EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 67
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35091 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On March 07 2020 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: That should be a reason for women being more successful..? No, this also is seen by women being less confident when deciding to follow hunches or speak against leadership. Women often hesitate when men are more self confident. I don't mean this as a criticism. Society naturally makes women less confident and doubt themselves imo. Women are also disproportionately punished for speaking against leadership in resultant labeling | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22704 Posts
On March 07 2020 12:05 NewSunshine wrote: It's hard to say which I prefer more, the Republican brand of beating people over the head with what the rules are while violating them constantly, or the Democratic brand of constantly changing the rules so that when they do the same shit it's "ok". On the other hand, I don't remember Gabbard having any kind of significant support or momentum whatsoever, so even though the Democrats are going out of their way to look sketchy AF, it doesn't impact much. Mostly just confirming they didn't learn all that much since '16. It's a useful reminder, I say. I mean Gabbard demolished Harris on the debate stage and she never recovered. She would have savaged Biden with nothing to lose so they arbitrarily changed the rules to protect him imo. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 07 2020 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean Gabbard demolished Harris on the debate stage and she never recovered. She would have savaged Biden with nothing to lose so they arbitrarily changed the rules to protect him imo. Part of me thinks the campaign to screw over Gabbard arises from how much the establishment loved Harris on paper. She killed their original favorite girl, so she must be destroyed. And like a curse, their next move was to Warren, who might be good against a Bloomberg, but flailed around trying to pick off support from Bernie. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
There's really no reason for her to have a place on a debate stage when we have a very competitive race between to vision of the future of the democratic party. It would have been silly to have her. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Nah, they wanted all the good press about an enfranchising system to try to make people forget how they screwed over Bernie the last time around. After that press had gone, they just change the rules again. I don’t think the Democratic base will long stand playground rule-making when it comes to who gets to debate their policies on stage. (Of course it’s natural to expect people to forget, what with the need to defeat Trump and everything else falling second no matter what) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22704 Posts
On March 08 2020 00:21 Nakajin wrote: I mean come on Gabbard is a conservative fox news pundit polling under 1% who got a delegate because 100 persons voted for her in the Samoa, that doesn't even get you elected high school president. There's really no reason for her to have a place on a debate stage when we have a very competitive race between to vision of the future of the democratic party. It would have been silly to have her. I agree with this as well. There's a lot of more marginal candidates on presidential ballots across the country that never get so much as a mention, even at the start when several candidates were polling under 1% and getting publicity based on their political resume, wealth, etc... Really it is more about the tendency Sunshine pointed out among the parties imo. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
So if your best shot here is to accuse others of concern trolling, stick with the issues. I’ll be commenting on what I think is true and false, interesting, shameful, smart, or dumb in this primary race. Such as, it would’ve been smart to make the rules something like #donors + %polling minimum shifting to 10-15% of won delegates up to that point after primaries had begun. I’m no fan of packed stages, but at least they could be consistent on this so prospective candidates can at least know what they need to hit instead of “yeah they’ll switch it later on us if Bloomie needs a spot or whatever.” Secondly, Bernie has huge support in my blue county area where I live. We talk about these things, though it’s mostly their hatred of Warren and disappointment at the likely Biden win. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43794 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 08 2020 02:03 Nouar wrote: The previous threshold was something like polling 15% nationally, keeping that would have been enough to boot Gabbard no? If that had been a firm threshold, it would have been enough to disqualify her, yes. Don’t ask me why they put in the 1 delegate second route to the stage only to take it out. If she’s even on the poll’s possibilities, she’s 2% nationally or less. On March 08 2020 01:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think Gabbard is pretty much a trash candidate who doesn't even belong in the primary, let alone on the debate stage. That being said, I can't help but feel uncomfortable with just dismissing her qualification for the debate, even if it was just by a technicality. I'm personally not a fan of changing the rules mere days before the debate, with the sole purpose of getting rid of her. The higher threshold should have been set much further in advance, imo. I want to see a Sanders vs. Biden showdown just as much as anyone, especially since having a third candidate would likely distract from Sanders possibly showing up Biden and coming across as the stronger of the two, but this 11th hour change doesn't feel right. Exactly. There was a right way to do this in setting rules post-Super Tuesday, and that was setting these rules in advance. It’s just disrespectful to campaign staff and small time donors the way this was accomplished, even agreeing that Gabbard would not qualify under guidelines fairly applied and decided far in advance | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35091 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
(Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact) I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
There's certainly were opportunities for Sanders and his team, especially between Nevada and Super thuesday to go get some endorsement of his own outside of his natural allies and consolidate his position. Maybe pass a phone call to Castro, or Booker or even before the race trying to get the endorsement of someone like Stacey Abraham or a joint ticket with Warren, maybe even someone like Harris wouldn't have been impossible to get with the right bait. And hey were talking about Tulsi, what about her? She was a Sanders supporter for a while, why not try to scratch a few point there. We can criticise Warren to have stayed in the race, but it was also Sanders job to convince her to drop out. Of course it's much easier for a centrist like Biden to call out to all his old friends and insiders to help him, but he still did a great job cutting the grass under everyone foot (that's an expression in english to right?) in the space of 2-3 days and Sanders didn't react. In the end tho Klob, O'Roorke and Butti are all people who aspire to higher position but they all stuck their neck out for Biden, when, just a week ago it was a risky bet to make. It's not pretty politics, nor is it particularly democratic, but it's part of the job, and I don't think Sander ever had the kind of public support that would have allowed him to disregard that part of it. The game is "rigged" against him, but he had a hand to play. On the fairness side, well no it's not particularly fair in my mind. | ||
Falling
Canada11278 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43794 Posts
On March 08 2020 04:01 Danglars wrote: The current debate I'm having with others around my parts goes something like "If the DNC put pressure on Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out of the race ahead of Super Tuesday and endorse Biden, making it more of a heads up Sanders vs Biden fight, is that fair? And, is it good for the party?" (Neglecting for a moment Warren and Bloomberg's impact) I was a little surprised at some of the arguments on both sides. Like the "maybe not fair, but good for party" side going with they'd totally be fine with DNC doing it to a pro-life candidate (the party has an interest in a pro-choice candidate representing them), or a pro-Iraq-war/foreign interventions candidate. Anyways, it was interesting. I fully expect all candidates to engage in conversations with all other candidates and the DNC during a primary. I don't even consider that to be subterfuge or devious behavior, and I consider uniting to defeat a common enemy a pretty natural and obvious strategy. That's literally what happens anyway once the primary ends and the general election starts (i.e., "We all fought for our own favorite candidates, but now let's stop the in-fighting and coalesce behind our one "champion" so that they may defeat the other one"). If two or more candidates are diluting their supporters' votes, I would consider it stupid *not* to chat and convince all but one to drop out, in support for the one who's left. I don't consider this unethical at all, and I certainly would be wary of a double standard against the moderates (since I see a lot of Sanders supporters yelling at Warren to get out of Sanders's way and support him, yet cry foul when the moderates do exactly that for each other). And I say this as a Sanders supporter rooting for him to beat the moderates. | ||
| ||
