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.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
Admit it though, you had to look that up on Wikipedia.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
Admit it though, you had to look that up on Wikipedia.
Nah, I probably used Wiki in my past looking up of various figures from when I first started properly following US Politics
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
Nah I was aware it’s not as framed, my point was regardless of it not being the reason he tanked it was still portrayed as this huge gaffe, whereas by modern standards it would barely cause a ripple of controversy.
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
I'm not sure I get this take. You're arguing that modern scandals are bigger?
On the one hand, sure, in a timeline where the US president was elected by a russian psyops campaign, the background reading is much higher. On the other, I'd argue things like the dean scream are exactly the kind of emotive form-over-function issues that cut through that background.
If anything, I think the Trump era shows that the scandals that stick are more disconnected than ever from the scandals that matter.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
Well ok then. I didn’t say the scream “was the reason” that he didn’t become the nominee. But the outcome of Iowa before the scream clarifies a lot. It is still puzzling why the scream became what it did.
Also what’s with blasting people for having to “look that up on wikipedia?” Where are they supposed to find stuff out? Your argument that nobody remembers anything Dean stood for applies about as well to John Kerry.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
Nah I was aware it’s not as framed, my point was regardless of it not being the reason he tanked it was still portrayed as this huge gaffe, whereas by modern standards it would barely cause a ripple of controversy.
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
I'm not sure I get this take. You're arguing that modern scandals are bigger?
On the one hand, sure, in a timeline where the US president was elected by a russian psyops campaign, the background reading is much higher. On the other, I'd argue things like the dean scream are exactly the kind of emotive form-over-function issues that cut through that background.
If anything, I think the Trump era shows that the scandals that stick are more disconnected than ever from the scandals that matter.
My point was merely, regardless of whether it tanked his campaign or not the media ran hard with the ‘Dean scream’ being this horrendous gaffe. Which is basically nothing by contemporary standards.
It’s both a positive and a negative thing I guess, media is more fragmented so the media don’t get to drive opinion like they used to. People will ‘make up their own minds’
They clearly wield less power given how Sanders is prospering despite them, on the other hand they lack the power to rein in Trump’s excesses.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
Admit it though, you had to look that up on Wikipedia.
I do that regularly even just to double check stuff that I already know. Wikipedia is very thorough and very navigable as far as modern US elections and politicians go, no shame in using it.
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
Admit it though, you had to look that up on Wikipedia.
I do that regularly even just to double check stuff that I already know. Wikipedia is very thorough and very navigable as far as modern US elections and politicians go, no shame in using it.
The point I was making was that if you really believe that someone should have been president, you should have at least (1) been willing to vote for him and (2) know what it was he intended to do once becoming president.
The truth is, nobody remembers what Howard Dean stood for. The reason why the scream was a thing was because he didn't have anything else of note going for him.
If you support Bernie, you know he intends to enact universal health care. If you support Warren, you know she intends to impose a billionaire tax.
But if you supported Dean, and believed he should have been president, and was robbed because of a scream, then what exactly was it about him that made you feel like he should have been president?
What was he going to do if he was elected?
If that is something that you need to look up on Wikipedia, and if even the most significant thing you can find on Wikipedia was that he received a lot of small donations, then it shows he really wasn't a very substance-based candidate. Maybe if there was something else to talk about about him, and if he didn't come third in Iowa despite going on and on about coming first in Iowa in the same way Tom Steyer kept believing he'd at least come second in Nevada, there wouldn't be so much focus on a scream. If the scream didn't happen, then the news would be about him coming a disappointing third in Iowa.
The dean scream did kill his campaign, dean diserved better but Its hard to say what could have been given the grassroots nature of his campaign. I do remember one issue from him, he was against the war. The reason the scream killed his fragile campaign was because it fit the narrative set up by the establishment that dean didn't have the temperament and he was unhinged. The worst part of that was the audio leveling of the clip everyone remembers really silences the crowd which helped the jokes that dean was out of touch, when he was just reacting to a very enthusiastic crowd. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RwkNnMrsx7Q https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQh0BEUlJWY
On February 29 2020 05:26 Danglars wrote: Warren's big push for Native American ancestry, and later campaign insistence that Sanders made a sexist comment in a meeting just between the two of them, will be remembered in the annals of major campaign failures. She made so many attempts to own a Bernie + high pragmatism synthesis, and fell flat for major campaign blunders.
It’s amazing what is considered a gaffe now vs even 10/15 years ago.
Seems almost quaint to look back to a time where Howard Dean’s classic scream had such an adverse affect.
Dude was on his way to becoming president easy and then died like a fish.
I still don’t understand why that happened. Truly puzzling.
