Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[mvaliz]

Those positions are mutually exclusive. While I've favored Biden so far for various reasons, my concern about the criticisms of his actions is valid across all candidates. And you're making the same mistake as others. Biden's mistatement wasn't more than an embellishment. Period. I've seen no evidence to contradict that conclusion. And you - like others - using "mental burp" as the criticism just helps the GOP. If you want to debate this particular issue, have at it, but my conclusion and points are solid, and no one has even come remotely close to pushing them aside.

And Bernie hasn't released the medical records he said he would. Warren did. Bernie hasn't. He's backtracking on that, and it's a broken promise. I'm not calling him names, I'm just criticizing him for his actions.

Do you see the difference?

No, no I don't see any difference whatsoever other than it involves the one you approve vs the one you don't approve. There's no difference whatsoever - and my point showed that. There's a difference between "Embellishment" and being completely factually wrong, and you damn well know that.

[Draco-Onis]

I don't think Trump has dementia but he definitely has a lot of narcissism.

Well that too but if you look at interviews from a few years ago and even further you can see someone slowly losing their minds. If anyone in your family went on the kind of rants and verbal slurs that Trump does you would think they are the same. I think the fact that he is such a show man is masking that for some people although the cult thinks he is great.

[Drutt]

You also claimed that the Nevada/Iowa polls were pretty close to the results - they were totally not.

They predicted a Sanders win. Sanders won. His numbers were within allowed statistical variance and this is on top of caucuses being inherently more difficult to predict versus more regular voting based primaries.

I'm not trusting some random individual tiny site's "polling", indeed - I'm not trusting polling anymore in this race until its done. It's proven to be worthless garbage to appeal to those gullible to clickbait.

"During the 2016 presidential election, Morning Consult had one of the most accurate national polls: despite calling the winner of the election incorrectly, it successfully predicted Hillary Clinton winning the national popular vote by 3 percent (she won by 2.1 percent). The website FiveThirtyEight also found that Morning Consult, along with other prolific online polling firms, did not have a strong house effect in its 2016 election polling."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Consult

You want to ignore polls, that's your right. Pretending reputable outlets aren't reputable outlets doesn't do anyone any good, though. They certainly have more credibility than anyone's gut feeling.

I'd also like to point out we've now moved from "there's no data to support that, you made it up" to "that data's old and can be ignored" to "I don't believe polls and that polling outfit is untrustworthy anyway". You should have just led with that; I could have saved myself effort in presenting evidence to someone who didn't want to read it anyway.

[cubby]

No, no I don't see any difference whatsoever other than it involves the one you approve vs the one you don't approve. There's no difference whatsoever - and my point showed that. There's a difference between "Embellishment" and being completely factually wrong, and you damn well know that.

And that's your main problem. You aren't getting the main point at all. You think it's about support of particular candidates. It's NOT. It's about supporting all the candidates by not using GOP talking points to make fun of them.

to Biden specifically: he wasn't factually wrong, except for "arrested" vs "separate by police". And it was 45 years ago. Everything else was correct. Embellishment is exactly what it was, and the fact that you can't be intellectually honest enough to admit it is a serious concern. And Biden was wrong to get that part of the event wrong - he should have not done it. And admitted the error

The MAIN POINT is that the criticism of Bernie regarding medical records release is that we're criticizing him and his actions. Not calling him names. Whereas with Biden, we're criticizing him AND calling him names. The DNC and it's supporters/voters/followers should not be doing the later. Criticize, of course, because that's what the Primary is about. But don't use GOP talking point to make for of other DNC candidates.

That just helps Trump get elected.

[mvaliz]

Biden could have pushed his donors to do the same. Where is your criticism of him? Or Warren? He's running for President, not fixing the world. How is the holy hell can you think of this as any kind of "valid" criticism?

o_O

This is the most nonsensical post I have ever seen in my life comming from you. =/

Did you just seriously ask me why my pointing out that a Billionare could've taken 25% of his campaign fund and fix all of Flint Michigan's problems and it could've been the largest most effective advertising stunt in ALL of political history to his advantage is any different than another candidate's small miniscule individual donations (that no where equal to 25% of Bloombergs pockets, given from everybody else) to put it all into fixing Flint's problems as advertising?

Seriously?

SERIOUSLY!? o_O

OK... I can't believe I have to spell this out, but here goes...

1) For every other candidate, that would be financially speaking "All my finances or nothing" situation. I was pointing it out to be Bloomberg-specific. An act he COULD do that would've garnered him far more fame and votes than anything his advertising would've done (Again, notice I specifically set ASIDE the philanthropic nicety of it and went purely as a form of advertising?). Biden and warren are not billionares.

