If you're all up for some pre-debate discussion: I think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently, and I personally find it a bit silly. However, we are...
If you're all up for some pre-debate discussion:
I think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently, and I personally find it a bit silly. However, we are coming to the realization that the candidates will butt heads, as in lots of states they (and Biden) are polling ~25%/25%/25%. Personally, I've decided that, despite being a Warren fan, I'm going to vote for Sanders assuming he keeps above a 2% lead in my state. But what are other peoples plans considering the FTP system? All my friends are worried about what might happen if neither Sanders or Warren drop out and/or this goes into a brokered convention.
If either Warren or Sanders drop out, the other gets most of their voters and beats out Biden easily. And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump. Gotta tell you, it's pretty depressing looking...
If either Warren or Sanders drop out, the other gets most of their voters and beats out Biden easily. And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.
Gotta tell you, it's pretty depressing looking at your voting system right now...
Not true. It's way too soon to make any absolutist statements. Trump clearly fears Biden more than the other contenders, and is privy to more info than we are In the swing states, Biden polls...
And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.
Not true.
It's way too soon to make any absolutist statements.
Trump clearly fears Biden more than the other contenders, and is privy to more info than we are
In the swing states, Biden polls better against Trump than anyone else
Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but...
And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.
Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but Trump was barely able to beat her, and now he's had four years of mismanagement that can be used against him.
He lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and won a fairly slim electoral college victory. The political pendulum swings. Two periods of Republican president, two periods of Democrat president,...
He lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and won a fairly slim electoral college victory.
The political pendulum swings. Two periods of Republican president, two periods of Democrat president, repeat, that's the pattern. It would have taken a miracle for the Republicans to lose the 2016 election, and Trump nearly did.
If I’m not mistaken it’s the largest margin in modern history. Also the first time we’ve had a judiciary that was predominantly stacked by Presidents who came to power with a minority of the vote....
If I’m not mistaken it’s the largest margin in modern history.
Also the first time we’ve had a judiciary that was predominantly stacked by Presidents who came to power with a minority of the vote. You can bet this is going to have consequences that will haunt us for, literally, the rest of our lives.
It’s hard to assert that for sure. It’s possible the Trumpy base might have stayed home. You don’t need that many defectors to flake out, just 2% is enough to swing a state.
Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her
It’s hard to assert that for sure. It’s possible the Trumpy base might have stayed home. You don’t need that many defectors to flake out, just 2% is enough to swing a state.
Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but Trump was barely able to beat her.
Honestly, while I prefer Warren I'll vote for whichever of her or Sanders who can show that they'll be able to beat out Biden. I think either one would do good as President, but I'd prefer Warren...
Honestly, while I prefer Warren I'll vote for whichever of her or Sanders who can show that they'll be able to beat out Biden. I think either one would do good as President, but I'd prefer Warren in the top seat and Sanders continuing to raise hell in the Senate.
Biden is a heavy favorite on a second ballot at a convention due to superdelegate involvement, but if he fails to consolidate there Warren is a shoe in since she’s a heavy favorite among the...
All my friends are worried about what might happen if neither Sanders or Warren drop out and/or this goes into a brokered convention.
Biden is a heavy favorite on a second ballot at a convention due to superdelegate involvement, but if he fails to consolidate there Warren is a shoe in since she’s a heavy favorite among the activist base within the party. (In other words, the policy people who do the actual work rather than the leadership).
But there is not likely to be a brokered convention. If Sanders or Warren don’t get a decisive lead in the primary process Biden will end up winning.
But neither of them dropping out will help the other. If Sanders drops a big chunk of his people go Biden instead of Warren. If Warren drops a big chunk of her people go Biden or Buttigieg (who isn’t that far off) and it just becomes a 3 way fight with Pete instead.
If you want someone out and a progressive to win, you should want Pete out. His voters are likely to split between Biden and Warren, but much more heavily to Warren.
think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently
“Gloves off” haha. This is the mildest spat I’ve ever heard of. The “outrage” is entirely manufactured by extremely online Rose Twitter dorks who want to disingenuously feign umbrage because the only emotion they know how to express is being pissy on the internet. If they react this way to Warren not even directly attacking him they’re gonna be in for a bad time once conservatives actually gun for Sanders instead of trying to boost him as part of a “Pied Piper” strategy.
I hadn't really thought about it, but I may make my Sanders v Warren decision based off polling closer to voting day. I live in a state where I'll have a few months and candidates will have been...
