|
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 March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority?
Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality.
|
On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality.
Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite.
I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either.
|
Norway28706 Posts
I'd like to see a female president myself tbh, if Bernie were two people and one was a woman I'd pick the woman as ideal president. (But maybe not ideal candidate, as I still think theres a bunch of americans who think 'the president should be a man'. At the same time, the existence of that mentality is exactly why having a female president should be an independent goal. )
|
if Bernie were two people and one was a woman I'd pick the woman as ideal president.
How is this not sexism?
|
Norway28706 Posts
Because it counter-balances perceived existing sexism against women. Didn't say I'd choose a worse candidate also, just if they were equal.
The US has had 44 presidents, 0 women. That, to me, seems like a problem. You can say 'okay but gender equality clearly wasn't a thing until the 70s so counting the ones before that isn't fair', but then it's still 0% in the past 50 years.
|
On March 03 2020 06:00 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +if Bernie were two people and one was a woman I'd pick the woman as ideal president. How is this not sexism?
Because of context. All other things being equal, choosing a candidate that increases representation of a group that is currently underrepresented is highly desirable. And understandably so.
|
On March 03 2020 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality. Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite. I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either.
Who am I frustrated with except Warren? She claims to be a progressive then takes super pac money. She's a sham and none of her supporters offer an argument otherwise. From my perspective, as a former Warren supporter, people supporting her as a "true progressive" decided "yeah well I guess she's still cool" once that was 100% dismissed. No matter what, no candidate can claim to be progressive while taking super pacs. The fact that her supporters started grasping at straws after she gave in isn't my issue.
Klob has been blatantly doomed for months. But I say 10x more about Buttigieg and Bloomberg, so I'm not sure why you're implying I've got some sexist slant.
When Warren was dominating, I was saying Bernie should drop and endorse her early to consolidate progressives. Glad that didn't happen, since she now takes super pac money.
Me blasting people for not upholding their supposed views isn't me taking anything from someone's freedom to doing so. Go ahead and support Warren, but do so knowing people will have an easy time calling her a sham.
|
On March 03 2020 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality. Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite. I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either. Who am I frustrated with except Warren? She claims to be a progressive then takes super pac money. She's a sham and none of her supporters offer an argument otherwise. From my perspective, as a former Warren supporter, people supporting her as a "true progressive" decided "yeah well I guess she's still cool" once that was 100% dismissed. No matter what, no candidate can claim to be progressive while taking super pacs. The fact that her supporters started grasping at straws after she gave in isn't my issue. Klob has been blatantly doomed for months. But I say 10x more about Buttigieg and Bloomberg, so I'm not sure why you're implying I've got some sexist slant. When Warren was dominating, I was saying Bernie should drop and endorse her early to consolidate progressives. Glad that didn't happen, since she now takes super pac money. Me blasting people for not upholding their supposed views isn't me taking anything from someone's freedom to doing so. Go ahead and support Warren, but do so knowing people will have an easy time calling her a sham.
From what I can tell no one likes what happened to Warren over the course of the campaign, not even Warren supporters. It's just a matter of how much they're willing to come to terms with it (if they even know). Some people are really dug in about it, some people never cared all that much about progressive values over Warren's pragmatism, some are long gone already.
|
On March 03 2020 06:18 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality. Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite. I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either. Who am I frustrated with except Warren? She claims to be a progressive then takes super pac money. She's a sham and none of her supporters offer an argument otherwise. From my perspective, as a former Warren supporter, people supporting her as a "true progressive" decided "yeah well I guess she's still cool" once that was 100% dismissed. No matter what, no candidate can claim to be progressive while taking super pacs. The fact that her supporters started grasping at straws after she gave in isn't my issue. Klob has been blatantly doomed for months. But I say 10x more about Buttigieg and Bloomberg, so I'm not sure why you're implying I've got some sexist slant. When Warren was dominating, I was saying Bernie should drop and endorse her early to consolidate progressives. Glad that didn't happen, since she now takes super pac money. Me blasting people for not upholding their supposed views isn't me taking anything from someone's freedom to doing so. Go ahead and support Warren, but do so knowing people will have an easy time calling her a sham. From what I can tell no one likes what happened to Warren over the course of the campaign, not even Warren supporters. It's just a matter of how much they're willing to come to terms with it (if they even know).
