidate will have a majority.
Bernie is down in Florida by an absolute ton (like, 50ish points).
Bernie did win Michigan in 2016. That election was actually the most unlikely outcome of all of 2016 (far and away - including the actual presidential election). Bernie's going to need another miracle to stay competitive.
Bernie has to win Michigan. It's not just a matter of narrative (which has been incredibly powerful in shifting this race multiple times) but now of math. He not only needs that (and Washington, for sure) but he probably needs an enthusiastic endorsement from Elizabeth Warren. But since the Chapo crowd is STILL basically calling her a traitorous bitch even though they must at this point KNOW they need her supporters to flip to them, that is looking less and less likely as the hours go by. He should be begging her at this point.
I mean, she's been defeated. She has something you need (potentially millions of voters). But the most vocal online supporters are not only not going conciliatory, they are doubling down on the venom and blaming her for Super Tuesday. Elizabeth Warren aligning fully with Bernie is now the only way to stop Biden. And again, these people MUST know that at this point. But they won't alter course.
Bernie is consistent, Bernie has integrity, Bernie has been right on issues for decades most liberal politicians have only adopted in the last 5-10 years. He's not corrupt, and he's not bought. He's also just terrible at political machinations because his very strengths mentioned above don't allow him to be. Jim Clyburn was never going to endorse Bernie. But apparently Bernie didn't even ASK or court the idea of him not endorsing anyone. Didn't even make the attempt. While the Biden camp was consolidating with Buttigieg and Klobuchar, the most vociferous Bernie supporters were sending snake emojis to Warren supporters, who they now DESPERATELY need.
And I guess the question this raises is, if he can't beat this shell of Joe Biden in the Democratic primary, how in the hell would he ever implement his agenda as President??
Interesting you'll quote every single solitary word of my post EXCEPT for the paragraph where I explicitly admit to being wrong about Biden, and why. Because I'm actually well aware of what I said previously. So, to use your words, I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I already made your point against me for you preemptively, but you deliberately made the choice to leave that out.
No, you actually misunderstood my point (which was, in essence, "stop being so certain what's going to happen without real evidence).
But, that being said, upon reflection I think that was put a bit too harshly and personally, so I apologise and will drop the point until I've got a cooler head about it.
He was not going to be the nominee if nothing changed but things did change. All the moderates colluded to throw their support behind biden the day before Supper Tuesday. This tactic was unfortunately very effective. So despite Biden's flaws it was enough to put him ahead.
Putting aside the fact that Biden was already on the upswing before they dropped out and this is in fact a good portion of the reason why they did so:
If what it took for Biden to win was for the other significant moderates to drop out, it was never that unlikely as to be ruled out.
If what it took was the party uniting behind him to stop Bernie Sanders, it was never that unlikely as to be ruled out.
It didn't have to happen. But assumptions that it couldn't were pure punditry that wasn't backed by data. Bernie was winning slender pluralities in a divided field - if he couldn't raise the ceiling on his support, that vulnerability was always there.
Bernie has to win Michigan. It's not just a matter of narrative (which has been incredibly powerful in shifting this race multiple times) but now of math. He not only needs that (and Washington, for sure) but he probably needs an enthusiastic endorsement from Elizabeth Warren. But since the Chapo crowd is STILL basically calling her a traitorous bitch even though they must at this point KNOW they need her supporters to flip to them, that is looking less and less likely as the hours go by. He should be begging her at this point.
I mean, she's been defeated. She has something you need (potentially millions of voters). But the most vocal online supporters are not only not going conciliatory, they are doubling down on the venom and blaming her for Super Tuesday. Elizabeth Warren aligning fully with Bernie is now the only way to stop Biden. And again, these people MUST know that at this point. But they won't alter course.
Sanders will not beg for Warren't endorsement--too much bad blood between them at this point.