If you're truly puzzled and believe the scream was the reason he didn't become the nominee, then you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe Trump's wall will be paid for by Mexico. He exited because he came third far behind Kerry and Edwards despite banking everything on Iowa, not because of the scream. It's the equivalent of Tom Steyer believing he'd come second in Nevada after spending millions, but instead coming 5th and receiving 4.7% of the vote (versus Bernie's 46.8% and Biden's 20.2%). Howard Dean was basically the Beto O'Rourke of 2004. Overhyped but nothing to show. For some reason, a lot of ignorant Democratic voters are somehow under the delusion that Dean had a chance. What he was remembered for (the scream) is the exact same kind of thing O'Rouke is remembered for (i.e. saying the word "fuck") - in other words, nothing of substance. Do you actually even remember any of Dean's (or O'Rouke's) policies that made him seem presidential to you?
It’s been a while since I read up on Howard Dean in depth (despite it being one of my main hobbies), I do think he laid some solid groundwork in areas such as soliciting smaller donations etc that others have taken and run with.
Admit it though, you had to look that up on Wikipedia.
I do that regularly even just to double check stuff that I already know. Wikipedia is very thorough and very navigable as far as modern US elections and politicians go, no shame in using it.
Plus a little Wiki diving just gives a bit of context for the era and other associated issues too. Gets the old noggin’ joggin’ so to speak. It’s hard to remember when everything happened chronologically and in relation to each other.
At that point in time for example, the US had only legalised same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, hell YouTube hadn’t even launched. Crazy the pace of change since
I knew Howard Dean was radical for his time on health insurance for all Americans. Wiki helped me recall the big speeches when he detailed what he was willing and unwilling to reform.
I knew the group opposing Kerry on his price in his military record were swift boat vets ... wiki helped me recall that their org name was Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.
We can deal with a little less of the “you're the exact kind of person who falls for the media's sensationalism and might as well believe ...” and “you had to look that up on Wikipedia.” It will cause people to think you’ll just attack them if they think, for example, Howard Dean had the energetic and passionate supporters that Sanders has now, and somewhat presaged his rise, and makes a poor comparison to paper men like Beto.
On March 02 2020 16:13 Danglars wrote: I thought for sure Mayor Pete would stick it out to Super Tuesday, but he has announced that he is suspending his campaign.
Early voting means he’ll still get votes which might otherwise have been pooled into the remaining candidates.
It's pretty obvious what's happening, I should think. He's number three, he's the only young guy, he really had more reason to stay in the race then Warren or Klobuchar. But obviously he made a deal with Biden / some party organizers at the DNC, to step back now and help the anti-sanders front.
I mean his big speech was timed exactly to coincide with Bloomberg's prime-time paid 3 minutes speech, to blunt its effect. I hope nobody wants to suggest that's happenstance.
Warren and Klobuchar can hurt Bernie by staying until Super Tuesday, cuz both of them have a chance to win or at least do well in their home state. If they would step back now, those states would be surely won by Bernie, probably by 50+% margin.
I expect one or both of them to retire after ST, and try to force some promises out of Biden in exchange for their votes, maybe even a VP chair or something.
With Pete dropping out, Trump’s now technically the youngest male major party candidate running for office.
With all the energy of the Democratic base behind Bernie, it would be total suicide to choose other than him at convention. 2016 felt like betrayal, particularly with the huge media stories early in the primary process about all the superdelegates lining up behind Clinton. 2020 would make 2016 look quaint. Nobody in debates really was able to lay a hand on him.
On March 03 2020 02:03 JimmiC wrote: With Steyer and Pete out the youngest male option is now Biden at 77!
Dem establishment: What do you mean we don't focus on fostering future talent and instead line our own pockets and resumes as much as possible?
Edit: And I would say this represents one of Obama's greatest failures. Who the hell did he leave the party to?
I totally agree it seems like there is no succession planning being done at all, but I don't think it is just the establishments fault. Politicians seem to only want themselves in the spotlight. and Bernie is even older! Warren is also 70. Hopefully Bernie works to get some 40-60 year old to pass the baton too. I mean AOC is young but I don't know if she would be ready for the next election yet. I do think Pete's stepping down while still firmly in third place is not so much to help Biden but to set himself up as the next Moderate/centrist hope. If either win this DNC and lose the election I would think Pete would be the front runner. I can't imagine Bernie or Biden taking another shot even if they win this one in their 80's. But then again before this cycle I wouldn't have thought that Trump would be the young candidate either.
Bernie has put a ton of effort into spreading his movement. AOC is a great example of someone who has been knighted by Bernie. I would say Bernie is doing a 999999999999x better job at building a party/movement than Obama did.
On March 03 2020 03:35 JimmiC wrote: I think the Obama and the rest of the Dems thought they had the "next one" in Hilary and it was a slam dunk. I'm sure he thought when he put her in his administration and so on that was all that was needed.
I'd slightly edit that. I think that was the plan, but I don't think they thought it was a slam dunk. And Clinton would never be the future of the party. She was old. Young career folks like AOC are who should be encouraged.
EPT