If I could have had a way to see the future that she'd take super pac money, I never would have supported her to begin with. Every person I grill over it says "I don't like it either, but I believe in her" is basically just cognitive dissonance. Many people have too much investment to just turn around today.
A big part of this is how many people labeled Warren some kind of leader of feminism. They feel like they have to support Warren for women's rights. When you convince yourself you can't be a feminist while voting against Warren, sure, you are probably a lost cause.
|
On March 03 2020 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 06:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2020 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Can't find data for Klobuchar, but I think they're pretty evenly spread out. Warren's second preference was a strong bernie with klobuchar making an appearance (prolly some 'we need a female president' in there), buttigieg was 21 bernie 19 biden and warren and 17 bloomberg. bloomberg only one who doesn't have bernie as most picked #2. Taken from here The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing. On March 03 2020 04:58 Nakajin wrote:
538 now has "no one" winning a majority at 65% with Sanders at around 20%.
Obviously we'll know more tomorrow night but it's looking like chaos ahead. Especially with how the calendar is, there's a good chance Biden finishes his run very strong in the last few states before going to the convention...
Hopefully Sanders can create an insurmountable gap tomorow night. So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king. I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality. Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite. I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either. Who am I frustrated with except Warren? She claims to be a progressive then takes super pac money. She's a sham and none of her supporters offer an argument otherwise. From my perspective, as a former Warren supporter, people supporting her as a "true progressive" decided "yeah well I guess she's still cool" once that was 100% dismissed. No matter what, no candidate can claim to be progressive while taking super pacs. The fact that her supporters started grasping at straws after she gave in isn't my issue. Klob has been blatantly doomed for months. But I say 10x more about Buttigieg and Bloomberg, so I'm not sure why you're implying I've got some sexist slant. When Warren was dominating, I was saying Bernie should drop and endorse her early to consolidate progressives. Glad that didn't happen, since she now takes super pac money. Me blasting people for not upholding their supposed views isn't me taking anything from someone's freedom to doing so. Go ahead and support Warren, but do so knowing people will have an easy time calling her a sham. From what I can tell no one likes what happened to Warren over the course of the campaign, not even Warren supporters. It's just a matter of how much they're willing to come to terms with it (if they even know). If I could have had a way to see the future that she'd take super pac money, I never would have supported her to begin with. Every person I grill over it says "I don't like it either, but I believe in her" is basically just cognitive dissonance. Many people have too much investment to just turn around today. A big part of this is how many people labeled Warren some kind of leader of feminism. They feel like they have to support Warren for women's rights. When you convince yourself you can't be a feminist while voting against Warren, sure, you are probably a lost cause.
If you told someone before like Dec '19 that Warren would take PAC money to run a massive amount of ads in a stated attempt to blunt Sander's momentum while also being unviable in most states you'd be laughed at for an extended amount of time and very few would believe you.
|
On March 03 2020 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because it counter-balances perceived existing sexism against women. Didn't say I'd choose a worse candidate also, just if they were equal.
The US has had 44 presidents, 0 women. That, to me, seems like a problem. You can say 'okay but gender equality clearly wasn't a thing until the 70s so counting the ones before that isn't fair', but then it's still 0% in the past 50 years.
I really get the whole “it would be nice if a woman were president, given history” as well as “but only if she isn’t a worse candidate.”
The bit about sexist voting to counter perceived existing sexism to balance the scales irritates me. It ends and deserves to end in very bad places, such as today’s obsession with no black men or women left in the race being a major indictment against 2020 field. It creates bad blood with people not the right skin color, sex, sexual orientation, to gain votes based on symbolic striking back against past/present oppression. At one remove, it asks the question about how much proper racism and sexism is allowed “in the other direction” before the scales are righted enough to apply the brakes. At two removes, it fails to account for resentment from the people passed over to advance cosmic justice.
