|
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 12 2020 04:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 12 2020 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
The Bernie subreddit has entered that weird stage where all the people who see the writing on the wall are leaving and only the weirdly defiant ones have stuck around. Time to unsub. I really, really hope Bernie doesn't get weird again. He got weird against Clinton towards the end, though he did end up endorsing her.
He isn't winning over Black People, young people aren't voting and Biden is legitimately getting the old folks excited. We are seeing very clearly that "never Clinton" folks were a big part of Bernie's 2016.
Look at Biden's platform and compare it to Clinton's. You can see Bernie's influence all over it. We've made progress. Bernie has impacted the party and it is better because of him. Then Biden does a Biden on the debate stage and his campaign is over again. The only responsible thing for Bernie to do is stay in imo Bernie doesn't need to stay in for him to still be the clear guy to give the nom to if Biden has a stroke or something. I am fine with Bernie continuing to campaign and whatnot, but Bernie's press secretary saying "America finally gets to see Biden defend his ideas, or lack there of, on Sunday", I can't help but roll my eyes. Don't start getting aggressive when you're losing. It's the same thing as 2016. The point when the writing is on the wall, they just get super pissed off and feel robbed. There are a lot of DNC-related things that made me salty this year. But they aren't the reason Black People and young people aren't voting for Bernie. There are all sort of butterfly-effect thought experiments to do, but it doesn't change the situation. I am comfortable with him continuing his campaign so long as he is not directly attack Biden in the way his press secretary is. It is bitter and unproductive. Why does Bernie not really resonate much with black Americans anyway? Suppose I could do some googling and reading but prefer to throw questions in here.
Because he doesn't bring up that he was arrested for marching at a civil right rally. He's too damn humble to go "look at the things I did" to earn people's votes, hoping that his policies will be enough to appeal to people.
|
|
|
On March 12 2020 08:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2020 07:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Sorry for the conspiracy theory guys.. but this is what I see happening with crime and how new statistics definitions can twist the reality of crime problems in NA. I spoilered it so any one can just ignore it. Crime Statistics and Police Budgets+ Show Spoiler +All these stats can sound ominous, however, they can be a big part of a rigged game. Violence in Toronto is way, way down compared to 25 years ago. Its been steadily declining since I was 10. I am now almost 33. Me and my entire peer group can feel the difference. So the powers that be now decide to designate randome arm movements or hand gestures or illegible chalk scrawls on school walls as "hate crimes". Yep, because when I was 10 and did that kind of petty vandalism its because our big tough gang of public school tough guys was set to overthrow the western world with our new "nWo" ideology. Be afraid and stay afraid. The 10 year olds are coming to take over. Gimme a break. "Hate Crime" is another artificial layer of BS that allows the ultra rich elite to keep everyone else squabbling with each other. A suspected hate crime like some poor sap holding his hands the wrong way allows the police to strip the average citizen of his basic rights. These rights are suspended while the police "investigate" these "dangerous" hand signals. It helps keep those police budgets sky high. The police can keep on cranking out nice big statistics to justify their ever ballooning budgets. Every time I'm playing basketball and we tie the game and I hold up my fist... that no longer indicates that the game is tied.. That is a "black power" fist. Someone on my team hits a 3 point shot. Well those 3 fingers I'm holding up to let my team mates know what happened... That is actually a white power hand sign. Talk about dumb. This allows the Police to crank out big statistics about suspected "hate crimes". It keeps the average family purchasing extravegent security monitoring services. it keeps people buying super sophisticated anti-theft devices on cars. Basically, keep people afraid and mistrustful of one another... and you create a nice big consumer market. Some weird fucked up loon claims her hijab was cut off by a white man where its dead obvious from day 1 she is lying. Well, let's keep that in the news cycle for 2 months so we can get everyone afraid of everyone else. WTF man? In Toronto the level of violence is way way down compared to 20+ years ago. However, the fear of even a simple fist fight.. is just through the roof compared to 20 years ago. Its just so sad. Everyone is so afraid of each other compared to 20+ years ago. And man.. walking through the worst neighbourhoods in Toronto is like walking thru Board Walk, Park Place, or Pacific Avenue when it comes to violence. Its sad to see Toronto solve its violence problem while watching its citizens so afraid due to misinformation that positive facts don't matter. These unfounded fears of violent crimes that are not happening .... are a great way to keep police budgets sky high though. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htmhttps://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/09/02/whats_behind_the_trend_of_declining_crime_rate_in_toronto.html How is this related to the Democratic nomination? And why did you choose to post it here at this time?