2) You're dealing with everybody elses campaign donations - not your own money. You have to prove it to THEM that it's the right choice... That difference was an advantage Bloomberg had, and could've done 100x more effective advertising via that simple act than an army of commercials. It wouldn't even be about "Should he" or "Shouldn't He" - it's about "I showed you I would fix things, whereas others only told you!"

I mean, c'mon! You tell me if Bloomberg did that you wouldn't be out there holding signs up for him as the second comming of Christ? Shit - I would seriously consider him if he did that! ;P

[Drutt]

I don't think Trump has dementia but he definitely has a lot of narcissism.

I would suggest going to watch a Trump interview from 15, 20 years ago and compare it to him now.

The difference is startling. He was still a douchebag, but at least he was an all-there douchebag.

It's fairly obvious something is wrong with him, although I don't pretend to know what. That's well outside of my wheelhouse.

[cubby]

o_O

This is the most nonsensical post I have ever seen in my life comming from you. =/

Did you just seriously ask me why my pointing out that a Billionare could've taken 25% of his campaign fund and fix all of Flint Michigan's problems and it could've been the largest most effective advertising stunt in ALL of political history to his advantage is any different than another candidate's small miniscule individual donations (that no where equal to 25% of Bloombergs pockets, given from everybody else) to put it all into fixing Flint's problems as advertising?

Seriously?

SERIOUSLY!? o_O

OK... I can't believe I have to spell this out, but here goes...

1) For every other candidate, that would be financially speaking "All my finances or nothing" situation. I was pointing it out to be Bloomberg-specific. An act he COULD do that would've garnered him far more fame and votes than anything his advertising would've done (Again, notice I specifically set ASIDE the philanthropic nicety of it and went purely as a form of advertising?). Biden and warren are not billionares.

2) You're dealing with everybody elses campaign donations - not your own money. You have to prove it to THEM that it's the right choice... That difference was an advantage Bloomberg had, and could've done 100x more effective advertising via that simple act than an army of commercials.

I mean, c'mon! You tell me if Bloomberg did that you wouldn't be out there holding signs up for him as the second comming of Christ? Shit - I would seriously consider him if he did that! ;P

I'm glad you see the absurdity in my post - it was the point. The criticism of Bloomberg using campaign money for Flint is equally absurd. You just don't see it.

Can we please get back to the serious issues now?

[mvaliz]

That BOTH just helps Trump get elected.

Fixed that for you. ;P

[cubby]

I would suggest going to watch a Trump interview from 15, 20 years ago and compare it to him now.

The difference is startling. He was still a douchebag, but at least he was an all-there douchebag.

It's fairly obvious something is wrong with him, although I don't pretend to know what. That's well outside of my wheelhouse.

Agreed. Something is very wrong. From those 15-20 years ago, he was putting together multiple sentence statements/answers to fairly important topic questions, and the prose was solid, not perfect, but at least reasonable and read well when transcribed.

Now - fucking horrific word-salad nonsense. Even individual paragraphs are all over the place, with no coherence whatsoever.

[shimerra]

No point in clogging up the thread with old topics, but well just say we disagree with eachother.



Yeah the then head of the DNC just had to step down because she did such a fine job 2016, but no point in continuing.

https://observer.com/2017/08/court-a...ainst-sanders/

I will say this ahead of time, and I don't think it out of the bounds of reason. That being that if you lose your home state, you should drop out of the race as soon as possible. It may not be fair to Warren, Klobuchar, or even Sanders but they have huge name recognition and that give them a distinct advantage. IMO

It is pretty dumb because while every politician is almost overwhelmingly more popular in their home state, people hate the senate but not their senator etc, it has nothing to do with what the nation as a whole wants and since they're president of all 50 states and no just one their home state could think they're the anti-christ for all I care.

[cubby]

Fixed that for you. ;P

You couldn't be more wrong. Please DO NOT change what I've said. Only warning.

[mvaliz]

I'm glad you see the absurdity in my post - it was the point. The criticism of Bloomberg using campaign money for Flint is equally absurd. You just don't see it.

Can we please get back to the serious issues now?

You read all that and processed that in less than a minute!? Damn... go go speed reader! >_<

You opened that can of worms via responding, don't blame me when you get dunked on. (which was exactly my point, btw, of the Moderates post prior how people are blaming Bernie supporters instead of facing the real problem). and then go ad-homineming my point away...

Also, this is a forum on a gaming site. You're not on a Democratic strategy planning forum here. You're not getting anything done, just theorycrafting what could/should be done. Which was my point about how Bloomberg could've used his funds by creating the most effective political stunt in history. :P

You couldn't be more wrong. Please DO NOT change what I've said. Only warning.