I won’t say the “if they are equal” is a cop out, because it’s useful to describe your hierarchy of values. As it works out in practice, no two candidates are equal so you will be ranking permissible sexism/racism against policy if your stance has any teeth whatsoever. So my question is still how it plays out in the messy arena of politics and political candidates, though I am sympathetic to the starting theoretical playing field.
See also (imperfect comparison, so substitute a candidate’s campaign): The climate movement is overwhelmingly white. So I walked away.
|
On March 03 2020 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because it counter-balances perceived existing sexism against women. Didn't say I'd choose a worse candidate also, just if they were equal.
The US has had 44 presidents, 0 women. That, to me, seems like a problem. You can say 'okay but gender equality clearly wasn't a thing until the 70s so counting the ones before that isn't fair', but then it's still 0% in the past 50 years.
That honestly sounds like a pretty retrograde attitude. I suppose on some level it's because "all else held equal" is a silly hypothetical in this scenario, but it does mean that there's absolutely an inherent bias towards electing someone because they tick off some box that has little to do with whether or not they'd be the best president. I'm certain that, for example, there is a sizeable group of Warren supporters who support her over Bernie because she's a woman and "all else equal." Yet that would clearly fall apart upon closer inspection.
As long as the opportunities are there and reasonably high for getting elected as a woman (and given that both major parties have had serious female contenders, I think they are), I see no reason to explicitly favor someone specifically because they tick off that box. No more than voting for Obama because he's black, or Bernie because he's Jewish. Frankly it seems like most attempts to play off that "favorable identity" direction are just explicitly divisive in an attempt to garner some form of halo effect, especially if the 2016 Clinton campaign was any indication.
On March 03 2020 06:37 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 06:18 Logo wrote:On March 03 2020 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On March 03 2020 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2020 05:16 Nakajin wrote:On March 03 2020 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
The amount of women I know who are deeply invested in having a female president is absolutely depressing.
[quote]
So long as Bernie ends up with a single delegate more than Biden, I'm not worried. Find me a single person as enthusiastic about Biden as your average Bernie voter. So long as Bernie has a single delegate on Biden, Bernie's following will prevent DNC from making Biden king.
I really think people are wildly underestimating the amount of revolt that will take place if DNC actually went for it. No matter who drops, Bernie is winning California. I think Bloomberg 100% set fire to the convention hall before casting his delegate on Sanders. If Biden + him get over the line or extremely close to it IDK what happen. Warren goes for Sanders for sure, Klob just endorsed Biden so she could stand behind him at the convention, who knows. Although I don't really know how it work once we get there, are the delegate tied to what their candidate choose or is it free for all? What I'm saying is that by the time of the convention, the DNC will have enough data showing "whoa, seems a lot of people don't actually care what our rules say. If we nominate anyone but the plurality winner, we will likely lose 2020 in a landslide, perhaps even leading to the formation of a new progressive party. That can't happen, so I guess we get Bernie" Currently, the powers that be would have a very good reason to think I, a former Clinton voter, would respect the DNC's rules. But that's super inaccurate. I am 100% sure I will leave the party if anyone other than plurality gets the nom. It's not even slightly in question to me. No vote, party changed the day after the convention if the plurality is not the winner. It's not important to me what rules the DNC cites. I am still a thinking, independent creature with my own set of ethics. If the DNC crosses that line, the DNC is no longer valuable or helpful to me. Would this sentiment hold if Bernie wasn't on track to win the majority? Yes. Whoever has the most delegates before the convention earns my vote. No one else has authority in accordance with my ethics. If Biden's SC win builds into a dominating ST, gg, Biden wins and I'll vote for him. But he needs plurality. No one gets my vote without plurality. Fair enough. The reason I ask is your persistent frustration with the female candidates and those who support them. I think it's out of line with how they're actually affecting Bernie's chances, and you make no secret of the fact that he's your favorite. I don't generally see the use of antagonizing Warren and her supporters, at