EPTIf anything, i think the whole Trump thing has shown that a lot less people actually care about substance than previously thought. It seems as if large parts of the electorate prefer the zingers and gaffes format over any real policy discussions, and will reward the people who produce the largest amount of cool soundbites with their vote.
2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 41
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11977 Posts
If anything, i think the whole Trump thing has shown that a lot less people actually care about substance than previously thought. It seems as if large parts of the electorate prefer the zingers and gaffes format over any real policy discussions, and will reward the people who produce the largest amount of cool soundbites with their vote. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17796 Posts
Last night's debate reminded me of the giant shouting match arguments my high school gang got into about sports topics at the local donut shop hang out. The overall quality of the 'debating' hasn't been very good so far. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
On February 27 2020 00:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote: So much talking over each other. Perhaps some kind of 1-on-1 tourney format might be better. Of course, you also need candidates willing to engage on 1 on 1 convos. In Canada, there are 3 major parties and its rare for any 2 of them to engage in a lengthy in depth 1-on-1 discussion about anything. Last night's debate reminded me of the giant shouting match arguments my high school gang got into about sports topics at the local donut shop hang out. The overall quality of the 'debating' hasn't been very good so far. I propose a scored double elimination tournament. Pluses: -Absolute hype. -A series of direct 1v1 confrontations rather than the current employment of the FFA game mode. -Rewards the adaptable candidate due to the potential for upsets in the bracket. -Prospect of additional viewers when it starts trending that Bernie is making a miracle run through the loser’s bracket. Minuses -Difficult to find a scoring metric that isn’t susceptible to heavy bias. -Utterly preposterous idea. We could also run a longer-form debate tournament in more of a preparation-based format. Given weeks to prepare for a specific opponent and different venues to factor in and we see the highest skill primary debates possible. What possible strategy will we see Michael Bloomberg employ on Bernie’s | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
No real Bernie-killer candidate emerged. Some candidates said the right things, but never pushed their points home. The good things they did say to hit back at Bernie were quickly overshadowed by their weaknesses and all the other crap happening on stage. I doubt Sanders can lose the nomination now. There’s no chance he does ridiculously poorly in SC, and the winner of SC immediately gets the endorsement of everybody else on that stage. And even in that strange hypothetical, it will just look like another establishment attack on Bernie trying to deny him another win. Twitter was a sponsor of the debate, and it looked like the candidates agreed to make it a Twitter flame war to pay homage to the sponsor. Bernie gets props for mentioning the INSANE seat cost of ~2-3 thousand dollars when he got asked post-debate about the boos. I liked the Bloomberg line trying to take credit for Dems winning seats, which came across like he was proud of personally buying Dem seats and owning their victory. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 27 2020 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why is Steyer's money so much less effective than Bloomberg's money? Is it just the fact that Bloomberg is already an established name and Steyer was anonymous to the general public? 24% vs 0.2%... Racist boomer democrats love him. He allows people to be selfish shitbags while still patting themselves on the back as being progressive. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On February 26 2020 17:15 virpi wrote: So allow me a question: Why are you doing these gigantic debate shows in the US? Has it always been this way? Having so many candidates shouting over each other does not help any of them. And it's bound to happen, it also happens, when you invite at least three politicians to a TV show. Why aren't you doing smaller interview sessions with journalists from different TV networks? (I know that won't happen, but it would be so much more coherent.) It's because 90% of our "journalism" is about making as much money as possible by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Many news shows are strings of sensationalist soundbytes that sound more like gossip magazine column than news. CBS that hosted the debate is pretty bad for this so it's unsurprising how poor the moderating was. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 27 2020 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why is Steyer's money so much less effective than Bloomberg's money? Is it just the fact that Bloomberg is already an established name and Steyer was anonymous to the general public? 24% vs 0.2%... Is Steyer's spending on the same level of Bloomberg? Even if it even expenses in terms of ads, Bloomberg has spent hundred of millions, perhaps even billions, over previous years, buying out support from non-profits, politicians, and other buyable groups. That's the real dangerous/scary part about the finances of Bloomberg's candidacy, it's not that he can spend ungodly amounts of money to advertise and hire staff (as problematic as that is), it is that his money runs much deeper below the surface where he is able to use his massive monetary leverage to build reliance, and thus support, among influential groups and people. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24341 Posts
On February 27 2020 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why is Steyer's money so much less effective than Bloomberg's money? Is it just the fact that Bloomberg is already an established name and Steyer was anonymous to the general public? 24% vs 0.2%... Few big reasons that stand out to me. 1. Bloomberg spent his in uncontested states (as far as ads) 2. Bloomberg had some name recognition ahead of time. 3. His spending isn't just in ads, he's spending hundreds of millions on staff and legal bribes. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On February 27 2020 02:29 Logo wrote: Is Steyer's spending on the same level of Bloomberg? Even if it even expenses in terms of ads, Bloomberg has spent hundred of millions, perhaps even billions, over previous years, buying out support from non-profits, politicians, and other buyable groups. That's the real dangerous/scary part about the finances of Bloomberg's candidacy, it's not that he can spend ungodly amounts of money to advertise and hire staff (as problematic as that is), it is that his money runs much deeper below the surface where he is able to use his massive monetary leverage to build reliance, and thus support, among influential groups and people. Yeah that was disturbing to learn how much Bloomberg has paid for politician's campaigns. Warren was smart to bring up his support for Lindsey Graham. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17796 Posts
