EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1815
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
KwarK
United States44256 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4440 Posts
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/21/politics/iowa-poll-2020-democrats/index.html The Massachusetts senator appears to be gaining ground primarily at the expense of Sanders. She holds the support of 32% of those who say they caucused for Sanders in 2016 (Sanders himself stands at 25% among that group) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 22 2019 13:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Warren edged ahead of Biden in Iowa and interestingly has more support from Sanders caucusers from 2016 than Sanders himself in Iowa. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/21/politics/iowa-poll-2020-democrats/index.html I see that quote in the article but I couldn't find it in the poll, am I missing something? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18424 Posts
On September 22 2019 14:08 GreenHorizons wrote: I see that quote in the article but I couldn't find it in the poll, am I missing something? I couldn't find anything like it either. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22547 Posts
On September 22 2019 08:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I assume sharing secret information is still a crime so if hes out of office and telling things he shouldn't you can throw him in jail, something you can't do while he is President.I'm more worried about after he's out of office. If he isn't censured, well...who knows what he'll tell. I also think he has to be barred from going international as well. He's way too much of a liability. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28877 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22547 Posts
yay for 'free' press. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 22 2019 21:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: wow lol. at first I thought this was another complaint about yang and im thinking to myself 'he's like number 7 or 8 it doesnt really matter' but then they make this montage without including sanders? I presume you're talking about this segment on the big Iowa steak fry from MSNBC where Bernie was conspicuously left out of the graphic. + Show Spoiler + I'm just curious how the "anyone but Bernie" crowd (more the "prefer Bernie but will vote blue") are going to reconcile what is an increasingly clear media bias against Bernie combined with media/establishment support of Warren. EDIT: Should also lead people to think on whether they believe this is an isolated issue or one that pervades beyond Sanders and this particular election | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 22 2019 23:05 Mohdoo wrote: Warren is looking pretty unstoppable. She's totally won me over at this point. I also think a lot of #neverbiden people will also continue to gravitate to her as buttigieg and others finally fucking drop out. I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22547 Posts
On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote: didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago?I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2019 23:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I suppose it's quite possible they just don't reconcile it as it appears you are going with. I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 22 2019 23:11 Gorsameth wrote: didn't we have this conversation 2 days ago? Not voting Democrat and giving Trump another 4 years of making things worse doesn't solve anything. Cutting off the nose to spite the face That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. On September 22 2019 23:14 Mohdoo wrote: I don't know what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? done^ | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2019 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote: That's a non-sequitur? The issue was (now months before any votes are cast) reconciling a clear media/establishment bias in favor of anyone but Bernie, the latest addition being Warren, and how that conflicts with her rhetoric against corruption and the policy they allegedly support. done^ For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 23 2019 01:06 Mohdoo wrote: For me, Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and it was obvious from a while ago that either him or Warren would be the "more progressive than Biden" candidate. If either Warren or Bernie were to drop out tomorrow, Biden would need to drop out the day after. He's completely screwed once it is a 2 candidate race. If Warren ends up being the candidate to get people more comfortable with progressive policies so we can one day move towards democratic socialism, sign me up. I'd choose Bernie to be president if I was a wizard, but I'm not going to pretend I'd be anything less than ecstatic seeing Warren replace Trump. There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: Bernie simply isn't doing well enough and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 23 2019 01:34 JimmiC wrote: GH do you believe that if Sanders wins the Primary he will beat Trump in the general election? Most likely. It's what polls have shown since the 2016 campaign. Trump's also the exaggerated personification of what Bernie is campaigning against. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 23 2019 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote: There's a lot more to unpack there than it probably seems but lets start with: and reconciling it with how her rhetoric is undermined by the media/establishment bias/support and how it is intended to manipulate you to the very conclusion you've drawn. For instance, Bernie's record breaking grassroots donor support is the only one capable or intending to actually reject the corrupting money someone like Warren alleges she's intending to remove despite it making up a significant portion of her presidential campaign spending thus far and will necessarily corrupt her potential general election campaign. We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning rather than Biden. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24294 Posts
On September 23 2019 01:46 Mohdoo wrote: We aren't talking about the same topic. You are saying Bernie is significantly better from a transformation/revolution perspective, and no one is arguing against that. A Bernie presidency would fundamentally shift not just American but global culture much more significantly than Warren. I'd choose Bernie over Warren, but I am thrilled at the prospect of Warren winning. Warren has been winning over people really effectively. Bernie got 50% of Iowa in 2016 but is only polling at 11% there (from this poll https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/09/22/iowa-poll-election-2020-iowa-caucus-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrat-candidates/2370015001/ ) I'm not cheering for him to be losing. I'm saying he is losing and pointing out that Warren beating Biden, but also beating Bernie, is something I can be fine with. This is what I mean by not reconciling. I'm saying that a clear media bias is manipulating the voting public with the intention to lead them to your conclusion with that specific poll and narrative, despite the contradictions I've pointed out in this exchange and previously (and more will come). That Warren is "fine" is also the narrative being driven by the same corrupt forces she's supposed to be challenging, and that should be troubling, if not disqualifying. (EDIT2: Obama should have taught any of us that lived through his campaign/admin that). In order to sell a narrative and knowing people rarely read past headlines most people didn't notice only 12% of Warrens supporters in that poll are sure they will be voting for her. Meaning 88% of that support isn't. I'd mention you're not a passive international observer in this (iirc) you could be campaigning for the better candidate without a wand. EDIT:+ Show Spoiler + As an aside and without being able to see the actual data (like what percentage/size of the sample said they caucused for Sanders?) I think Sanders getting less of his supporters than Warren is probably indicative of some sampling error compared to who will actually be at the caucuses. Also Obama was 3rd and Sanders down by 30% at this point in their campaigns so we might not want to rely too heavily on that poll as much more than a snapshot of a trend that seems to have secured her a spot in the top tier of candidates. | ||
| ||