all; they are a block that, for the most part, would otherwise be quite happy to support Bernie if it came to it, and it's just not a good look. People are free to support who they will, and if someone is going to get a plurality, they should earn it. Not that I think Bernie won't. In any case, I won't hound you about this or press any further if you still disagree, I don't see much more point to that either. Who am I frustrated with except Warren? She claims to be a progressive then takes super pac money. She's a sham and none of her supporters offer an argument otherwise. From my perspective, as a former Warren supporter, people supporting her as a "true progressive" decided "yeah well I guess she's still cool" once that was 100% dismissed. No matter what, no candidate can claim to be progressive while taking super pacs. The fact that her supporters started grasping at straws after she gave in isn't my issue. Klob has been blatantly doomed for months. But I say 10x more about Buttigieg and Bloomberg, so I'm not sure why you're implying I've got some sexist slant. When Warren was dominating, I was saying Bernie should drop and endorse her early to consolidate progressives. Glad that didn't happen, since she now takes super pac money. Me blasting people for not upholding their supposed views isn't me taking anything from someone's freedom to doing so. Go ahead and support Warren, but do so knowing people will have an easy time calling her a sham. From what I can tell no one likes what happened to Warren over the course of the campaign, not even Warren supporters. It's just a matter of how much they're willing to come to terms with it (if they even know). If I could have had a way to see the future that she'd take super pac money, I never would have supported her to begin with. Every person I grill over it says "I don't like it either, but I believe in her" is basically just cognitive dissonance. Many people have too much investment to just turn around today. A big part of this is how many people labeled Warren some kind of leader of feminism. They feel like they have to support Warren for women's rights. When you convince yourself you can't be a feminist while voting against Warren, sure, you are probably a lost cause. If you told someone before like Dec '19 that Warren would take PAC money to run a massive amount of ads in a stated attempt to blunt Sander's momentum while also being unviable in most states you'd be laughed at for an extended amount of time and very few would believe you.
I'd believe it. Her turn to trying to bring down Bernie is unfortunate, but not surprising. She's proven herself to be a shameless opportunist whenever it's come up in the past.
|
Canada11369 Posts
This has been a rather sad run for me. I really liked Biden back in 2008, and I thought he did great in Biden vs Paul Ryan in 2012. But he just isn't the same man anymore. Both Sanders and Trump while old, still have a lot of spark. But Biden has been semi-incoherent in a lot of these debates. Getting old sucks 
|
On March 03 2020 06:50 LegalLord wrote:
I'd believe it. Her turn to trying to bring down Bernie is unfortunate, but not surprising. She's proven herself to be a shameless opportunist whenever it's come up in the past.
I should have qualified someone as "Warren Supporters" but close enough.
|
When Steyer, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar were still in the race, it was unlikely that Biden was going to hit the 15% threshold in California and other states. With them out of the way, Biden will surely meet the minimum requirement for far more states (as will Sanders, but it'll still play towards Biden's/ the moderates' favor, since a brokered convention wins them the election).
Warren fell from grace hard, in my eyes, over the past few months. I was hoping that she and Sanders were going to be largely interchangeable and support each other throughout the early stages of the primary (with the less popular candidate ultimately bowing out and promoting the more popular one when the time was right), but I almost feel like Warren has backstabbed Sanders (the misguided sexist accusation, staying in the race this long to increase the likelihood of a brokered convention, etc.). Maybe she's playing some 4-D chess that I can't figure out, but I feel like she's not going to seriously benefit from this attempted moment of opportunism.
I have no idea whether Bloomberg will seriously shake things up or if he'll just end up being a huge dud who just blew half a billion dollars for no reason.
And I seriously have no idea what the hell Tulsi Gabbard is trying to accomplish. Maybe she was promised a deal on Fox News if she sticks around the Democratic primary long enough? But she's not even influencing any states outcomes, because no one cares about her.
|
|
|
Norway28706 Posts
On March 03 2020 06:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because it counter-balances perceived existing sexism against women. Didn't say I'd choose a worse candidate also, just if they were equal.