I hadn't really thought about it, but I may make my Sanders v Warren decision based off polling closer to voting day. I live in a state where I'll have a few months and candidates will have been weeded out by then, so that seems like a sound way to do things. Sanders is my preferred candidate, but I won't lose sleep voting for Warren if it makes sense to.
An absolute nothingburger of a debate. I felt like I was listening to tape recorded messages from twenty years ago. Heard it, not buying it, no real solutions just more platitudes and heavy handed...
An absolute nothingburger of a debate. I felt like I was listening to tape recorded messages from twenty years ago. Heard it, not buying it, no real solutions just more platitudes and heavy handed words. Talk is cheap.
I can hold my nose and still vote for Bernie but I'm sick of the rest of them at this point.
Yang raised two million despite not being on the stage, he just landed the Chappelle endorsement and he's on Bill Maher tomorrow. At least someone on the campaign trail is still interesting. Without him that debate stage was a wasteland.
Respectfully, if that's the only reason you can think of why someone would be sour on these candidates, you need to think harder. The difference was that this time, all I heard were empty...
Respectfully, if that's the only reason you can think of why someone would be sour on these candidates, you need to think harder.
The difference was that this time, all I heard were empty platitudes. Democrats love to talk about what we 'must do' rather than how we do it. I'm almost always on board with where progressives want to go, but seldom how they want to get there. They have a stunning lack of practicality in their plans - Bernie's jobs guarantee and Warren's wealth tax are both typical of that mindset.
I saw nothing on that stage tonight worth voting for which leaves me with voting against Trump as my only motivation. I still like Bernie, even though it's crystal clear at this point that he's not a uniter. The field is pretty tepid. Warren's painting Bernie as sexist was such a wonderful high point of the debate, I'm sure it'll make the democrats proud.
At least when Yang talks, I hear practical solutions. That puts him at the front of the pack for me and a hell of a lot of other libertarian-minded voters. If the democrats want to pass on that support in favor of circlejerking their base, that's on them.
1.) 90 seconds of stage time isn’t really the place to get into the weeds of “how” we do anything. 2.) Most “how” questions are so dependent on the legislative sausage making process that it’s...
Democrats love to talk about what we 'must do' rather than how we do it
1.) 90 seconds of stage time isn’t really the place to get into the weeds of “how” we do anything.
2.) Most “how” questions are so dependent on the legislative sausage making process that it’s dishonest and pointless to talk about it before you actually know what the composition of the House and Senate are going to be.
3.) If they actually talked about how they’re going to do anything at any meaningful level of granularity you would kill yourself from boredom. These things are extremely complicated and even most of the experts on the topics don’t fully understand what they’re getting into until they start work on it.
Funny, Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined. Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions...
Funny, Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined. Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things. Just the changes he gets to make by fiat to regulatory agencies alone is enough to fix many issues. Yet, he didn't make me want to kill myself from boredom. Instead, he made me do research into the solutions, and I even enjoyed it.
I'm done making excuses like these for a broken process.
That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate? In the words of the great philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Making changes to...
Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined
That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate?
Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things. Just the changes he gets to make by fiat to regulatory agencies alone is enough to fix many issues. Yet, he didn't make me want to kill myself from boredom. Instead, he made me do research into the solutions, and I even enjoyed it.
In the words of the great philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Making changes to regulatory authorities by executive fiat is actually a lot more complicated than people who have never been in government like to pretend. It takes months to a year of building a legal case for the order than can stand up to oppositional litigation. Yang’s are the kinds of plans you get to have when you don’t actually understand the brass tacks of how government works, and they dissolve into nothing upon first contact with reality.
I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that. He'll be at the next three debates in feb. since his polling is holding at 6%+ now everywhere, even in...
That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate?
I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that. He'll be at the next three debates in feb. since his polling is holding at 6%+ now everywhere, even in Florida - so we'll get more answers from him next month, assuming the impeachment trial doesn't end up canceling the next debates. They won't be holding them if all of the senators are in session for the trial. I don't like impeachment interfering with the election like this, it's peak stupidity from the democrats.
It's not complicated at all to, for example, direct the NRC to relax regulations on Thorium, or change the measurements of the country from GDP to his american report card. Those things can be done with a simple phone call. Considering most of our agencies are understaffed and missing their leaders/directors after this Trump mess that seems like it's pretty easy to put a new team in place, though they'll surely have an epic mess to clean up.