It is a reply to the post directly above it that went over"Hate Crime" statistics in detail. Crime statistics are not necessarily an accurate reflection of serious crime levels.
|
|
|
To save space. Look just above the post and you can read it. The "..." is a placeholder to save space.
Crime statistics are sometimes abused and manipulated in either side of any Police budget negotiation. The Police Union pushing for a budget increase and using stats to prove they need more money. The state pushing for keeping the budget the same or lower and using statistics to show the budget should be lowered. These are sometimes big money negotiations so a lot of effort goes into making the statistics say what either side wants them to say.
Thus, I'm skeptical of crime stats. Sometimes they accurately reflect reality and sometimes they do not.
This caveat about crime stats relates to a post on the previous page.
https://tl.net/forum/general/547023-2020-democratic-nominees?page=77#1538
|
Canada8989 Posts
I was curious since we were talking about the black vote, so I went to check. Since the 60, black immigration accounted for about 30% of the growth of the black population, with African immigration taking a progressively larger part of the black immigration population, and although currently "black" seems to be one of the slowest growing immigrant group looking at the near future, they are still bound to become a big chunk of the black population. I wonder how the black identity in America will develop and transformed while becoming more multicultural? (Especially since I assume it won't be multicultural everywhere). Maybe we could see a relative dissipation with time of the pregnancy of the Afro-american identity in the coming decade? I have to assume a bit less discrimination also tend to create more discrepancy among black experience in the States in general, along with bi-racial wedding.
It's gonna be interesting to see how black identity (for voting but also in general) hold up in the coming decades. There's an interesting movement in Canada (or at least my own province of Quebec), where especial since like 20-30 years give or take, there's a growing talk about afro-canadian and about black presence in Canada in relation to colonial slavery during the french regime and the immigration from the United-States. But at the same time, the share of the "canadian" or united-states black, those who are descendant of North-American slave, take a smaller and smaller portion of the black population in Canada, and the vast majority of the black population are either from the carabean or from Africa with a big portion of it that is first or second generation immigrant.
Currently about 5.5 out of 10 black canadian (who have the full citizenship) are first generation immigrant and another 35% are second generation immigrant, so overall about 90% of black canadian have a direct experience of being an immigrant. But it's interesting to see that at the same time that there's an apparent diversification and a rapid augmentation of the black population there seems to be a process, or at least the attempt of a process, of integration into something that would be afro-canadian and has root in the early colonization of Canada. At first glance, it seems to be akin to the integration of white immigrant let say German by referencing british settler in the US, but with a way bigger discrepancy between local population and immigrant population.
I wonder how that process work in the US where there's a bigger and way more culturally present black population. A first generation half african-immigrant like Obama seems to have been pretty much taken straight up as an afro-american by the black community, and, in large part, not so much by white folks, someone know if it's right or a generalize tendency?
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/24/key-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2019002-eng.htm
Also sorry guys we do seem to always talk about Canada in here haha
|
On March 12 2020 05:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2020 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:On March 12 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 04:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 12 2020 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 12 2020 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
The Bernie subreddit has entered that weird stage where all the people who see the writing on the wall are leaving and only the weirdly defiant ones have stuck around. Time to unsub. I really, really hope Bernie doesn't get weird again. He got weird against Clinton towards the end, though he did end up endorsing her.
He isn't winning over Black People, young people aren't voting and Biden is legitimately getting the old folks excited. We are seeing very clearly that "never Clinton" folks were a big part of Bernie's 2016.
