|
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 05 2020 03:17 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 02:36 Danglars wrote:On March 05 2020 02:01 LegalLord wrote:
Bloomer is a clean example of how many votes out there can be "bought" with little more than money. Few people wanted him to run, and yet the $500 million he spent got him a good 10-20% of the votes on Super Tuesday. I suppose his name recognition would help, though it's not exactly a good kind of name recognition. Being able to so cleanly buy 10-20% of the vote for a candidate like Biden would do wonders to lift up an otherwise unremarkable candidate. My cynical take based on prior media narratives in 2016 is that he should've spent $100,000 on a barely literate Russian facebook ad team. One heard nonstop at the major impact Russia had on the electorate going that route. But $620+ million dollars on staff and ads FOCUSED ON SUPER TUESDAY STATES and he only got 46 total. ~$13 mil per delegate (heavy +/- since I've only heard low end on non-ad spending, could be much greater). 5.1% of the delegates awarded on Super Tuesday. Good riddance. Go ban some more sodas.
Also, the DNC should've eaten so much more flak for eliminating the grassroots support requirement for debates before the Nevada debates. Bloomberg should've never been up there. Shame on them. Everyone in previous debates were forced to have both polling and bulk # of individual donors and Bloomberg enters conveniently aligned with new debate requirement rules. DNC deserves to be replaced. I think it is good that they allowed Bloomberg to debate. It showed a lot of people how he, himself, was far from a good pick. He might have had a chance otherwise.
It happened to be good in this case, because Bloomberg did so terrible. But had he been better prepared, and had less of a personal history, it just shows that billionaires can pull strings within the party apparatus and get their way. Other campaigns struggled and failed to achieve the grassroots support in their infancy and weren't able to buy off the DNC apparatus to get the rules changed for them. They should've had more permissive debating rules from the start, or stuck with polls + #donors until the end.
I don't see any good just because this iteration involved a man pathetically unused to getting hammered on a stage. That's lucking out in a big way with no billionaires that perform well on stage, as I know well from 2016. It's a seat belt failing to restrain the driver, but the driver being thrown from the vehicle and surviving.
|
|
|
On March 05 2020 06:40 JimmiC wrote:I know we talked about this yesterday but it still blows my mind how much money Bernie raised and spent than Biden. I have read so much about how much money spent really determines votes and in this case it has not worked that way (especially with Bloomer and Steyer). Even Warren has spent a lot more than Biden. It is both good for the dems that he has this level of appeal without spending that much and concerning that he might not be able to pull in the money needed to go up against Trump. Perhaps with the whole DNC on board the numbers will improve. Odd to think that progressives were way better at raising money than the establishment. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/16/711812314/tracking-the-money-race-behind-the-presidential-campaign
the DNC wont be cash-starved for the general election, dont worry. The usual suspects will open their pockets, they have no reason not to
|
Warren staying in right now makes her the Kasich of this race.
|
On March 05 2020 06:59 Danglars wrote:
Warren staying in right now makes her the Kasich of this race.
Her subreddit is filled with people spamming "AND YET SHE PERSISTED", its awful.
|
Bernie's creeping up in the delegate count now that the final votes are being tallied. They're more neck and neck even as Bernie is wincing after losing states he was favored in.
|
It's hardly over, but Bernie performed worse than expected going into this. Only way I see him winning this is to play dirty and take Biden down a couple of notches, since the entire system is strongly stacked against him in any scenario other than winning a straight majority.
|
Canada8989 Posts
The problem for Sanders was that the calendar was actually really good for him until know with both California and Texas coming so early + a bunch of white north east state he won or came close to winning last time, it won't get any easier in NY, Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and the few southern state still to come.
|
Bernie's been playing "good guy Bernie" by making mostly oblique attacks on Biden. No negative campaign ads aired. One hilarious new clip trying to put him as Obama's buddie (the only new and different ad I've seen post-Super Tuesday).
Democrats are rather wary of internecine fighting. I know he will lose support if he tackles Biden and wrestles him in the mud. He may however coast to a narrow loss (if high Biden momentum, a big loss) if he can't draw important distinctions between the two candidates in stark terms. Imagine the effect of negative attack ads with Biden's face, all the corporate money and endorsements, and a contrast to his grassroots support and record not getting along with heavily lobbied mainstream Democrats.
|
Norway28747 Posts
I think Bernie himself genuinely really wants his voters to vote for Biden in the event where Biden ends up the nominee, regardless of how it happens, because he recognizes the threat Trump poses and he actually genuinely cares. And that this is why he has, in general, been hesitant towards attacking any of his primary opponents.
|
I'm just sad it had to be Biden. I'd have way more peace with them uniting behind Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Booker, Harris, etc. Basically anybody but Tulsi and Biden. What did Biden do to earn this? His campaign was shit and he's clearly mentally unfit for the highest office. In 4 days they made him king. It's nuts.
Oh well, the big problem is youthly voters shit the bed and didn't turn up. Maybe a whipping campaign to the youth in the remaining states can still save Bernie. They have to focus hard and get the <39 voters to show up en mass to stop a senile candidate.
|
Canada8989 Posts
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian, maybe O'Roorke or Booker?
