|
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 11 2020 13:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:
If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous.
If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. Not enough people read Teen Vogue's survival guide for young voters I feel like Blizzard's "do you guys not have phones?" Like argue all you want for increased infrastructure for voting, but you can do social media, gaming, texting friends, all that shit in lines nowadays. In my first primaries, you had to bring a magazine or newspaper or book. But I guess the whole youth turnout bit is a useful sobering experience for younger radicals that want to change the world. Work on changing your fellow generation voting habits (within your state) to realize the hill you must climb for national change. But I'm going off on tangents now that aren't too productive. Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Sigh, can't believe we're gonna be stuck with Biden or Trump. Feels like 2016 all over again. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone charismatic and competent? Out of the millions of brilliant people in this country we get to pick between these two? Question 1: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the Dems? Question 2: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the country? Don't worry, no matter who wins, he will be the oldest president ever elected.
Democrats will probably do that (or not) I think young people will realize there isn't an election based timeline that doesn't result in them being left an uninhabitable planet.
|
Washington being this close is a disaster for Bernie T_T
|
People genuinely care more about Trump not being president then the quality of their own lives, thats what I learned from Super Tuesday and hearing people repeat "Id vote Sanders, but Biden is the only one who can beat Trump because hes electable" ad fucking nauseum during my NPR fueled driving around.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 11 2020 13:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Washington being this close is a disaster for Bernie T_T
It was over when the Bernie base of support (youth, mostly) didn't turn out for him. Even in Iowa and NH this looked like a dangerous possibility, and at this point the reality that Bernie's supporters aren't coming out to vote for him is becoming clear. The sad reality is that Biden supporters, as unenthusiastic as they are, vote, but Bernie supporters do not.
Looking forward to a bizarre, miserable general. Once the kid gloves come off, Biden is going to feel the hurt.
|
Still hoping for the .0000001% chance Bernie says f it and only answers questions with "I'm still waiting for Joe to draw the clock I asked him to draw in my opening statement, do you remember that part of the debate Joe?"
I think it should be a required to be done live in general regardless though.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 11 2020 13:38 Zambrah wrote:
People genuinely care more about Trump not being president then the quality of their own lives, thats what I learned from Super Tuesday and hearing people repeat "Id vote Sanders, but Biden is the only one who can beat Trump because hes electable" ad fucking nauseum during my NPR fueled driving around.
I do am starting to wonder if Sanders rise in 2016 wasn't in big part that people just hated Hillary that much, it seems like all of America had a hate bonner for her.
And I'm sure it played a role but there's probably also a part of it that when an NPR (or a journalist in general) ask you why you aren't voting for the most left leaning guy you aren't suppose to say it's because you find him too progressive, top radical can pass but it's not really in vogue, not realist enough is better which is pretty much just saying he's not electable really.
Just like you probably can't find anyone who's gonna tell you they are not voting for a women because she's a women.
Oh well hopefully the left can turn it around in the future, a few different political move and maybe they could have done it, Sander-Warren vote where reliably pulling close to 50% at some point.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 11 2020 14:06 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:38 Zambrah wrote:
People genuinely care more about Trump not being president then the quality of their own lives, thats what I learned from Super Tuesday and hearing people repeat "Id vote Sanders, but Biden is the only one who can beat Trump because hes electable" ad fucking nauseum during my NPR fueled driving around. I do am starting to wonder if Sanders rise in 2016 wasn't in big part that people just hated Hillary that much, it seems like all of America had a hate bonner for her. And I'm sure it played a role but there's probably also a part of it that when an NPR (or a journalist in general) ask you why you aren't voting for the most left leaning guy you aren't suppose to say it's because you find him too progressive, top radical can pass but it's not really in vogue, not realist enough is better which is pretty much just saying he's not electable really. Just like you probably can't find anyone who's gonna tell you they are not voting for a women because she's a women. Oh well hopefully the left can turn it around in the future, a few different political move and maybe they could have done it, Sander-Warren vote where reliably pulling close to 50% at some point.
I don't think that Sanders rose in 2016 because people hated Hillary, but I'm sure that the fact that she choked out genuine establishment opposition made it very easy for him to draw attention to himself as an out-of-the-ordinary candidate. Sanders certainly seemed like a novelty candidate in the early 2016 cycle, but his particular brand of novelty managed to garner over 40% of the vote, so clearly it had staying power.
The full-on Hillary hate didn't really start until after the DNC leaks, though. Until then, there were clear for/against factions, but she was popular enough among Democrats. Republicans are another matter entirely, of course.
|
On March 11 2020 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:27 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2020 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1237548891286851584If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. Not enough people read Teen Vogue's survival guide for young voters I feel like Blizzard's "do you guys not have phones?" Like argue all you want for increased infrastructure for voting, but you can do social media, gaming, texting friends, all that shit in lines nowadays. In my first primaries, you had to bring a magazine or newspaper or book. But I guess the whole youth turnout bit is a useful sobering experience for younger radicals that want to change the world. Work on changing your fellow generation voting habits (within your state) to realize the hill you must climb for national change. But I'm going off on tangents now that aren't too productive. On March 11 2020 13:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Sigh, can't believe we're gonna be stuck with Biden or Trump. Feels like 2016 all over again. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone charismatic and competent? Out of the millions of brilliant people in this country we get to pick between these two? Question 1: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the Dems? Question 2: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the country? Don't worry, no matter who wins, he will be the oldest president ever elected. Democrats will probably do that (or not) I think young people will realize there isn't an election based timeline that doesn't result in them being left an uninhabitable planet.