The US has had 44 presidents, 0 women. That, to me, seems like a problem. You can say 'okay but gender equality clearly wasn't a thing until the 70s so counting the ones before that isn't fair', but then it's still 0% in the past 50 years. I really get the whole “it would be nice if a woman were president, given history” as well as “but only if she isn’t a worse candidate.” The bit about sexist voting to counter perceived existing sexism to balance the scales irritates me. It ends and deserves to end in very bad places, such as today’s obsession with no black men or women left in the race being a major indictment against 2020 field. It creates bad blood with people not the right skin color, sex, sexual orientation, to gain votes based on symbolic striking back against past/present oppression. At one remove, it asks the question about how much proper racism and sexism is allowed “in the other direction” before the scales are righted enough to apply the brakes. At two removes, it fails to account for resentment from the people passed over to advance cosmic justice. I won’t say the “if they are equal” is a cop out, because it’s useful to describe your hierarchy of values. As it works out in practice, no two candidates are equal so you will be ranking permissible sexism/racism against policy if your stance has any teeth whatsoever. So my question is still how it plays out in the messy arena of politics and political candidates, though I am sympathetic to the starting theoretical playing field. See also (imperfect comparison, so substitute a candidate’s campaign): The climate movement is overwhelmingly white. So I walked away.
I'm really not a fan of identity-based politics - class is my preferred metric, always. But when positions of power are so overwhelmingly taken by men (yet this not being a constant throughout all societies), it means there is a structural explanation for it. 'The right candidate just hasn't shown up yet' does not work as an explanation for me, it's overwhelmingly likely that 'the right female candidate never had even close to the same opportunities as the equally right male candidate', and I believe enacting this type of structural change to counterbalance the existing structures is something where having a female in charge will be useful.
It might be more correct to state that for this reason, a female candidate would, from my point of view, where Enacting a Structural Change Benefiting Women at the Highest Level is a desirable political outcome, get a slight 'stat-boost' to the 'ESCBWHL' - statistic. It's not the point I care the most about, not even close, if position on climate change can award 100 points to the ideal candidate and 0 points to the worst one then the ESCBWHL-stat operates on an at most 0-3 point metric. So the 'if all else is equal' might not be completely true, technically, but gender (or other identity) would still only make up a tiny fraction of what makes me vote the way I vote. I would also prefer a teacher, doctor or scientist over a lawyer or businessman, but Steyer vs Ben Carson wouldn't be close - Steyer all the way.
Like, hailing from Norway, we also didn't have any female prime ministers in the period 1814-1981. In the 40 years since 1981 however, we've had a female prime minister about 18 of those years. I see that the makeup of the house of representatives is 77-23, senate 75-25. In Norway, parliament has a 59-41 division. Cabinet positions during the Trump administration peaked at 26% female (I guess it's currently 13% (source), whereas in Norway the current government (with a female prime minister) has varied between 50-50 and 55-45. (source for every government since 1945)
That is a Norwegian source, but it might just be comprehensible enough anyway, as it's mostly numbers in a table. The key is looking at what happens from 1981, where we get the first female prime minister, to how it looks from 1986 onward: Before 1981, % of female ministers is consistently below 25%. After 1986, it's consistently above 42%. There is a relation between these events. The role of the president itself is one where you can argue that even if women haven't been discriminated against since 1990 you've still only had 5 different presidents, so it might have been the case that the female candidates were just objectively worse (hell, maybe Clinton was objectively worse than some male democratic candidates but desire for a female president made her get the nomination which got us Trump), but that stat doesn't work to explain the cabinet position %ages or the gender imbalance of congress. (Even if, to be fair, Clinton hit 42% and Obama was at 30-35%. )
I don't really like the idea of quota schemes or stuff like that, and I don't think we should always strive for equal representation of all possible identity demarcations or whatever. But I definitely believe society benefits from a more equal representation than 75-25 when looking at congress, and I think there's truth to the idea that someone must break the glass ceiling before the existing structural barriers that maintain the 75-25 imbalance can dissipate.