Bernie Bros want strict adherence to ideological purity, not pragmatism. To them, "compromise" means "to become tainted". *When* Sanders does not receive the nomination, these people will stay home--again--rather than vote either for Biden (out of support for Democrats) or Trump (out of spite against Democrats).
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who gave the money she was supposed to pay in Democrat Party dues to candidates running against incumbent Democrats, was trying to chastise Democrats for not supporting Sanders. Given your own open dislike and opposition of Democrats, Alexandria, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Democrat establishment is going to listen to anything you say. You will be lucky if the New York Legislature doesn't redraw district lines next year and revoke your Congressional district's existence, which means you won't be a Member of Congress any more.
Bernie has to win Michigan. It's not just a matter of narrative (which has been incredibly powerful in shifting this race multiple times) but now of math. He not only needs that (and Washington, for sure) but he probably needs an enthusiastic endorsement from Elizabeth Warren. But since the Chapo crowd is STILL basically calling her a traitorous bitch even though they must at this point KNOW they need her supporters to flip to them, that is looking less and less likely as the hours go by. He should be begging her at this point.
I mean, she's been defeated. She has something you need (potentially millions of voters). But the most vocal online supporters are not only not going conciliatory, they are doubling down on the venom and blaming her for Super Tuesday. Elizabeth Warren aligning fully with Bernie is now the only way to stop Biden. And again, these people MUST know that at this point. But they won't alter course.
Sanders will not beg for Warren't endorsement--too much bad blood between them at this point.
Bernie Bros want strict adherence to ideological purity, not pragmatism. To them, "compromise" means "to become tainted". *When* Sanders does not receive the nomination, these people will stay home--again--rather than vote either for Biden (out of support for Democrats) or Trump (out of spite against Democrats).
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who gave the money she was supposed to pay in Democrat Party dues to candidates running against incumbent Democrats, was trying to chastise Democrats for not supporting Sanders. Given your own open dislike and opposition of Democrats, Alexandria, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Democrat establishment is going to listen to anything you say. You will be lucky if the New York Legislature doesn't redraw district lines next year and revoke your Congressional district's existence, which means you won't be a Member of Congress any more.
The problem Sanders has from the perspective we are talking about above is from the self-proclaimed "dirtbag left", which is the left's version of the alt-right. Though it wasn't HUGE news at the time, the hosts of the podcast Chapo Trap House said after Hillary's loss that the party was now going to "bend the knee" to them, or else. This is really the genesis leading up to this Warren situation. For many, their brand of no-holds barred, burn it all down politics is exactly what they want. For MANY others, it's seen as the exact type of ironic, nihilistic worldview that we have seen in the alt-right. And it's worth pointing out that what some would consider a group of guys in Brooklyn cosplaying as revolutionaries happen to have a Patreon campaign that is raking in over $170,000 a month. What they are doing SELLS, so why would they stop?? Except their brand of no compromise with anything ever politics has moved into other parts of the left-wing media bloodstream.
People like Warren want to MANAGE capitalism to make it better. This crowd wants to eliminate it altogether in one fell swoop. How they think they can achieve that in the United States is beyond me. Their (for lack of a better term) balls are needed for a real fight. But their total refusal to compromise or moderate on any issue is a huge problem. My next guess is that they turn on Bernie himself for not fighting hard enough and honoring his pledge to support the eventual nominee if he loses. The movement can never itself fail, it can only be failed by outside forces.
Trump's presser at the CDC today should send chills up your spine. It is quite clear to me now that this lack of testing and kits isn't just incompetence (though it is also that). At this point I firmly believe they are trying to artificially deflate the actual numbers by not making the kits available. The forced syncophancy that even DOCTORS have to show to this guy to do their jobs is frightening. Everyone in his orbit gets sucked into it, because they are afraid for their careers if they don't. This Atlantic article should be required reading:
And yeah, I'm beyond pissed and worried about this because I'm personally concerned for more than one person close to me, one a child. And it's so damn obvious the focus is on shaping a narrative, not saving lives. This honestly sums up everything:
So much for Romney being the one Republican who is not a shameless partisan hack. Vote them all out.