There's no 'legal' case to be made giving new marching orders to the executive branch offices. Congress creates those agencies, it does not get involved at all in running them. It's part of the separation of powers. That's the president's job. He's the boss, that's how it works.
To be fair I'm sure Bernie would do the same. Not so sure about the rest of them.
Not really. Because based on those debates I have no idea how you could listen to his anodyne statements and come away thinking he had so much more pragmatism or detail than anyone else on the...
I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that.
Not really. Because based on those debates I have no idea how you could listen to his anodyne statements and come away thinking he had so much more pragmatism or detail than anyone else on the stage. Especially compared to Warren or even (shudder) Buttigieg.
I don't like impeachment interfering with the election like this, it's peak stupidity from the democrats.
It's literally a Constitutional obligation to impeach a President who is committing crimes.
It's not complicated at all to, for example, direct the NRC to relax regulations on Thorium, or change the measurements of the country from GDP to his american report card.
A statement like "relax regulations on Thorium" counts as "not complicated at all" to you? It's literally a body of policy relating to enforcement and safety regulations around a nuclear reactor. You don't think there will be legal challenges, Environmental Impact Statements, and a bevy of other things you need to address to make that happen?
You think just arbitrarily changing a major economic indicator that is used for calculating metrics for everything from BLS to Census to UN HDI data all across private industry, non-profits, international institutions, and state and local governments would be easy and have no major push-back from anyone? These things are not easy in the slightest dude.
Considering most of our agencies are understaffed and missing their leaders/directors after this Trump mess that seems like it's pretty easy to put a new team in place
It takes anywhere from 3 to 6 months for a new hire to clear a background check and be deemed ready to enter duty as a federal employee (career, non-political). And that's assuming you can find a qualified person at the rate they're hiring for and who is capable of clearing a background check-requirements which, depending on the job, can include needing to be a US citizen, needing to be drug free (including weed, so good luck hiring any entry-level software devs who are worth a damn), and needing to have a debt/income ratio that isn't too high. There is absolutely nothing "easy" about putting a team in place, especially with an obstructionist Senate committed to not letting you have a team at all.
Hell, it's not even easy to hire talent good enough to tackle problems of this scale even without all the Federal Government hiring and procurement restrictions and requirements.
There's no 'legal' case to be made giving new marching orders to the executive branch offices.
It took the Obama administration more than a year of research and legal work before they were able to push DACA through to make sure it actually worked. One of the main reason it's taken Trump so long to actually put things like the Muslim Ban in action was largely because his team of chucklekfucks didn't do that kind of background work and had the policy tied up in court challenges for years.
The government is big and has to be accountable to a lot of different stakeholders in lines of work and with levels of expertise that you wouldn't believe. Pretending any of this is easy or simple to unwind or understand the long term consequences of is the sort of naiveté only senior executives can have because they never have to do any of the actual work to make these sorts of things happen.
I really wish Bernie could incorporate Yang's Freedom Dividend instead of pushing minimum wage to $15/hour. I'd rather have more money and see the cost of things stay the same than see both rise....
I really wish Bernie could incorporate Yang's Freedom Dividend instead of pushing minimum wage to $15/hour. I'd rather have more money and see the cost of things stay the same than see both rise.
As for health reform, idk why Bernie doesn't release a handful of projected numbers, removing insurance agency costs, health administration price gouging and negotiating drug prices will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the 3.5 trillion/year americans spend on healthcare. 4% tax will end up costing the the people who get insurance through work slightly more, but same the businesses they work for from paying any of the money they already are. For people privately paying for insurance it would flat out reduce their yearly costs. Not only does it then cost less, there would be no insurance claim bullshit and people would be able get the health services they need when they need it.
The only unpredictable factor is how many people would actually start going and using the health care system once it doesn't make you go bankrupt for doing so and how much of an adjustment to that 4% needs to be made to account for that.
Honestly I'd like to see Bernie adopt the dividend and keep the $15 minimum wage. There's no reason we can't do both, and getting the dividend in place first softens the blow of the wage hike...
Honestly I'd like to see Bernie adopt the dividend and keep the $15 minimum wage. There's no reason we can't do both, and getting the dividend in place first softens the blow of the wage hike considerably for small business. He should change his jobs 'guarantee' into a jobs program that finds people work and helps pay moving expenses and retraining when it's appropriate. It's the 'guarantee' part that sticks in my craw since that is not a realistic promise, but the idea of having the fed help find people work and create what jobs it can is a good one.
