Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Orbitus]

As far as I am aware the answer to the first question is zero. He has been accused of a great many lewd and sexist comments, but I am not aware of a single instance of assault or unwanted contact, even allegedly.

So the compound probability of zero women all being liars is a null value. Since there are zero women alleging that, they are neither liars nor honest.

Just report the ban evading alt account. I have, twice. He called me a cunt and a moron now.

[Thekri]

Just report the ban evading alt account. I have, twice. He called me a cunt and a moron now.

Eh, they seem to have an infinite amount of time to make new accounts anyway. That guy a month or two ago created like 20 accounts in a row to peddle a conspiracy theory about Afghanistan that somehow I was personally responsible for. It was pretty funny, but it makes me wonder who has the time to make 20 accounts on MMO Champion to troll the same thread.

[zealo]

Just report the ban evading alt account. I have, twice. He called me a cunt and a moron now.

Better yet, stop responding to him so he gets bored and buggers off.

Someone creating burner accounts with naming patterns very similar to this one have been active in e.g the Brexit thread for months now because people keep engaging with him.

[Thekri]

-snip-

Make that 21, lol. Apparently it is a forum regular who won't post this sort of vile nonsense on his main account.

[eschatological]

-snip-

To cut through this bullshit - Bloomberg was a big proponent of stop and frisk. And yes, it lowered crime. So did Giuliani's dumb as shit "broken windows" policy, but that didn't make it any less racist and short-sighted.

Addressing crime in a city like NYC doesn't need racist, bandaid solutions that only address the symptoms and not the causes (like broken windows and stop and frisk). It needs substantive progressive reform. Which de Blasio is trying, but is of course, stifled on a bit by holdovers from Bloomberg and even Giuliani. And NYers tend to be impatient. I was a temporary one, for 6 years (4 years off true NYer status), so I know at least that much.

Also I learned in this post I'm probably like 2 degrees of separation from Skroe. I know a shit ton of ADAs in DANY, and even a few who were in Special Prosecutions (which is what DANY called its white collar bureau, which is now split into a bunch of different units like Public Corruption). I clashed with them often working for LAS in Manhattan, though I did have some friends "on the inside," so to speak. Back in the 00s and early 10s, Democratic lawyers who wanted to go into politics always went into the DA's office to be "tough on crime."

[beanman12345]

Make that 21, lol. Apparently it is a forum regular who won't post this sort of vile nonsense on his main account.

Spot on, banned at the exact same time.

[eschatological]

As an aside, the real reason I wanted to post tonight was to talk about a Twitter trend. Yeah, I know.

But there's a corner of Twitter called Black Twitter, and a lot of prominent people in that corner on the internet have gotten #PresidentWarren to trend tonight. It seems like she's going after Biden's demographic hard. Let's see if she can get any actual in-roads into that community. Most of the tweets seem to be stressing the creation of the CFPB and how she "gave 12 billion dollars back to the people from corrupt corporations," which seems to resonate fairly well.

I'm only Black-Twitter adjacent, so I don't really know how much sway Black Twitter has in the actual black world, but #PresidentWarren is trending #3 tonight (behind The Bachelor, I fucking hate the world.......and a crash at the Daytona 500 where the driver might be dead and everyone is freaking out).

Oh, and after that whole Bernie supporter thing where they tried to attack a Nigerian Mayor Pete supporter and accused him of being a burner for one of his campaign people Lis Smith (who is a white woman afaik, and not an African man), maybe Sanders is a little vulnerable in this area too.

[Kaleredar]

As an aside, the real reason I wanted to post tonight was to talk about a Twitter trend. Yeah, I know.

But there's a corner of Twitter called Black Twitter, and a lot of prominent people in that corner on the internet have gotten #PresidentWarren to trend tonight. It seems like she's going after Biden's demographic hard. Let's see if she can get any actual in-roads into that community. Most of the tweets seem to be stressing the creation of the CFPB and how she "gave 12 billion dollars back to the people from corrupt corporations," which seems to resonate fairly well.

I'm only Black-Twitter adjacent, so I don't really know how much sway Black Twitter has in the actual black world, but #PresidentWarren is trending #3 tonight (behind The Bachelor, I fucking hate the world.......and a crash at the Daytona 500 where the driver might be dead and everyone is freaking out).

Oh, and after that whole Bernie supporter thing where they tried to attack a Nigerian Mayor Pete supporter and accused him of being a burner for one of his campaign people Lis Smith (who is a white woman afaik, and not an African man), maybe Sanders is a little vulnerable in this area too.

Warren seems to be the most universally palatable candidate. I'm surprised she isn't doing better overall.

[Thelxi]

Bloomberg doesn't have any delegates yet and doesn't seem very popular in polls (Even NY hates the guy). Why is everyone talking about him all of a sudden? Is the media pushing him as a realistic candidate or something?

He's spending hundreds of millions on ads that give him a significant head start over all the other candidates in the minds of millions of Average Joes and Janes. It's all carefully planned out to give him maximum momentum coming in at a time where the field has already winnowed down. He's basically cheating a bit.