Best hope there's nothing to find under that rock or else we're in for some real fun times...
The whole point of pressuring Ukraine was for them to announce the investigation in order to hurt Biden politically. It was apparently never important to actually find something.
Jared and Ivanka have made hundreds of millions in shady deals due to nepotism there's literally nothing Hunter could have done worse than what they are doing now.
But here's the thing - if you demand politicial dirt on your opponent in Ukraine you're probably going to get it. There are Russian soldiers on their border massing right now. There's a friend of the Kremlin telling you to find dirt. You're going to invent that dirt or your small country could be wiped out.
So much for Romney being the one Republican who is not a shameless partisan hack. Vote them all out.
Best hope there's nothing to find under that rock or else we're in for some real fun times...
The whole point of pressuring Ukraine was for them to announce the investigation in order to hurt Biden politically. It was apparently never important to actually find something.
Jared and Ivanka have made hundreds of millions in shady deals due to nepotism there's literally nothing Hunter could have done worse than what they are doing now.
But here's the thing - if you demand politicial dirt on your opponent in Ukraine you're probably going to get it. There are Russian soldiers on their border massing right now. There's a friend of the Kremlin telling you to find dirt. You're going to invent that dirt or your small country could be wiped out.
You're still trying to compare Biden to Trump. Biden is trying to contrast himself with Trump. If Biden did anything Trump-like in Ukraine he'll be toast. He can't have it both ways...
I like a good conspiracy theory, too, but let's be truthful here. Yes, Hunter probably got his job as a way to try and gain access to his father, who was Vice President at the time. However, *Joe* never did *anything* corrupt or illegal re: Ukraine--if he had been then his boss would have called him on it because that could have reflected negatively on him, as well--and Hunter is not running for a political office. Joe is not responsible for the actions his son takes; if he were then his son would not have cocained his way out of the Navy and there would not have been a paternity suit in Arkansas.
I like a good conspiracy theory, too, but let's be truthful here. Yes, Hunter probably got his job as a way to try and gain access to his father, who was Vice President at the time. However, *Joe* never did *anything* corrupt or illegal re: Ukraine--if he had been then his boss would have called him on it because that could have reflected negatively on him, as well--and Hunter is not running for a political office. Joe is not responsible for the actions his son takes; if he were then his son would not have cocained his way out of the Navy and there would not have been a paternity suit in Arkansas.
If Trump wants to have a referendum on his children, that can be done, especially since Jared and Ivanka literally work FOR the Administration. The only question is if Democrats have the stones to do it if we go down that road. Biden won't because he doesn't swing that way, but some outside group needs to go nuclear if that's the case. It is PATENTLY ABSURD for Trump, of all people, to be using nepotism as the go-to campaign tactic. If the Senate calls Hunter Biden, the House should immediately call Jared and Ivanka. While we're at it, we can talk about Don Jr.'s propensity to go big game "hunting" in Africa, which is really just local trackers setting up a kill for you, which any real "sportsman" would find repulsive. Tiffany and Baron should be off limits. They have nothing to do with anything. But Jared and Ivanka are government employees. Don Jr. has inserted himself directly into the culture war on behalf of his father. They are legitimate targets because they MADE themselves legitimate targets. These are adults with agency, not school children. If they wanna play ball, then let's play ball. But again, Dems better be ready to not respond to rocket attacks by tickling someone with a feather duster.
And for the record, once Chelsea Clinton made herself an advocate for her mother in 2016, she was MORE than willing to personally answer attacks against both her and her mother PERSONALLY on Twitter, and did so gracefully, though in a clear "bless your heart" kind of way. Point being, she realized she wasn't 13 anymore (even though she was attacked back then when she was) and accepted that speaking on behalf of her mother was going to cause grenades to be thrown at her. She didn't complain, she dealt with it, herself. Hunter Biden has never held a government position, I doubt anyone has ever even heard him speak. If we're just spit-balling here, I'd say Joe doesn't like alot of the things his son has done. But he has already lost two children. I doubt he has the heart to criticize ANY of the ones he has left. That's just being human. Part of the reason people like Joe Biden is that he shows genuine empathy for people who have lost loved ones.