Warren isn't my top choice, but I know that her plans articulate when something could be accomplished through executive order.
each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things
Warren isn't my top choice, but I know that her plans articulate when something could be accomplished through executive order.
Really disappointed in her for resorting to what I consider to be underhanded tactics once she fell behind in the polls. Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform. And...
Really disappointed in her for resorting to what I consider to be underhanded tactics once she fell behind in the polls. Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform. And the bias against Bernie coming from the moderators was palpable and shameful.
You realize Warren literally wrote the book on bankruptcy and the causes behind high income inequality way back in the 90s right? Just because Sanders was the first person you heard talking about...
Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform.
You realize Warren literally wrote the book on bankruptcy and the causes behind high income inequality way back in the 90s right?
Just because Sanders was the first person you heard talking about this stuff doesn’t mean he invented progressive policy. In fact, it’s been Warren who has a more accomplished record of actually putting words into action.
Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy" and its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.
Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy" and its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.
Saying Warren "ripped off Bernie's entire platform" is basically that. It's nonsense. Warren's been advocating and writing about income inequality and corporate malfeasance for decades. This is...
Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy"
Saying Warren "ripped off Bernie's entire platform" is basically that. It's nonsense. Warren's been advocating and writing about income inequality and corporate malfeasance for decades.
its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.
This is just getting too wrapped up in labels and ignoring the underlying facts. Many of the policy recommendations Sanders and others have been making are based on things Warren highlighted in her writing ages ago. "The Two Income Trap" had more influence on progressive policy than all the dusty old YouTube clips of Sanders you can dredge up combined. Compelling speeches on the House floor that nobody listened to make for nice campaign material, but that's not what actually affected policy.
She had more impact on the progressive lean of the government as a private citizen through her advocacy than most actual legislators. This includes Sanders, who has been too bought into his "I'm a quirky independent" shtick to actually twist the arms it takes to get stuff done.
I am so, so very tired of the endless media spin on this, and the number of people leaping to outraged conclusions over it. Someone leaks a document purporting that Sanders' volunteers were...
I am so, so very tired of the endless media spin on this, and the number of people leaping to outraged conclusions over it.
Someone leaks a document purporting that Sanders' volunteers were advised to slam Warren as appealing only to the educated and affluent.
Someone claims Sanders argued that Warren couldn't win because she's a woman.
When confronted, Warren remembers that's what happened, Bernie doesn't, and all hell breaks loose over a great heap of "he said, she said" that doesn't actually mean anything except enemy action.
At this point, I'm still rooting for either, but this dumb partisanship means neither will win.
He didn't get enough qualifying polls. However there's some criticism to be had about the lack of polling between the last debate and the deadline for this one (due to holidays). In the last week...
He didn't get enough qualifying polls. However there's some criticism to be had about the lack of polling between the last debate and the deadline for this one (due to holidays). In the last week he's gotten a few that put him at the 5% threshold, but they came too late.
They’re not. It’s perfectly possible for Sanders to think he said one thing that came across differently to the listener because he’s tactless and doesn’t choose his words carefully. It’s...
They’re not.
It’s perfectly possible for Sanders to think he said one thing that came across differently to the listener because he’s tactless and doesn’t choose his words carefully. It’s perfectly possible that Warren heard a message that Sanders didn’t intend to deliver because she’s been hearing one person after another tell her she’s unelectable for one dumb reason or another, and then vented about it to her confidants. Neither of this means “lying,” just that they walked away from a talk with different ideas about what transpired.
Jeez it’s like nobody on the Internet has ever been married before.
I think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues. This is a he-said she-said situation where there wasn't a victim. They should have...
Jeez it’s like nobody on the Internet has ever been married before.
I think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues.
This is a he-said she-said situation where there wasn't a victim. They should have discussed this between each other instead of pitting their supporters against each other.
There’s always a “more important issue.” Usually stating that is just a way to tell people to not talk about the thing they want to do and talk about what you prioritize instead. For a lot of...
think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues.
There’s always a “more important issue.” Usually stating that is just a way to tell people to not talk about the thing they want to do and talk about what you prioritize instead. For a lot of people, the orientation of a politician towards the role and centrality of women in public life is a big thing. It’s not helpful to minimize or discard their concerns as invalid.
They should have discussed this between each other instead of pitting their supporters against each other.