I"ve spent too much time watching old videos of Pierre Trudeau engaging in active debates in the 70s. I've watched Reagan's "A Time For Choosing" too many times. My hopes are too high. The advanced age of 3 of the candidates along with the sitting President is an issue. It is interesting to see how this issue was addressed when Reagan was Prez. Do Bloomberg or Sanders or Biden have the guile to turn a perceived liability into a light hearted joke? Or will it just remain "the elephant in the room" ? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 27 2020 03:09 Starlightsun wrote: Yeah that was disturbing to learn how much Bloomberg has paid for politician's campaigns. Warren was smart to bring up his support for Lindsey Graham. Yeah I thought her bringing up the NDAs again was forced, and didn't land as well as it should/could have, but then later bringing up his support of Lindsey Graham and her 2012 challenger was a great angle to take. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On February 27 2020 02:50 JimmiC wrote: I know Steyer has lots of money, but has he spent it like Bloomberg? I've never seen one of his commercials but if I'm watching American channels I see lots of Bloomberg. Cropped this together (source). First one is up to 31Jan2020. Bloomberg and Steyer dwarf everyone else, but Bloomberg is still spending a full Donald Trump budget more than Steyer. The second table is 2019, where Steyer actually outspent Bloomberg. But Bloombergs January and February numbers will be insane. Still though, the ROI on Bloombergs money to Steyers money seems so much higher when looking at poll numbers. Then again in the end the result is measured in delegates and not polls, and both have 0 delegates so far so we'll have to wait for some more states. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oI5iS6o.png) On February 27 2020 02:29 Logo wrote: it's not that he can spend ungodly amounts of money to advertise and hire staff (as problematic as that is), it is that his money runs much deeper below the surface where he is able to use his massive monetary leverage to build reliance, and thus support, among influential groups and people. On February 27 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: 3. His spending isn't just in ads, he's spending hundreds of millions on staff and legal bribes. I guess these type of things wouldn't necessarily appear in graphs/tables like the above, so that would increase Bloombergs spending level even more. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2020 03:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I'd really like to see a lengthy , hard core, in depth 1 on 1 debate between Sanders and Bloomberg about their platforms and why they can improve the lives of the average American. That would be damn cool.It'll never happen. I"ve spent too much time watching old videos of Pierre Trudeau engaging in active debates in the 70s. I've watched Reagan's "A Time For Choosing" too many times. My hopes are too high. The advanced age of 3 of the candidates along with the sitting President is an issue. It is interesting to see how this issue was addressed when Reagan was Prez. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTIfGFJqLko Do Bloomberg or Sanders or Biden have the guile to turn a perceived liability into a light hearted joke? Or will it just remain "the elephant in the room" ? I think lengthy debates on substance are impossible with this many candidates and this current media culture. The trend away, when it occurs, is in favor of shows like Joe Rogan. Gabbard and Sanders sit for hours to talk about millions of subjects and their perspectives and sometimes the host asks for explanation. It’s no debate, but it’s a step above the sound bite slings of packed stage debates in last two major primaries. I don’t think age is an elephant in the room here in general. Voters will pay a little more attention to vice presidential nominees. Maybe a tiny bit more pressure comes on Sanders to release medical records, given both his age and his recent heart attack. But see the vice presidential focus; people can get over it if he doesn’t. And it would take a miracle finish at South Carolina + 3 more fortuitous followups for anyone to have a prayer to catch Sanders and be relevant in the contest. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
Bloomberg, on the other hand, clearly wants it and clearly intends to take it. That obviously factors into their ROIs. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On February 26 2020 11:25 Dan HH wrote: The main issues with gentrification are the loss of affordable housing and increase in homelessness (see San Francisco). It's not all bad as you pointed out and it doesn't need to be stopped per se, it's just one of those things where legislation is slow to catch up with the downsides of a societal change. Some proposed solutions are taxing empty properties and relaxing zoning laws. Yes, but those solutions have really nothing to do with gentrification- they have to do with housing supply- as do loss of affordable housing and thereby homelessness. It wouldn't matter if there was a large number of low income housing going up to replace the refurbished properties. (Or in the case of empty properties, it's speculation, which is something that we see a fair amount up in Vancouver.) But saying the problem is gentrification is backwards and upside down, particularly if you don't intend to stop it, but relax zoning laws so more houses (or higher housing apartments) can be made. Also, it's no wonder Bloomberg's money does more than Steyer's. He's got a magazine named after him. He's Mr Magazine and Mayor of the Biggest City in USA all rolled into one vs literally who. If Mr, I don't know... Wall Street Journal was running, the name would stick a lot more than rando rich guy. (I was going to also include, Mayor of San Francisco, but then I started wondering, is it just me, from the outsider perspective, do we mostly just hear from mayors of New York? Yes, I know Pete was a mayor, but as far as famous American mayors, it seems to me it's just NY.) | ||
| ||