This is something Trump may want to watch out for. People can stand for being mean to Hillary, because Hillary wasn't liked due to 30 years of constant attacks, investigations, and negative press. But Biden is liked. People know Beau died while he was in office. Less people know he lost his first wife and another child shortly after he first got elected to Congress. Attacking Biden on his children may not be the sure-fire win they think it is. Do they imagine millions of voters don't have that one child who went a little sideways, didn't turn out how they envisioned, got in trouble they had to be bailed out of?? Shit, that was George W. Bush's entire LIFE until he was elected President.
Children and spouses of political opponents should *always* be off-limits, unless the spouses and *adult* children, as you note, insert themselves into the situation. If they do that, then they have chosen to play hardball. The Bush daughters had one negative story about them, I think--drinking, or something like that...but she might have been 19 at the time--and Michelle managed to keep her two daughters pretty much out of the press for almost the full 8 years--no small feat. That remains one valid avenue of criticism Trump can never answer--his adult children, whether natural or by marriage, should never have held *any* position in the White House regardless of their level of expertise or experience.
I'm just pointing out that there isn't an equivalency here. Trump is basically immune to Democrat attacks because he just doesn't care. His followers will believe anything he says. Biden, by running as the 'nice guy' alternative, is going to have to take the high road for better or worse. Is he up for Trump's inevitable nastiness? We'll see. He could always pick Warren as his running mate and let her do the nasty part. She's clearly good at it. She basically took out Bloomberg in one debate!
Comments
Gabbard has money, and used it to run TV ads amongst other things, but I guess never let the facts interfere with the American left's bizarre contempt for people who run for reasons other than a good shot at winning.
You are describing "sexism", not "misogyny". The former is a bias against women--they are emotional, flighty, less rational, etc, the usual crap people think--while the latter is actual *dislike* of women in general. We are still at least a generation away from sexism playing less of a factor in people's decision-making, but we'll get there.
Far too many people still do no research whatsoever before going to vote, then either blindly hit "D" or "R" *or* vote for a candidate based on *their name*, which tells you absolutely nothing about that person whatsoever. Case in point: Ryan Sitton lost his re-election bid for Texas Railroad Commission to James "Jim" Wright, of whom I heard nothing before the election. I had to hunt to find his campaign website, which consists mostly of just a posed campaign picture and a couple of splash pages of the usual political schtick people put on bumper stickers. How did he win against Sitton's established and funded campaign? Simple--a lot of people remember a Texas politician named "Jim Wright" from years ago, so they voted for him. No, I am not kidding.
It's possible he has failing mental health, but I doubt it, since he has handled the pressure of a campaign and the debates without collapsing. If he were that bad off, he would have been pressured to withdraw and endorse Bloomberg before South Carolina ressurrected his campaign.
He's just old. Like Trump and Sanders. Old people forget things and misspeak more often than younger people, but as long as they remain mentally active, there's a good chance that it doesn't indicate anymore than that.
People hold politicians to weird standards. I'm over 40 and few of my peers could handle themselves as well as Biden in a public debate, and absolutely none of them don't misremember things or say weird shit occasionally. The president is but a man (or woman, or other) and they have lots of help in discharging their tasks.
Nancy Reagan forced everyone to cover for Ronald during most of his second term, when he was beginning to develop Alzheimer's. Biden's people are covering for him now.
misogyny
/mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)ni/
noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
You're describing a distinction without a difference. I'll grant some usage of misogyny is simply because it's perceived as a harsher term (like using racist instead of prejudiced), but that doesn't make it inaccurate.