They didn’t “pit their supporters against each other.” The Warren campaign distributed guidance about deescalating on this issue as soon as it broke. The acrimony is entirely manufactured by extremely online twitter dorks who default to flipping out and throwing tantrums any time anyone offends their delicate sensibilities.
Right. And Warren needed to have more evidence than he-said she-said. Bernie has said that a woman can win. He said it a long time ago. There has to be much more evidence to sway me. Hard...
For a lot of people, the orientation of a politician towards the role and centrality of women in public life is a big thing. It’s not helpful to minimize or discard their concerns as invalid.
Right. And Warren needed to have more evidence than he-said she-said. Bernie has said that a woman can win. He said it a long time ago. There has to be much more evidence to sway me.
They didn’t “pit their supporters against each other.” The Warren campaign distributed guidance about deescalating on this issue as soon as it broke. The acrimony is entirely manufactured by extremely online twitter dorks who default to flipping out and throwing tantrums any time anyone offends their delicate sensibilities.
Hard disagree. Don't bring it up if it isn't a campaign issue. Warren did not handle it in a satisfying way in my opinion. And CNN is fanning the flames, Twitter is just the fire.
I’m interpreting this as an admission that you don’t want to be swayed. Sanders’ supporters have been carping on DNA test shit since last year man. Where is this sudden umbrage against cheap shots...
There has to be much more evidence to sway me.
I’m interpreting this as an admission that you don’t want to be swayed.
Don't bring it up if it isn't a campaign issue.
Sanders’ supporters have been carping on DNA test shit since last year man. Where is this sudden umbrage against cheap shots coming from now?
And even the assumption that it was a cheap shot that was intentionally leaked is just an assumption of malice. You’re not engaged in a dispassionate reading of evidence here.
Edit: it’s really worth checking out Contrapoints’ cancel culture video. You can plainly see the pattern of assumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism here. Both in what’s being done to Warren and what’s being assumed as the intention towards Sanders. It both makes people more hostile than is appropriate and more defensive.
Alright, I don't see any forward momentum in this conversation any more, and it's just drifting into taking shots at each other, so I'm going to stop it here.
Alright, I don't see any forward momentum in this conversation any more, and it's just drifting into taking shots at each other, so I'm going to stop it here.
This is a primary between allies. They are prepared to take on Trump and his lies/exaggerations. Every candidate is going to be lambasted this election so that point is completely moot. This is...
This is an American political race. Shit like this is little leagues compared to what both of them are going to face in the general
This is a primary between allies. They are prepared to take on Trump and his lies/exaggerations. Every candidate is going to be lambasted this election so that point is completely moot.
And lets be frank, Sander's supporters have been absolutely rabid this cycle, tearing down every candidate that comes close to Bernie (except Biden strangely enough). Warren's don't even register. The Sanders4Prez types have been going hard since March. It's disingenuous to get up in arms when Warren's camp takes one piddly shot.
This is just patently false. I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals. But now we have to stop and evaluate words, meanings, histories, to get context and feeling over whether someone is lying or not.
I can cherry pick 100s of comments from all political campaigns that lie and tear down candidates on false narratives. Like I have specifically told you once before, if you base your perception of a campaign or a politician on online comments, on Reddit of all places, you are going to be left with a shitty view of everyone. Go meet some real people who work hard on campaigns, donate to campaigns, and struggle with the issues that these candidates are speaking to.
Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle...
I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals.
Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle than in 2016. I don't think there are no rabid supporters--the nature of politics more generally at this point seems to lift up extreme voices regardless of how many actually share the view--but I think many of the more anti-establishment Democratic-leaning voters that supported Sanders against Hillary in 2016 are currently lining up behind Gabbard. And Gabbard's supporters do tend, in my experience, to be a little bit more hard edged about their support, and a lot less likely to say they'll support a democratic candidate.
I'm not a huge fan of Sanders. But I don't see anything disproportionately annoying about his supporters.
Thank you. I will add, I have met supporters of most candidates and they are are good people who have a deep amount of compassion for the poor. We disagree on how to get to where we need to go,...
Thank you.
I will add, I have met supporters of most candidates and they are are good people who have a deep amount of compassion for the poor. We disagree on how to get to where we need to go, but 100% are in agreement to do whatever it takes to defeat Trump.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged....
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged. And a fair number of Biden supporters that I have met and talked to are the type that would prefer another candidate but value beating Trump more (and believe that a more moderate candidate that appears to that large chunk of whites without a college degree that went so hard for Trump this last cycle is the way to get to 50%+1 electoral votes).