Uninhabitable eh? Come on GH, don't be a rapturist. Biden is rapidly going senile...I can't see him getting through the general without this being so in your face to the general population. It's like the Democrats said, Hillary 2016 awful, let's double down with more awful candidates 2020! It's like they put forward two of the worst candidates in the history of the country against probably their close worseness rival in Trump. It's hilarious how inept they've become.
|
On March 11 2020 15:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 13:27 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2020 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1237548891286851584If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. Not enough people read Teen Vogue's survival guide for young voters I feel like Blizzard's "do you guys not have phones?" Like argue all you want for increased infrastructure for voting, but you can do social media, gaming, texting friends, all that shit in lines nowadays. In my first primaries, you had to bring a magazine or newspaper or book. But I guess the whole youth turnout bit is a useful sobering experience for younger radicals that want to change the world. Work on changing your fellow generation voting habits (within your state) to realize the hill you must climb for national change. But I'm going off on tangents now that aren't too productive. On March 11 2020 13:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Sigh, can't believe we're gonna be stuck with Biden or Trump. Feels like 2016 all over again. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone charismatic and competent? Out of the millions of brilliant people in this country we get to pick between these two? Question 1: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the Dems? Question 2: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the country? Don't worry, no matter who wins, he will be the oldest president ever elected. Democrats will probably do that (or not) I think young people will realize there isn't an election based timeline that doesn't result in them being left an uninhabitable planet. Uninhabitable eh? Come on GH, don't be a rapturist..
lol I suppose largely uninhabitable or probable social collapse would be more accurate and less hyperbolic. Humans are stubborn survivors.
|
On March 11 2020 15:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 13:27 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2020 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1237548891286851584If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. Not enough people read Teen Vogue's survival guide for young voters I feel like Blizzard's "do you guys not have phones?" Like argue all you want for increased infrastructure for voting, but you can do social media, gaming, texting friends, all that shit in lines nowadays. In my first primaries, you had to bring a magazine or newspaper or book. But I guess the whole youth turnout bit is a useful sobering experience for younger radicals that want to change the world. Work on changing your fellow generation voting habits (within your state) to realize the hill you must climb for national change. But I'm going off on tangents now that aren't too productive. On March 11 2020 13:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Sigh, can't believe we're gonna be stuck with Biden or Trump. Feels like 2016 all over again. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone charismatic and competent? Out of the millions of brilliant people in this country we get to pick between these two? Question 1: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the Dems? Question 2: Which septuagenarian do you want to represent the country? Don't worry, no matter who wins, he will be the oldest president ever elected. Democrats will probably do that (or not) I think young people will realize there isn't an election based timeline that doesn't result in them being left an uninhabitable planet. Uninhabitable eh? Come on GH, don't be a rapturist. Biden is rapidly going senile...I can't see him getting through the general without this being so in your face to the general population. It's like the Democrats said, Hillary 2016 awful, let's double down with more awful candidates 2020! It's like they put forward two of the worst candidates in the history of the country against probably their close worseness rival in Trump. It's hilarious how inept they've become.
It depends how much people hate Trump. I regret to say that impassioned Democrats would prefer a stumbling speaker, frequently losing his train of thought, to Trump. A certain logic sustains it. All he needs is an approved VP to take over in case of 25th Amendment. All he needs to win is states in which Trump is currently underwater.
Wegandi, I also think you've heard the rhetoric on the short timeline for saving the planet from apocalypse. Who in the Democratic party offers an alternate view that the "uninhabitable planet" future is overblown, or addressable in a moderately long timeframe? Biden is a relative moderate to Sanders, and he has taken the position in favor of the Green New Deal. Add to that 100% clean energy, net zero by 2050. Big action against oil & gas companies, with the rhetoric on greed. Is GH really a noticeable rapturist, when even the so-called centrist backs legislation from "the world is gonna end in 12 years" gal? I'd say he's a little clearer speaker than people I believe would say the same thing if questioned enough on the topic. To confirm this, a poll is needed of top-5 challenges facing the nation (globe?) and a yes/no on unavoidable climate change disaster if 8-12 years are wasted.
|
last night was very one-sided, it's over unless Biden drops dead or has a stroke on stage. Shame that Bernie could never challenge him 1:1 in debates, the last debate was with many people, and the next one is after the race is almost settled.
Biden can afford a quite few fumbles now.
|
On March 11 2020 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Still hoping for the .0000001% chance Bernie says f it and only answers questions with "I'm still waiting for Joe to draw the clock I asked him to draw in my opening statement, do you remember that part of the debate Joe?"