Beyond that, tho, it seems we mostly agree. Happy days!
You can't change this, though. It is inherent to the process of democracy. It is why compulsory voting just means people take their cue to vote from some other arbitrary source (in Australia, whichever party was at the entrance to the polls handing them a "how to vote" card). Most people just vote for whoever their parents did, or whoever they voted for before. Et cetera.
It's a problem. But how to fix it without making things even worse is not an easily-solved issue.
Reagan was the incumbent President. Absolutely different situation, there was much more at stake keeping him in position.
Besides, Reagan was also able to draw his faculties up to the point of having a decent debate, or he would have lost to Mondale (his first debate, where he did seem confused and out of it, was arguably the biggest scare in that campaign).
Tulsi Gabbard hasn't been relevant to the conversation since the second debate. She is running in a Democratic primary, and she has virtually no constituency among actual self-identified Democratic voters. This is also a major part of the problem Bernie has, but at the very least he has managed to push hard for policy positions a portion of the Democratic electorate is fully behind. The relevance of Tulsi Gabbard to the Democratic Presidential race on March 5, 2020 is exactly the same as the relevance of my neighbor's dog.
And no, not everyone who is technically running deserves equal treatment. Dwayne from Ohio could file to run for office as the candidate of the Toilet Paper Party. It doesn't mean he should be on a debate stage. Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar were/are meaningful because they actually had/have enough pull or support to shift their votes to another candidate. No one gives a rat's ass whether Tulsi endorses them or not because her influence would barely cause a rounding error in the numbers.
To be frank, the field was so comically large and anyone who had the support of their parents and five other people was allowed in. So we learned absolutely nothing about anyone for months as we had pointless shouting matches between a dozen people who maybe got 3 minutes of speaking time each. More than anything, this is what has allowed Biden to basically sleepwalk through the campign by essentially melding into the furniture while the majority of the field who had no shot at anything were busy throwing snowballs at each other. Now, the only actual debate that matters between Biden and Bernie won't take place until it's likely too late to alter the race mathematically. All because 8 or 9 people were engaging in vanity campaigns they were fully aware in short order were just that. These people aren't stupid. They can read polls. But "former Presidential Candidate" added to your bio will grab you alot of speaking gigs, cable TV appearances and book deals.
My top choice at the beginning, Kamala Harris, was a serious candidate in the beginning. She dropped off a cliff, she knew it, she recognized she had no path, and she did the right thing and moved aside. But the list of bullshit non-starters this go-round was absurd. Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, Tom Steyer, John Hickenlooper. Then Mike Bloomberg parachutes in and essentially starts lighting money on fire for shits and giggles. I'm interested in serious candidates with a serious chance of winning and finding out as much about them as possible. Because the position they are running for is serious business. And half the field was nothing but wasted airtime on the debate stage. It was awful.
Only five people EVER had any chance of winning this: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and Buttigieg. The last two had far less of a chance than the other 3. Which is exactly what happened. The polling threshold should have never been 1% for debates, but 5% minimum, I'd even say 10%. Kamala had about 48 hours of a bounce after the first debate and flickered out. Buttigieg did manage to "tie" Bernie in the caucus fiasco in Iowa. Never had any support outside the first two contests. Warren was stuck trying to be the bridge candidate between Biden and Sanders and it killed her.
The only thing I didn't see was the centrist field assembling like Voltron to jumpstart Biden 48 hours before Super Tuesday. He was always going to win the South. That was baked in. But Klobuchar literally handed him Minnesota for free, and the whole thing also likely got him Maine and Masschusets as well. Those were the knives to the gut for Bernie, not Alabama or Tennessee. I thought Buttigieg and Klobuchar would hang on by their fingernails and roll the dice on Tuesday. It went another way. And now we're here.