LL, hope I answered you as well here.
|
On March 03 2020 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'd like to see a female president myself tbh, if Bernie were two people and one was a woman I'd pick the woman as ideal president. (But maybe not ideal candidate, as I still think theres a bunch of americans who think 'the president should be a man'. At the same time, the existence of that mentality is exactly why having a female president should be an independent goal. )
But the reality is that human carbon copies do not exist. People are sufficiently different to be told apart without looking at their gender. Your statement seems especially out of place in this thread considering who the first females that come to mind here are: Warren, whose opportunistic inclinations have been fairly extensively discussed in the past few pages of this very thread (and you never commented on) and Clinton, who, I’d argue, is even more opportunistic and outright immoral (for this claim of mine I will restrict myself to mentioning her flip-flop position on gay rights and her support for the Iraq invasion against party lines). Alone for the reasons mentioned above I consider it awfully inappropriate to even tangentially touch the topic of female representation in the oval office when one considers what all female candidates had to offer and contrast it to Sanders, whose consistent positions are visible through several decades of political involvement.
Furthermore, I believe that there are significantly more pressing issues about how “a bunch of Americans” choose their president – be it the fact that billionaires can effectively buy their way into elected positions by plastering their faces across all media outlets, the extremely biased media outlets, the prevalence of fake-news, the partisan split, which feels rather hereditary than based on evaluation of any policies, etc, etc. And from what I have read from you in political threads you seem to be well aware of the problems that plague American voting preferences. Yet, you still chose to mention only one single issue. Why? Do you believe this is the one single most significant problem in American politics?
Personally, I feel like you are doing a disservice to what you consider should be “an independent goal” by nudging much needed discussions into a direction that is completely irrelevant to the current situation. At most you are reinforcing people’s believes that either female representation in the top echelons of political power has to be increased or that unqualified personnel manages to reach the top echelons of political power solely based on the fact that they are female.
|
|
|
Norway28706 Posts
On March 03 2020 08:32 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2020 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'd like to see a female president myself tbh, if Bernie were two people and one was a woman I'd pick the woman as ideal president. (But maybe not ideal candidate, as I still think theres a bunch of americans who think 'the president should be a man'. At the same time, the existence of that mentality is exactly why having a female president should be an independent goal. ) But the reality is that human carbon copies do not exist. People are sufficiently different to be told apart without looking at their gender. Your statement seems especially out of place in this thread considering who the first females that come to mind here are: Warren, whose opportunistic inclinations have been fairly extensively discussed in the past few pages of this very thread (and you never commented on) and Clinton, who, I’d argue, is even more opportunistic and outright immoral (for this claim of mine I will restrict myself to mentioning her flip-flop position on gay rights and her support for the Iraq invasion against party lines). Alone for the reasons mentioned above I consider it awfully inappropriate to even tangentially touch the topic of female representation in the oval office when one considers what all female candidates had to offer and contrast it to Sanders, whose consistent positions are visible through several decades of political involvement. Furthermore, I believe that there are significantly more pressing issues about how “a bunch of Americans” choose their president – be it the fact that billionaires can effectively buy their way into elected positions by plastering their faces across all media outlets, the extremely biased media outlets, the prevalence of fake-news, the partisan split, which feels rather hereditary than based on evaluation of any policies, etc, etc. And from what I have read from you in political threads you seem to be well aware of the problems that plague American voting preferences. Yet, you still chose to mention only one single issue. Why? Do you believe this is the one single most significant problem in American politics? Personally, I feel like you are doing a disservice to what you consider should be “an independent goal” by nudging much needed discussions into a direction that is completely irrelevant to the current situation. At most you are reinforcing people’s believes that either female representation in the top echelons of political power has to be increased or that unqualified personnel manages to reach the top echelons of political power solely based on the fact that they are female.
I advice you to read the other post I wrote as an answer to what I felt was a genuine inquiry/contribution to the debate rather than strawmanning the hell out of my position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