Look at Biden's platform and compare it to Clinton's. You can see Bernie's influence all over it. We've made progress. Bernie has impacted the party and it is better because of him. Then Biden does a Biden on the debate stage and his campaign is over again. The only responsible thing for Bernie to do is stay in imo Bernie doesn't need to stay in for him to still be the clear guy to give the nom to if Biden has a stroke or something. I am fine with Bernie continuing to campaign and whatnot, but Bernie's press secretary saying "America finally gets to see Biden defend his ideas, or lack there of, on Sunday", I can't help but roll my eyes. Don't start getting aggressive when you're losing. It's the same thing as 2016. The point when the writing is on the wall, they just get super pissed off and feel robbed. There are a lot of DNC-related things that made me salty this year. But they aren't the reason Black People and young people aren't voting for Bernie. There are all sort of butterfly-effect thought experiments to do, but it doesn't change the situation. I am comfortable with him continuing his campaign so long as he is not directly attack Biden in the way his press secretary is. It is bitter and unproductive. Weird you like Biden chewing out and threatening a voter that asked him a pretty fair question but think Bernie's press secretary making a very placid comment about Biden's policy unnecessarily aggressive, bitter and unproductive. I take the opposite view on those interactions. I want a candidate that is aggressive towards bad ideas because it is a good fit for our current position in cultural development. I want a democratic primary that is self-aware. I don't want someone with an extreme disadvantage to be waging war against the clear winner. Bernie can focus entirely on why his policies are a great direction for the country without directly attacking Biden. In my eyes, it makes sense to attack someone when you are trying to overtake them. Since I am comfortable saying Bernie can't overtake Biden in almost any situation (other than something big that has nothing to do with Bernie), it follows that direct attacks no longer have a benefit. Keep in mind I was totally comfortable with Bernie unleashing on Biden and everyone else just a couple months ago. Early in the primary is when it makes sense for everyone to basically show up to every debate guns blazing. But that's not where we are. The primary has now crystallized. Black People have chosen Biden and young people have chosen not to vote. That's GG. I totally understand if you disagree and I understand that if you don't think it is over, everything you are saying is fair. But I see it as very over, so all of my thoughts on what comes next are based on the idea that Bernie will not overtake Biden for any Bernie-specific reason. Anything that would actually take down Biden would take him down regardless of what Bernie does. But I won't discourage you from acting as you wish. Everyone has the right to be politically active in whatever way speaks to them. I'd just say if Bernie was the nominee he'd have weathered much worse from other Dems than anything he'll throw at Biden and nothing he does will be a fraction as threatening as Trump. I think if Biden can't handle Bernie's worst (which the comment from his press sec. isn't close to bad imo) he'll get ripped to shreds by Trump. You're right that Bernie would be treated worse. But that doesn't really change anything. Its just something to note. We don't need to treat people the way they would treat us. We can be better. Bernie certainly is and I admire that about him. He doesn't believe in stuff like eye for an eye. My point is that it isn't bad and that Trump will be worse so if it is an electoral thing, he needs to endure it and if it isn't, it isn't a substantial reason for Bernie not to be critical of his policy. Not that Bernie had it worse or should engage in some sort of an eye for eye effort. On March 12 2020 04:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 12 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On March 12 2020 02:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 12 2020 02:40 Mohdoo wrote:
The Bernie subreddit has entered that weird stage where all the people who see the writing on the wall are leaving and only the weirdly defiant ones have stuck around. Time to unsub. I really, really hope Bernie doesn't get weird again. He got weird against Clinton towards the end, though he did end up endorsing her.
He isn't winning over Black People, young people aren't voting and Biden is legitimately getting the old folks excited. We are seeing very clearly that "never Clinton" folks were a big part of Bernie's 2016.
Look at Biden's platform and compare it to Clinton's. You can see Bernie's influence all over it. We've made progress. Bernie has impacted the party and it is better because of him. Then Biden does a Biden on the debate stage and his campaign is over again. The only responsible thing for Bernie to do is stay in imo Bernie doesn't need to stay in for him to still be the clear guy to give the nom to if Biden has a stroke or something. I am fine with Bernie continuing to campaign and whatnot, but Bernie's press secretary saying "America finally gets to see Biden defend his ideas, or lack there of, on Sunday", I can't help but roll my eyes. Don't start getting aggressive when you're losing. It's the same thing as 2016. The point when the writing is on the wall, they just get super pissed off and feel robbed. There are a lot of DNC-related things that made me salty this year. But they aren't the reason Black People and young people aren't voting for Bernie. There are all sort of butterfly-effect thought experiments to do, but it doesn't change the situation. I am comfortable with him continuing his campaign so long as he is not directly attack Biden in the way his press secretary is. It is bitter and unproductive. Why does Bernie not really resonate much with black Americans anyway? Suppose I could do some googling and reading but prefer to throw questions in here. It's complicated, but basically based on polling of his policy in the party, favorability, and interviews it is largely a voter-pundit electability thing and Biden's tenure under Obama. M4A had majority support in every primary and Biden said he would veto it for example. How religious are you GreenHorizons? That's the major factor I've seen cited elsewhere. Show nested quote +The reality is that "black liberalism" has historically existed hand-in-hand with religious belief, whereas "white liberalism" often exists in opposition to it. In black America, the church is widely perceived as a liberating force - the seed from which the Civil Rights Movement grew. White democrats tend to see it as a source of oppression, particularly during the past decade's fight for LGBT rights. The "alliance" between socially liberal whites and culturally conservative minorities continues to exist, because minorities are not as politically invested in the social issues that have defined the culture war over the last three decades. So while black Americans as a group are actually fairly religious and socially conservative, we differ from white liberals and white conservatives in that these culture-war issues are less likely to influence how we vote.