And I also say this because frankly, despite his policies, I like Joe Biden. It's hard not to like Joe Biden. And I'm not at all looking forward to the slow-motion train wreck that he is about to cap his career off with. I mean, Trump is bad in this regard (cognitively) but Biden is WORSE, and we sure as hell can't keep making that point about Trump if Joe Biden is the damn nominee. I can't believe this isn't a bigger issue for the people pushing him. It's as clear as day.
And I don't even know how hard Bernie will be on him in the debate face to face, because he personally quite likes Joe. I'm not sure he has it in him to tear him down like that when he clearly isn't operating on the same level he was 4 years ago. This isn't a contest for grand marshal of the local 4th of July Parade. This is a national Presidential Campaign against a would-be authoritarian. And the answer is to put up somebody who, at best, rambles incoherently when asked on the spot questions?? People would rather go with THIS over Elizabeth Warren?? @Mathsorcerer was actually right when he said this is about nothing but name recognition.
If anything, I think it humanizes him most of the time.
Any functioning adult besides Trump 2020. We can't handle more partisan hack unqualified judges selected soley for 'loyalty' to one guy. We can handle more unqualified cabinet people sneaking misinformation into scientific fields. We don't need more loyalists, we need qualified people who are liars like the loyalists who will tell Trump whatever he wants to hear. Even more people will die over hunches and lies and policies where cruelty is the point.
That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that she does have money, did spend it on TV ads, and is not running a campaign entirely on Fox News, despite this being what you said she was doing.
I didn't say word one about any of this. You said a wrong thing, and I corrected you on saying a wrong thing. I don't know who you're fighting with in this paragraph, but it's not me.
As usual, it bemuses me that how effortlessly so many people on the American left fail to understand that presidential campaigns can have goals and aims beyond winning the nomination, or indeed not have any real expectations of winning the nomination at all. That is how the system works and there are many, many examples of it historically.
Hell, Warren did a lot to influence the Democratic party with her campaign, shifted the window on discussion on several topics, and thus had an impact that was felt well beyond the number of delegates she won (that's not even counting her race-changing evisceration of Bloomberg). So did Bernie Sanders in 2016, who was certainly making a protest run at first (and probably beyond at first since he, as you say, can read polls and do math and therefore knew he was vanishingly unlikely to win).
This is all not even counting the fact that polls are a historically pretty bad indicator as to who can win a primary and who can't. That you think candidates can't rise out of seemingly nowhere to make a serious bid at a nomination reflects your ignorance of even recent political history.
Bloomberg polled higher at his peak than Buttigieg and had a far better chance of actually winning, but I guess why let facts stand in the way of bold claims?
I could quibble with a lot of this (Harris' decline was quite drawn out, you contradicting yourself on Buttigieg's chances, the several candidates who didn't get traction primarily because Biden sucked up all the oxygen for them, etc.), but y'know, I can't help but think of a previous bit of expert analysis you provided:
Hum. That didn't age well, did it?
He was not going to be the nominee if nothing changed but things did change. All the moderates colluded to throw their support behind biden the day before Supper Tuesday. This tactic was unfortunately very effective. So despite Biden's flaws it was enough to put him ahead.
Ultimately, the nomination is not his yet and things may change afain. Biden has momentum and if it goes to a brokered convention it will likely be stolen from Bernie because money prefers Biden.
538's forecasting model has an 88% chance Biden will enter the delegation with a delegate majority, not just plurality. Bernie is down to 2", with the remaining that neither candidate will have a majority.
Bernie is down in Florida by an absolute ton (like, 50ish points).
Bernie did win Michigan in 2016. That election was actually the most unlikely outcome of all of 2016 (far and away - including the actual presidential election). Bernie's going to need another miracle to stay competitive.
Bernie has to win Michigan. It's not just a matter of narrative (which has been incredibly powerful in shifting this race multiple times) but now of math. He not only needs that (and Washington, for sure) but he probably needs an enthusiastic endorsement from Elizabeth Warren. But since the Chapo crowd is STILL basically calling her a traitorous bitch even though they must at this point KNOW they need her supporters to flip to them, that is looking less and less likely as the hours go by. He should be begging her at this point.