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 05 2020 08:52 Nakajin wrote:
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian
I have this weird feeling that it’ll end up being Warren.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 05 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 08:52 Nakajin wrote:
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian I have this weird feeling that it’ll end up being Warren.
It certainly could, depend what her image his comming out of the race
|
|
|
On March 05 2020 08:33 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think Bernie himself genuinely really wants his voters to vote for Biden in the event where Biden ends up the nominee, regardless of how it happens, because he recognizes the threat Trump poses and he actually genuinely cares. And that this is why he has, in general, been hesitant towards attacking any of his primary opponents.
He’s talked enough about the unique threat (as he understands it) posed by greedy corporations, special interests, and big media organizations to make me doubt the truth of what you’re saying. Biden has been saying none of that in a convincing way. Bernie’s also an independent running on the DNC ticket. So it makes no sense to talk about all the dangers facing the country and why he’s the best one to confront them, when not able to say forcefully why the others simply do not measure up.
It’s just nonsense taking on a distinctly different message, refusing to put it to the man totally rejecting it, and still saying he believes the country is confronting great problems. Are there problems greater than Trump in the White House? He certainly talks like there are some hefty ones, but his current acts in showing why other policies arent just as good as his in addressing them confess that Trump’s the only problem that matters. No big ads saying why others aren’t just as good as his candidacy mean he’s just spitting out a lot of hot air when he talks about revolution in the healthcare industry. I mean start running those ads now or endorse Biden’s healthcare policies because it’s obvious that they’re good enough so long as the current presidential occupant leaves in 2021. Be the revolution, but y’know no revolution is good too, because Biden’s big establishment donor and media sphere will be just fine for us for the time being.
I’m accepting alternate theories that take into account Bernie’s long tenure as a politician, that he really does want to be president instead of also-ran, and that he actually means what he says about problems facing the nation and the need to revolt against the status quo. Bad advisors, habits formed in Senate compromises, the long-term play. Lay it on me. His campaign is acting like Biden’s just another flavor of soda when it really comes down to it.
|
On March 05 2020 08:56 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 08:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 05 2020 08:52 Nakajin wrote:
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian I have this weird feeling that it’ll end up being Warren. It certainly could, depend what her image his comming out of the race
I've been thinking about that too. Warren might be shrewd enough to get a Dick Cheney/GWB deal where she ends up running most the country while Biden does the more public/fun part of presidenting. I mean what policies does Biden even have besides gun control. All his endorsers only praised him for his 'decency'. Nobody knows what policies he has. He could be malleable to be more progressive.
Then again all the people that empowered and endorsed him the last 4 days won't like that at all.
|
On March 05 2020 08:52 Nakajin wrote:
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian, maybe O'Roorke or Booker?
I have a feeling it'll be Warren. I would prefer Bernie though, if only to better unite the left. A lot of the progressive base hates Warren right now and thinks she is staying in to screw over Bernie and get a VP position from Biden, and making her VP will only add fuel to the flame. I would also feel a lot better voting for Biden in his current mental state knowing someone like Bernie would take up the reins in case Biden was deemed no longer fit for duty. The DNC won't risk that happening though.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 05 2020 09:30 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 08:52 Nakajin wrote:
Who do we think for an (eventual) Biden vp?
I'd say Haris but I'm not sure he need a Californian, maybe O'Roorke or Booker? I have a feeling it'll be Warren. I would prefer Bernie though, if only to better unite the left. A lot of the progressive base hates Warren right now and thinks she is staying in to screw over Bernie and get a VP position from Biden, and making her VP will only add fuel to the flame. I would also feel a lot better voting for Biden in his current mental state knowing someone like Bernie would take up the reins in case Biden was deemed no longer fit for duty. The DNC won't risk that happening though.
You can't have Bernie-Biden, they're both in danger of dying in the near future.
For Warren it depend how Biden want to play it, you can either chose your VP for image/ideological reason (like Palin for exemple) or you can chose them for more electorate and strategical reason. (like Tim Cain for example, a senator from a semi-swing state fluent in spanish)
|
On March 05 2020 00:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 00:43 Sent. wrote:
Those attempts to present the left as Jedis and the right as Siths remind me of the quote someone brought up in the main thread few months ago. It was something like "the left sees the right as evil and the right sees the left as stupid" (or naive, I don't remember). Kids on reddit who make these comparisons unironically are becoming the very thing they swore to destroy, as only a Sith deals in absolutes. Isn’t that phrase inherently contradictory when Obi-Wan says it?
He's responding to Anakin saying "if you're not with me, then you're my enemy" to which Obi-wan responds in the aforementioned manner. Anakin is using the absolute to try and paint things black and white, while Obi-wan sees it more as the gray inbetween in that moment. Obi-wan doesn't see the situation as being that simple, since they aren't on the same side of that fight, but isn't Anakin's enemy either.
Kind of like how people like to go after Sanders because M4A will increase taxes, as if anything that increases taxes is automatically bad, regardless of the fact that it would end up saving tons of people a lot of money and provide support to people that can't afford any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