So in this case at least, it's helpful to think about the other question: not "why don't black democrats find Bernie appealing?" but rather, "why do white democrats like him so much?" My impression has been that for many of Bernie's (mostly young, largely white) voters, Bernie's social liberalism (including his irreligiosity) is a big part of his appeal. He has reaped the benefits of staking out positions on the liberal side of the culture war. But culture war issues don't pay as many dividends in a heavily Protestant black electorate (or a heavily Catholic brown electorate).
Please understand: I'm not saying that that social issues have helped Hillary and harmed Bernie's standing among black voters. I'm saying that they have helped Bernie among white voters but have done him no good among black voters. It just doesn't factor that heavily in the political calculus. first commentYour focus is on economic policy, but do people vote on economic policy or social issues?
Not at all other than lingering trauma from attending church/being convinced hell was real and seeing people "speak in tongues" as a child.
I think that comment hits on a lot of the "complicated" stuff I was referencing but there's plenty more to it than that too.
EDIT:Guess I'd add that Bernie is viewed favorably as are his policy prescriptions, there's just no faith among Black people that white America will let it happen.
|
On March 12 2020 05:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Your focus is on economic policy, but do people vote on economic policy or social issues?
That can change from decade to decade. Some jurisdiction whose constituents were all about the economy can go in another direction.
|
Northern Ireland25665 Posts
On March 12 2020 09:49 Nakajin wrote:I was curious since we were talking about the black vote, so I went to check. Since the 60, black immigration accounted for about 30% of the growth of the black population, with African immigration taking a progressively larger part of the black immigration population, and although currently "black" seems to be one of the slowest growing immigrant group looking at the near future, they are still bound to become a big chunk of the black population. I wonder how the black identity in America will develop and transformed while becoming more multicultural? (Especially since I assume it won't be multicultural everywhere). Maybe we could see a relative dissipation with time of the pregnancy of the Afro-american identity in the coming decade? I have to assume a bit less discrimination also tend to create more discrepancy among black experience in the States in general, along with bi-racial wedding. It's gonna be interesting to see how black identity (for voting but also in general) hold up in the coming decades. There's an interesting movement in Canada (or at least my own province of Quebec), where especial since like 20-30 years give or take, there's a growing talk about afro-canadian and about black presence in Canada in relation to colonial slavery during the french regime and the immigration from the United-States. But at the same time, the share of the "canadian" or united-states black, those who are descendant of North-American slave, take a smaller and smaller portion of the black population in Canada, and the vast majority of the black population are either from the carabean or from Africa with a big portion of it that is first or second generation immigrant. Currently about 5.5 out of 10 black canadian (who have the full citizenship) are first generation immigrant and another 35% are second generation immigrant, so overall about 90% of black canadian have a direct experience of being an immigrant. But it's interesting to see that at the same time that there's an apparent diversification and a rapid augmentation of the black population there seems to be a process, or at least the attempt of a process, of integration into something that would be afro-canadian and has root in the early colonization of Canada. At first glance, it seems to be akin to the integration of white immigrant let say German by referencing british settler in the US, but with a way bigger discrepancy between local population and immigrant population. I wonder how that process work in the US where there's a bigger and way more culturally present black population. A first generation half african-immigrant like Obama seems to have been pretty much taken straight up as an afro-american by the black community, and, in large part, not so much by white folks, someone know if it's right or a generalize tendency? https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change/https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/24/key-facts-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2019002-eng.htmAlso sorry guys we do seem to always talk about Canada in here haha
It is certainly interesting to ponder elements of this, certainly have myself.
Even looking further afield from say, Canada and over to this vague neck of the words and the cultural export of Afro-American culture as de facto ‘global’ black culture and how that is intersecting with other facets of identity. Hell just look at how the ‘urban market’ is targeted (god I hate that euphemism).
For folks of the so-called Windrush generation in the U.K, they left a cultural stamp with music and food and whatnot either lifted from directly or deeply influenced by practices in the Caribbean specifically.
Now it feels there is a black pop-culture (that’s actively marketed to) whose only real linking factor is the black part, be you from somewhere as totally different as Ghana and Trinidad. Plus as you say someone who is half black/half white is generally seen as more black.