I mean, she's been defeated. She has something you need (potentially millions of voters). But the most vocal online supporters are not only not going conciliatory, they are doubling down on the venom and blaming her for Super Tuesday. Elizabeth Warren aligning fully with Bernie is now the only way to stop Biden. And again, these people MUST know that at this point. But they won't alter course.
Bernie is consistent, Bernie has integrity, Bernie has been right on issues for decades most liberal politicians have only adopted in the last 5-10 years. He's not corrupt, and he's not bought. He's also just terrible at political machinations because his very strengths mentioned above don't allow him to be. Jim Clyburn was never going to endorse Bernie. But apparently Bernie didn't even ASK or court the idea of him not endorsing anyone. Didn't even make the attempt. While the Biden camp was consolidating with Buttigieg and Klobuchar, the most vociferous Bernie supporters were sending snake emojis to Warren supporters, who they now DESPERATELY need.
And I guess the question this raises is, if he can't beat this shell of Joe Biden in the Democratic primary, how in the hell would he ever implement his agenda as President??
No, you actually misunderstood my point (which was, in essence, "stop being so certain what's going to happen without real evidence).
But, that being said, upon reflection I think that was put a bit too harshly and personally, so I apologise and will drop the point until I've got a cooler head about it.
Putting aside the fact that Biden was already on the upswing before they dropped out and this is in fact a good portion of the reason why they did so:
If what it took for Biden to win was for the other significant moderates to drop out, it was never that unlikely as to be ruled out.
If what it took was the party uniting behind him to stop Bernie Sanders, it was never that unlikely as to be ruled out.
It didn't have to happen. But assumptions that it couldn't were pure punditry that wasn't backed by data. Bernie was winning slender pluralities in a divided field - if he couldn't raise the ceiling on his support, that vulnerability was always there.
Sanders will not beg for Warren't endorsement--too much bad blood between them at this point.
Bernie Bros want strict adherence to ideological purity, not pragmatism. To them, "compromise" means "to become tainted". *When* Sanders does not receive the nomination, these people will stay home--again--rather than vote either for Biden (out of support for Democrats) or Trump (out of spite against Democrats).
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who gave the money she was supposed to pay in Democrat Party dues to candidates running against incumbent Democrats, was trying to chastise Democrats for not supporting Sanders. Given your own open dislike and opposition of Democrats, Alexandria, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Democrat establishment is going to listen to anything you say. You will be lucky if the New York Legislature doesn't redraw district lines next year and revoke your Congressional district's existence, which means you won't be a Member of Congress any more.
The problem Sanders has from the perspective we are talking about above is from the self-proclaimed "dirtbag left", which is the left's version of the alt-right. Though it wasn't HUGE news at the time, the hosts of the podcast Chapo Trap House said after Hillary's loss that the party was now going to "bend the knee" to them, or else. This is really the genesis leading up to this Warren situation. For many, their brand of no-holds barred, burn it all down politics is exactly what they want. For MANY others, it's seen as the exact type of ironic, nihilistic worldview that we have seen in the alt-right. And it's worth pointing out that what some would consider a group of guys in Brooklyn cosplaying as revolutionaries happen to have a Patreon campaign that is raking in over $170,000 a month. What they are doing SELLS, so why would they stop?? Except their brand of no compromise with anything ever politics has moved into other parts of the left-wing media bloodstream.
People like Warren want to MANAGE capitalism to make it better. This crowd wants to eliminate it altogether in one fell swoop. How they think they can achieve that in the United States is beyond me. Their (for lack of a better term) balls are needed for a real fight. But their total refusal to compromise or moderate on any issue is a huge problem. My next guess is that they turn on Bernie himself for not fighting hard enough and honoring his pledge to support the eventual nominee if he loses. The movement can never itself fail, it can only be failed by outside forces.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/05/romney-senate-gop-probe-of-biden-appears-political/
3/6/20: Romney: "there's no question the appearance is not good" but says he will vote to subpoena burisma anyway.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/486311-romney-to-vote-for-burisma-subpoena
So much for Romney being the one Republican who is not a shameless partisan hack. Vote them all out.