The media can't ignore that elephant in the room. He will be top of mind for great swathes of people, as all polling clearly indicates, so it would be weird to just ignore him. He will soon make a grand entrance and yet another thorn in everyone's side, especially the moderate lane candidates, but also Bernie.

Personally I think Democrats will not ultimately go for a billionaire, but Bloomberg will be a real obstacle to get over. He's also very different in demeanor to all others, so it will be interesting to see the contrast in coming debates.

[Endus]

Trump is still in the White House. The most impeachable and most imcompetent loud-mouth corrupt president in the history of the USA.

And he's still in office, still doing everything wrong he did before.

Congressional democrats did jackshit and are as competent as a three-legged mule.

That's a bit unfair.

The House of Representatives did impeach him. The blame for his continued presence in the office is down to the Senate, specifically, and those who voted against any penalty for his offenses. Who without exception were all Republicans. Senate Democrats unanimously voted for conviction.

https://www.politico.com/interactive...enate-results/

You can't blame Democrats for voting to convict and failing, because there were enough Republicans who voted to acquit to outnumber them. That's not the Democrats' failure. That's the Republicans' complicity.

There was literally nothing more the Democrats could have done, here.

[Elegiac]

Warren seems to be the most universally palatable candidate. I'm surprised she isn't doing better overall.

We're not allowed to discuss why that is, unfortunately, since it involves the f word.

[draynay]

Even in the House there is only one democrat you can fault. Only two didn't vote "yes" and one of them was absent dealing with Parkinson's disease and will retire this year, which leaves you with just the one useless and incompetent rep, Tulsi Gabbard.

[Kaleredar]

We're not allowed to discuss why that is, unfortunately, since it involves the f word.

Well I mean Hillary took the 2016 democratic election and won the popular vote by millions; obviously gender is not that big of an issue.

I get more the feeling that Warren is most people's "second choice." That they certainly would support her, but they have other candidates that are more divisive that they more immediately prefer.

[Themius]

Trump is still in the White House. The most impeachable and most imcompetent loud-mouth corrupt president in the history of the USA.

And he's still in office, still doing everything wrong he did before.

Congressional democrats did jackshit and are as competent as a three-legged mule.

Republicans have majority and do not care about morals or ethnics. How is this a democrat problem?

We just had the first even impeachment with no witnesses. Who is To blame ?

[Blur4stuff]

Warren being easier for conservadems to accept is why Obama backed her I'd imagine. If they hadn't blown hit she certainly could have been the nominee.

Several negatives put her behind Sanders for me, but she has far more positives and I certainly wouldn't have trouble voting for her like I did Hillary.

[Elegiac]

Well I mean Hillary took the 2016 democratic election and won the popular vote by millions; obviously gender is not that big of an issue.

Just like racism stopped when Obama won the 2008 election. /s

This is dishonest reasoning and you know it.

I get more the feeling that Warren is most people's "second choice." That they certainly would support her, but they have other candidates that are more divisive that they more immediately prefer.

Yes, but that is not an explanation since it doesn't answer why that's the case.

And quite a bit of it has to do with 'electability'. Which again, is verboten.

[Kaleredar]

Just like racism stopped when Obama won the 2008 election. /s

This is dishonest reasoning and you know it.

I didn't say there aren't prejudiced people.

I said prejudice (at least as far as gender goes) doesn't really seem to have been an ultimately decisive factor in the 2016 democratic nominee election (seeing as it bore out that Clinton took the nomination,) nor did it bear out to be one in the 2016 presidential election overall, and I see no real reason to assume that's the case now. Precedent doesn't support it, nor is there any tangible data to back it up.

You're the one reasoning that her performance is an effect of her gender, not me.

[Elegiac]

I didn't say there aren't prejudiced people.

I said prejudice (at least as far as gender goes) doesn't really seem to have been a particularly decisive factor in the 2016 democratic nominee election (seeing as it bore out that Clinton took the nomination,) and I see no real reason to assume that's the case now. Precedent doesn't support it, nor is there any tangible data to back it up.

You're the one reasoning that her performance is an effect of her gender, not me.

I'm going to say something extremely unpopular and controversial, but I'll stand by it.

Regardless of how sketchy Clinton's actual behavior was, the level of scrutiny and vitriol she was subjected to in 2016 was far in excess of what would have been normal had she not been a woman.

So no, this idea that it doesn't "seem to have been a factor" doesn't hold water. While it is not the sole determinant nor does it erase any candidate's missteps, pretending there is not a public bias against candidates who do not fit the demographic "default" is dishonest. Patriarchy and racial animus are not opinions that people decide to heed; it's a persistent system of oppression designed to, in lieu of actually barring such people from power, sets up every obstacle in its power to make it more difficult and normalises it so that any questioning of said obstacles gets dismissed as radicalism.

[PACOX]

How many moderates does it take to lose the primary to a socialist outsider?

Three.

[Elegiac]

When you need something to change you should not remain within the confines of the rules.

Okay Mitch McConnell.