The two (2!) Gabbard supporters I've talked to weren't impolite, but made no secret about their hatred of the Democratic party generally, and their deep distrust in everyone else's foreign policy views.
You only know this if you’re in the tank for him. Jesus, I’m a Warren supporter and even I’m privately unsure if her being a woman will be an Achilles heel in a general election. It is not at all...
What's asinine about the reported exchange is, well, we all know that Sanders doesn't think that.
You only know this if you’re in the tank for him. Jesus, I’m a Warren supporter and even I’m privately unsure if her being a woman will be an Achilles heel in a general election. It is not at all implausible that Bernie would think so too.
It's really fascinating to see the presumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism process unfolding in action here. You've just decided that CNN and Warren are in cahoots, that Warren is...
CNN and Warren chose the former narrative
It's really fascinating to see the presumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism process unfolding in action here. You've just decided that CNN and Warren are in cahoots, that Warren is deliberately lying about what he said rather than interpreted his words differently from what he intended, that Sanders didn't actually say something ill advised because he's tactless and brusque (even though we know the man to be tactless and brusque), and on and on. It's so plain to see the bandwagoning pile-on logic at play here based on scant evidence and reflexive assumptions of bad faith.
Just to start, when did Warren say anything about prejudice on his part? And why do you think CNN and the Warren campaign are coordinating on messaging here? These are all assumptions you're making because you lean Bernie so you're inclined to buy the narrative that lets him be the victim. From there it's a quick hop to essentializing everyone who isn't him as a villain, and then getting pickled in an echo chamber that just consistently reinforces that story.
despite the extensive public record showing that Sanders is entirely supportive of a woman becoming President.
There's no shortage of people who will theoretically say women could be President while shooting down any woman who actually tries on flimsy pretenses. A few anodyne public statements are hardly the "bulletproof" bits of evidence you're pretending. It's like the "here's a picture of him from nearly a half century ago protesting Jim Crow" thing all over again.
but at the same time you have yet to admit that, if this is the case, then Warren and CNN must have then acted in bad faith.
There's that conflation of Warren and CNN again. You've basically separated the world into Bernie people and "the rest" who are all in cahoots to foil Bernie, the one true hope for progress. It's a tiresome and reductive narrative that the Sanders camp leans way too heavily on. In reality, there are lots people with varying drives and incentives here and pretending everyone is part of a big conspiracy to bring your guy down just is not productive.
All of this blew up precisely because it is not a miscommunication nothingburger, it's a concerted effort to smear Sanders.
This is the mildest possible smear ever concocted if it is. And the fact that the Sanders camp is going mask off and letting it get this ugly just reinforces the misgivings so many people have about the guy. Even people who like Sanders are terrified of the people he surrounds himself with and who will surely ride his coattails in power.
Just listen to yourself carefully. You just said yourself that Warren has personal experience with Sanders, but then you claim you have a better idea of where his “true heart is” than she does...
That makes it clear to me this is more than a miscommunication.
Just listen to yourself carefully. You just said yourself that Warren has personal experience with Sanders, but then you claim you have a better idea of where his “true heart is” than she does based on picking out a few select public statements and positions he had in the past.
Don’t you think Warren might have a better read on what’s “in scope” for him to say and do in private than you might?
And honestly Bernie wasn’t even wrong. She does have an uphill climb due to being a woman. So is not even really implausible that he would think so since it’s a plausible statement about how someone sees the world. The statement wasn’t about whether women “shouldn’t” but “couldn’t” when against Trump.
If you're all up for some pre-debate discussion:
I think a lot of people are familiar with Sanders and Warren taking the gloves off recently, and I personally find it a bit silly. However, we are coming to the realization that the candidates will butt heads, as in lots of states they (and Biden) are polling ~25%/25%/25%. Personally, I've decided that, despite being a Warren fan, I'm going to vote for Sanders assuming he keeps above a 2% lead in my state. But what are other peoples plans considering the FTP system? All my friends are worried about what might happen if neither Sanders or Warren drop out and/or this goes into a brokered convention.
If either Warren or Sanders drop out, the other gets most of their voters and beats out Biden easily. And Biden doesn't stand a chance against trump.
Gotta tell you, it's pretty depressing looking at your voting system right now...
It's depressing from the inside too, considering how much would be different if Gore had won in 2000, let alone Clinton four years ago.
Not true.
It's way too soon to make any absolutist statements.