Best hope there's nothing to find under that rock or else we're in for some real fun times...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/how-many-americans-have-been-tested-coronavirus/607597/
And yeah, I'm beyond pissed and worried about this because I'm personally concerned for more than one person close to me, one a child. And it's so damn obvious the focus is on shaping a narrative, not saving lives. This honestly sums up everything:
"Romney's decision is a blow to Democrats, who have warned that Johnson could inadvertently help spread Russian misinformation"
Lmao are Democrats still using that as an excuse to sow paranoia and distrust?
The whole point of pressuring Ukraine was for them to announce the investigation in order to hurt Biden politically. It was apparently never important to actually find something.
Jared and Ivanka have made hundreds of millions in shady deals due to nepotism there's literally nothing Hunter could have done worse than what they are doing now.
But here's the thing - if you demand politicial dirt on your opponent in Ukraine you're probably going to get it. There are Russian soldiers on their border massing right now. There's a friend of the Kremlin telling you to find dirt. You're going to invent that dirt or your small country could be wiped out.
You're still trying to compare Biden to Trump. Biden is trying to contrast himself with Trump. If Biden did anything Trump-like in Ukraine he'll be toast. He can't have it both ways...
If Trump wants to have a referendum on his children, that can be done, especially since Jared and Ivanka literally work FOR the Administration. The only question is if Democrats have the stones to do it if we go down that road. Biden won't because he doesn't swing that way, but some outside group needs to go nuclear if that's the case. It is PATENTLY ABSURD for Trump, of all people, to be using nepotism as the go-to campaign tactic. If the Senate calls Hunter Biden, the House should immediately call Jared and Ivanka. While we're at it, we can talk about Don Jr.'s propensity to go big game "hunting" in Africa, which is really just local trackers setting up a kill for you, which any real "sportsman" would find repulsive. Tiffany and Baron should be off limits. They have nothing to do with anything. But Jared and Ivanka are government employees. Don Jr. has inserted himself directly into the culture war on behalf of his father. They are legitimate targets because they MADE themselves legitimate targets. These are adults with agency, not school children. If they wanna play ball, then let's play ball. But again, Dems better be ready to not respond to rocket attacks by tickling someone with a feather duster.
And for the record, once Chelsea Clinton made herself an advocate for her mother in 2016, she was MORE than willing to personally answer attacks against both her and her mother PERSONALLY on Twitter, and did so gracefully, though in a clear "bless your heart" kind of way. Point being, she realized she wasn't 13 anymore (even though she was attacked back then when she was) and accepted that speaking on behalf of her mother was going to cause grenades to be thrown at her. She didn't complain, she dealt with it, herself. Hunter Biden has never held a government position, I doubt anyone has ever even heard him speak. If we're just spit-balling here, I'd say Joe doesn't like alot of the things his son has done. But he has already lost two children. I doubt he has the heart to criticize ANY of the ones he has left. That's just being human. Part of the reason people like Joe Biden is that he shows genuine empathy for people who have lost loved ones.
This is something Trump may want to watch out for. People can stand for being mean to Hillary, because Hillary wasn't liked due to 30 years of constant attacks, investigations, and negative press. But Biden is liked. People know Beau died while he was in office. Less people know he lost his first wife and another child shortly after he first got elected to Congress. Attacking Biden on his children may not be the sure-fire win they think it is. Do they imagine millions of voters don't have that one child who went a little sideways, didn't turn out how they envisioned, got in trouble they had to be bailed out of?? Shit, that was George W. Bush's entire LIFE until he was elected President.