...or what? o_O

Didn't Sulla make threats exactly like that when we kept pointing out how he openly supported a Pedophile?

And, for the record, I didn't "Change" what you wrote - I put a slash-S through what you wrote and put in the better word. I didn't try to make it seem like you wrote something you didn't like you're claming here. (Which, btw, is a straight-up lie you just made - not a gaff).

[cubby]

Fixed that for you. ;P

So you took my entire well-thought-out response, and your reply was to change what I said, missing the entire point?

I guess you decided to stop being serious after your huge fucking revelation....

[Edge-]

It is pretty dumb because while every politician is almost overwhelmingly more popular in their home state, people hate the senate but not their senator etc, it has nothing to do with what the nation as a whole wants and since they're president of all 50 states and no just one their home state could think they're the anti-christ for all I care.

https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/

Not really. There's a fair number of, mostly Republicans, who are damn unpopular. OF the 10 least popular Senators, 8 are Republicans, 2 are Democrats. 6 have higher disapproval than approval ratings, including 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat, 1 is tied who is a Republican, 2 have 1-2 point leads on approval and are both Republican, 1 has a 10 point lead on approval as a Democrat.

This includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Kentucky's other Senator Rand Paul. The only state to have both their Senators in the top 10 least popular list.

[cubby]

You read all that and processed that in less than a minute!? Damn... go go speed reader! >_<

You opened that can of worms via responding, don't blame me when you get dunked on. (which was exactly my point, btw, of the Moderates post prior how people are blaming Bernie supporters instead of facing the real problem). and then go ad-homineming my point away...

Also, this is a forum on a gaming site. You're not on a Democratic strategy planning forum here. You're not getting anything done, just theorycrafting what could/should be done. Which was my point about how Bloomberg could've used his funds by creating the most effective political stunt in history. :P

Can you please come back to the big issues. Your responses to this is borderline childish. The Biden/Warren criticism differences are the big boy conversation.

Edit: it would have been a pretty amazing political stunt. I will definitely grant you that point.

[mvaliz]

Edit: it would have been a pretty amazing political stunt. I will definitely grant you that point.

THANK YOU! =D That was my point. Not some "Should he/shouldn't he" moral quandry (which is a whole separate subject not for this thread obviously - which is why I didn't go there)

Yes, moving back now to other issues. ^_^

[cubby]

https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/

Not really. There's a fair number of, mostly Republicans, who are damn unpopular. OF the 10 least popular Senators, 8 are Republicans, 2 are Democrats. 6 have higher disapproval than approval ratings, including 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat, 1 is tied who is a Republican, 2 have 1-2 point leads on approval and are both Republican, 1 has a 10 point lead on approval as a Democrat.

This includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Kentucky's other Senator Rand Paul. The only state to have both their Senators in the top 10 least popular list.

I'm seeing those "unpopularity" numbers a few serious places. I mean, does anyone think McConnell is really going to lose his seat? I see that McGrath is polling well, and she's entirely awesome, but Majority Leader lose his seat? I want it to happen but....

It would be interesting to see in past polls if "grossly unpopular" Senators have lost their elections. I'm at work atm, but can dive into that later.

[Edge-]

I'm seeing those "unpopularity" numbers a few serious places. I mean, does anyone think McConnell is really going to lose his seat? I see that McGrath is polling well, and she's entirely awesome, but Majority Leader lose his seat? I want it to happen but....

It would be interesting to see in past polls if "grossly unpopular" Senators have lost their elections. I'm at work atm, but can dive into that later.

Oh heavens no, McConnel has been unpopular for years, but Kentucky keeps sending him back. I wasn't arguing that these people would lose, just correcting another poster about the popularity of Senators within their state.

[cubby]

Oh heavens no, McConnel has been unpopular for years, but Kentucky keeps sending him back. I wasn't arguing that these people would lose, just correcting another poster about the popularity of Senators within their state.

Right, gotcha - and I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, either. I was sort of projecting my thoughts from your information - which is great info to have.

Really interesting that he's so unpopular but he keeps winning. Makes me almost certain that McGrath is doomed.

[mvaliz]

Oh heavens no, McConnel has been unpopular for years, but Kentucky keeps sending him back. I wasn't arguing that these people would lose, just correcting another poster about the popularity of Senators within their state.

I'm curious - what's the Gerrymandering situation in Kentucky? Also, I wonder how many people vote vs the total population of voting-age adults. Could simply also in part that people are so damn cynical that enough just don't vote.

Although it could be as simple as "Yeah, he's horrible - but he aint a filthy LIB!" kinda mentality. Wasn't there some southern female politician who actually claimed durring the Roy Moore bid that "I'd rather have a Pedophile than a Democrat" in office?