Trump clearly fears Biden more than the other contenders, and is privy to more info than we are
In the swing states, Biden polls better against Trump than anyone else
Not a chance, really? Let's not forget how deeply unpopular Trump is, and how extremely poorly he did against Clinton in 2016. Any of the other Republican candidates would have crushed her, but Trump was barely able to beat her, and now he's had four years of mismanagement that can be used against him.
He lost the popular vote by a wide margin, and won a fairly slim electoral college victory.
The political pendulum swings. Two periods of Republican president, two periods of Democrat president, repeat, that's the pattern. It would have taken a miracle for the Republicans to lose the 2016 election, and Trump nearly did.
If I’m not mistaken it’s the largest margin in modern history.
Also the first time we’ve had a judiciary that was predominantly stacked by Presidents who came to power with a minority of the vote. You can bet this is going to have consequences that will haunt us for, literally, the rest of our lives.
It’s hard to assert that for sure. It’s possible the Trumpy base might have stayed home. You don’t need that many defectors to flake out, just 2% is enough to swing a state.
What?
Bruh, he won.
Honestly, while I prefer Warren I'll vote for whichever of her or Sanders who can show that they'll be able to beat out Biden. I think either one would do good as President, but I'd prefer Warren in the top seat and Sanders continuing to raise hell in the Senate.
Biden is a heavy favorite on a second ballot at a convention due to superdelegate involvement, but if he fails to consolidate there Warren is a shoe in since she’s a heavy favorite among the activist base within the party. (In other words, the policy people who do the actual work rather than the leadership).
But there is not likely to be a brokered convention. If Sanders or Warren don’t get a decisive lead in the primary process Biden will end up winning.
But neither of them dropping out will help the other. If Sanders drops a big chunk of his people go Biden instead of Warren. If Warren drops a big chunk of her people go Biden or Buttigieg (who isn’t that far off) and it just becomes a 3 way fight with Pete instead.
If you want someone out and a progressive to win, you should want Pete out. His voters are likely to split between Biden and Warren, but much more heavily to Warren.
“Gloves off” haha. This is the mildest spat I’ve ever heard of. The “outrage” is entirely manufactured by extremely online Rose Twitter dorks who want to disingenuously feign umbrage because the only emotion they know how to express is being pissy on the internet. If they react this way to Warren not even directly attacking him they’re gonna be in for a bad time once conservatives actually gun for Sanders instead of trying to boost him as part of a “Pied Piper” strategy.
I hadn't really thought about it, but I may make my Sanders v Warren decision based off polling closer to voting day. I live in a state where I'll have a few months and candidates will have been weeded out by then, so that seems like a sound way to do things. Sanders is my preferred candidate, but I won't lose sleep voting for Warren if it makes sense to.
An absolute nothingburger of a debate. I felt like I was listening to tape recorded messages from twenty years ago. Heard it, not buying it, no real solutions just more platitudes and heavy handed words. Talk is cheap.
I can hold my nose and still vote for Bernie but I'm sick of the rest of them at this point.
Yang raised two million despite not being on the stage, he just landed the Chappelle endorsement and he's on Bill Maher tomorrow. At least someone on the campaign trail is still interesting. Without him that debate stage was a wasteland.
Respectfully, if that's the only reason you can think of why someone would be sour on these candidates, you need to think harder.
The difference was that this time, all I heard were empty platitudes. Democrats love to talk about what we 'must do' rather than how we do it. I'm almost always on board with where progressives want to go, but seldom how they want to get there. They have a stunning lack of practicality in their plans - Bernie's jobs guarantee and Warren's wealth tax are both typical of that mindset.
I saw nothing on that stage tonight worth voting for which leaves me with voting against Trump as my only motivation. I still like Bernie, even though it's crystal clear at this point that he's not a uniter. The field is pretty tepid. Warren's painting Bernie as sexist was such a wonderful high point of the debate, I'm sure it'll make the democrats proud.
At least when Yang talks, I hear practical solutions. That puts him at the front of the pack for me and a hell of a lot of other libertarian-minded voters. If the democrats want to pass on that support in favor of circlejerking their base, that's on them.
1.) 90 seconds of stage time isn’t really the place to get into the weeds of “how” we do anything.
2.) Most “how” questions are so dependent on the legislative sausage making process that it’s dishonest and pointless to talk about it before you actually know what the composition of the House and Senate are going to be.
3.) If they actually talked about how they’re going to do anything at any meaningful level of granularity you would kill yourself from boredom. These things are extremely complicated and even most of the experts on the topics don’t fully understand what they’re getting into until they start work on it.