I’m not a huge fan of this kind of phenomenon although I rather understand the historical factors that lead us here, nonetheless it feels that it copper-fastens the perceived differences in people along mere skin colour.
|
|
|
On March 13 2020 00:02 JimmiC wrote:I thought this was a pretty interesting article in which Bernie talks about his movement, how it didn't drive enough people to vote but that he still has won the hearts and minds of the young. And then he lets Biden know what he will be asking in hopes that Biden has the right answers. It looks like the Dems are coming together to oust Trump. Here is hoping the voters do the same. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814717480/sanders-offers-biden-a-path-to-win-over-his-movement
Yeah, Bernie saying he hopes Biden has the right answers is his way of saying:
"Yeah, yeah, I'm totally fucked, but I started a movement and it is important to everyone. I'll endorse Biden after the debate if he panders to me and maybe makes some kinda medicare concession or some shit"
Which is great. Him admitting his movement fell short of the nomination is excellent because it is true. But I am also glad that he is very calmly reminding people he really does command a large fraction of the democratic party. Bernie saying "Fuck the democratic party" would be terrible for them. They need Bernie. The fact that Biden is winning doesn't mean Bernie's parallel movement isn't extremely important. I'm glad he's basically inviting Biden to make it easy for him to drop. This is a great outcome.
|
Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that 
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar
|
On March 13 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar
Yeah I honestly think its entirely conceivable Biden gets dunked on and makes a really weird gaffe.
What I am hoping for is Bernie turning the entire debate into "CORONA VIRUS IS EXACTLY WHY M4A IS NEEDED. THIS SHIT IS STUPID. OUR INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS ALWAYS HAD THESE EXTERNALITIES. THE COSTS ARE THERE, JUST PUSHED TO OTHERS. THIS IS A COST. M4A! M4A! M4A!"
|
On March 13 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar
Is it moved to DC so that the debate takes place "earlier in the day" for a guy who spends most of his time on the east coast? If so, this move potentially helps Biden and his declining brain.
|
Sanders would be crazy to drop out now.
Both sanders and biden are having a speech today about healthcare and the current economic and public health crisis.
Biden has already done his speech and sanders will be later today. Biden i found lackluster so there is an opportunity for sanders.
|
On March 13 2020 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar Is it moved to DC so that the debate takes place "earlier in the day" for a guy who spends most of his time on the east coast? If so, this move potentially helps Biden and his declining brain. Or maybe its wise not to make the candidates travel across the country for a debate that won't even have an audience while the country is suffering from a viral epidemic...
|
Im still irritated theyre not debating proper and just answering questions. I wanted to see Bernie body Biden properly before hes forced to drop out.
|
On March 13 2020 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar Is it moved to DC so that the debate takes place "earlier in the day" for a guy who spends most of his time on the east coast? If so, this move potentially helps Biden and his declining brain.
I read somewhere that the move was a response to something something coronavirus ::shrugs::
On March 13 2020 03:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Some back-of-the-napkin math here: 24 state primaries are done, leaving 26 states + D.C. (and a bunch of mathematically irrelevant U.S. territories). Of the remaining 27 primaries that matter, 16 were won by Clinton in 2016 and 11 were won by Sanders. That ratio won't necessarily be exactly the same in 2020, and different states allocate different amounts of delegates, but Sanders is currently trailing Biden, both in the current delegate count and in the polls for future states. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated yet, but he's heading for another loss unless something drastically changes. His best chance to re-take the lead is to have the best debate performance of his life against Biden, this Sunday. (The debate was going to be in Arizona, but was moved to D.C.) As a Sanders supporter, I hope we see exactly that Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/calendar Yeah I honestly think its entirely conceivable Biden gets dunked on and makes a really weird gaffe. What I am hoping for is Bernie turning the entire debate into "CORONA VIRUS IS EXACTLY WHY M4A IS NEEDED. THIS SHIT IS STUPID. OUR INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS ALWAYS HAD THESE EXTERNALITIES. THE COSTS ARE THERE, JUST PUSHED TO OTHERS. THIS IS A COST. M4A! M4A! M4A!"
I think he can certainly put up a good argument that reinforces our need for M4A. He should try to both criticize Trump's lack of response as well as highlight how Biden's proposed policies wouldn't be enough, etc.
|
|
|
That might actually be enough to give Michigan to Trump in the general election x.x
Edit: The article actually says that that's 3/5, not 2/5, which is even worse! (You wrote the negative of the statement.)
"In Michigan — a state critical to Democrats’ efforts to reclaim their general election footing in the Rust Belt — just 2 of 5 Sanders backers said they would vote Democratic in November, regardless of who became the nominee, according to exit polls."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