I think it should be a required to be done live in general regardless though.
What's an AR-14?
Why do you keep insulting voters with horse-related phrases?
The last answer you gave was incomplete, and maybe you lost your train of thought. Will you give me an answer on it, or do I have to wait for one of your campaign workers to release a statement after the debate?
I won't get these in debates, but I want them in debates. He can even have a chance to shine if he does well in answering the questions compared to previously.
|
On March 11 2020 14:06 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 13:38 Zambrah wrote:
People genuinely care more about Trump not being president then the quality of their own lives, thats what I learned from Super Tuesday and hearing people repeat "Id vote Sanders, but Biden is the only one who can beat Trump because hes electable" ad fucking nauseum during my NPR fueled driving around. I do am starting to wonder if Sanders rise in 2016 wasn't in big part that people just hated Hillary that much, it seems like all of America had a hate bonner for her. And I'm sure it played a role but there's probably also a part of it that when an NPR (or a journalist in general) ask you why you aren't voting for the most left leaning guy you aren't suppose to say it's because you find him too progressive, top radical can pass but it's not really in vogue, not realist enough is better which is pretty much just saying he's not electable really. Just like you probably can't find anyone who's gonna tell you they are not voting for a women because she's a women. Oh well hopefully the left can turn it around in the future, a few different political move and maybe they could have done it, Sander-Warren vote where reliably pulling close to 50% at some point.
I think with any election that's down to two people ( A vs. B ), you're going to have a large chunk of people who vote for A because they explicitly support A, and also a large chunk of people who vote for A because they don't support B. I think we saw that on both sides of the 2016 primary, and we've certainly seen that in pretty much every general election. I'm sure we're seeing that in the 2020 primary as well, although there were a lot more candidates to navigate through before the final two officially emerged. As for the specific reasons why a voter likes or dislikes each of the candidates in an election: the entire list of reasons to vote for or against someone can easily be dozens, if not hundreds, of examples long, depending on the individual voter.
|
On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1237548891286851584If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. I think I've heard "if only the youth turned up to vote" for what feels like 20 years now.
At what point will people get that the youth doesn't and that anyone relying on their vote is riding on hot air?
|
It's confusing because we don't actually know how many youth turned out, we do know it was more than the voting system could reasonably handle in many cases though.
Edit: If you base the youth turnout on exit polling, that same exit polling has shown discrepancies with the results that are typically considered a sign of election fraud.
|
On March 11 2020 13:14 Starlightsun wrote:
Sigh, can't believe we're gonna be stuck with Biden or Trump. Feels like 2016 all over again. Why can't the Democrats come up with someone charismatic and competent? Out of the millions of brilliant people in this country we get to pick between these two?
You act as though this wasn't an insanely large field of democratic candidates to start with. They had a lot of candidates this time around. Biden is what people voted for. They literally took the candidate with dementia over anyone younger or different. And oddly enough, he's still the best choice. He's going to lose to Trump horribly hopefully, but still the best choice.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 11 2020 19:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's confusing because we don't actually know how many youth turned out, we do know it was more than the voting system could reasonably handle in many cases though.
Edit: If you base the youth turnout on exit polling, that same exit polling has shown discrepancies with the results that are typically considered a sign of election fraud.
In what way?
I can see exit polling be thrash tho, it's not exactly a sound scientific practice.
|
On March 11 2020 22:08 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 19:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's confusing because we don't actually know how many youth turned out, we do know it was more than the voting system could reasonably handle in many cases though.
Edit: If you base the youth turnout on exit polling, that same exit polling has shown discrepancies with the results that are typically considered a sign of election fraud. In what way? I can see exit polling be thrash tho, it's not exactly a sound scientific practice.
You can see several of the discrepancies compiled here:
According to the exit poll Sanders won big in CA (by 15%). The unobservable computer counts cut his lead by half (to 7.3%)
Unobservable computer counts are, on their face, vulnerable to manipulation. This has been repeatedly demonstrated at Def Con then here is USAID's own statement on such discrepancies:
“Detecting fraud: Exit polls provide data that is generally indicative of how people voted. A discrepancy between the aggregated choices reported by voters and the official results may suggest, but not prove, that results have been tampered with.”
www.usaid.gov
Real democracies use paper imo.
|
On March 11 2020 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2020 12:29 Danglars wrote:If the youth turnout had been uncharacteristically high, this would have been a whole new race. The age breakdowns are simply ridiculous. https://twitter.com/pklinkne/status/1237548891286851584If it's not Sanders now, and it seems likely that will not be the case, it will be someone of his stripe next time a Democratic incumbent isn't running. I think I've heard "if only the youth turned up to vote" for what feels like 20 years now. At what point will people get that the youth doesn't and that anyone relying on their vote is riding on hot air?
Youth turnout is down compared to 16 (except Iowa).
I think you wouldn’t hear about it if Obama hadn’t gotten them out to vote in recent history.
|
Has any one noticed if Joe Biden is more error prone later in the evening versus in the middle of the day?
On March 11 2020 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
....
....
Real democracies use paper imo.
i strongly agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