Funny, Andrew said more in his tiny slice of speaking time about the 'how' of a dozen issues than the rest of the field combined. Further, each of Yang's policies list a spectrum of solutions including what he can do as executive without congress's involvement, and it's a surprising number of things. Just the changes he gets to make by fiat to regulatory agencies alone is enough to fix many issues. Yet, he didn't make me want to kill myself from boredom. Instead, he made me do research into the solutions, and I even enjoyed it.
I'm done making excuses like these for a broken process.
That’s a neat trick, considering he wasn’t at the debate?
In the words of the great philosopher, Mike Tyson, “everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face.” Making changes to regulatory authorities by executive fiat is actually a lot more complicated than people who have never been in government like to pretend. It takes months to a year of building a legal case for the order than can stand up to oppositional litigation. Yang’s are the kinds of plans you get to have when you don’t actually understand the brass tacks of how government works, and they dissolve into nothing upon first contact with reality.
I was referring to his comments during the past six debates, but I think you knew that. He'll be at the next three debates in feb. since his polling is holding at 6%+ now everywhere, even in Florida - so we'll get more answers from him next month, assuming the impeachment trial doesn't end up canceling the next debates. They won't be holding them if all of the senators are in session for the trial. I don't like impeachment interfering with the election like this, it's peak stupidity from the democrats.
It's not complicated at all to, for example, direct the NRC to relax regulations on Thorium, or change the measurements of the country from GDP to his american report card. Those things can be done with a simple phone call. Considering most of our agencies are understaffed and missing their leaders/directors after this Trump mess that seems like it's pretty easy to put a new team in place, though they'll surely have an epic mess to clean up.
There's no 'legal' case to be made giving new marching orders to the executive branch offices. Congress creates those agencies, it does not get involved at all in running them. It's part of the separation of powers. That's the president's job. He's the boss, that's how it works.
To be fair I'm sure Bernie would do the same. Not so sure about the rest of them.
Not really. Because based on those debates I have no idea how you could listen to his anodyne statements and come away thinking he had so much more pragmatism or detail than anyone else on the stage. Especially compared to Warren or even (shudder) Buttigieg.
It's literally a Constitutional obligation to impeach a President who is committing crimes.
A statement like "relax regulations on Thorium" counts as "not complicated at all" to you? It's literally a body of policy relating to enforcement and safety regulations around a nuclear reactor. You don't think there will be legal challenges, Environmental Impact Statements, and a bevy of other things you need to address to make that happen?
You think just arbitrarily changing a major economic indicator that is used for calculating metrics for everything from BLS to Census to UN HDI data all across private industry, non-profits, international institutions, and state and local governments would be easy and have no major push-back from anyone? These things are not easy in the slightest dude.
It takes anywhere from 3 to 6 months for a new hire to clear a background check and be deemed ready to enter duty as a federal employee (career, non-political). And that's assuming you can find a qualified person at the rate they're hiring for and who is capable of clearing a background check-requirements which, depending on the job, can include needing to be a US citizen, needing to be drug free (including weed, so good luck hiring any entry-level software devs who are worth a damn), and needing to have a debt/income ratio that isn't too high. There is absolutely nothing "easy" about putting a team in place, especially with an obstructionist Senate committed to not letting you have a team at all.
Hell, it's not even easy to hire talent good enough to tackle problems of this scale even without all the Federal Government hiring and procurement restrictions and requirements.
It took the Obama administration more than a year of research and legal work before they were able to push DACA through to make sure it actually worked. One of the main reason it's taken Trump so long to actually put things like the Muslim Ban in action was largely because his team of chucklekfucks didn't do that kind of background work and had the policy tied up in court challenges for years.
The government is big and has to be accountable to a lot of different stakeholders in lines of work and with levels of expertise that you wouldn't believe. Pretending any of this is easy or simple to unwind or understand the long term consequences of is the sort of naiveté only senior executives can have because they never have to do any of the actual work to make these sorts of things happen.
I really wish Bernie could incorporate Yang's Freedom Dividend instead of pushing minimum wage to $15/hour. I'd rather have more money and see the cost of things stay the same than see both rise.
As for health reform, idk why Bernie doesn't release a handful of projected numbers, removing insurance agency costs, health administration price gouging and negotiating drug prices will save hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the 3.5 trillion/year americans spend on healthcare. 4% tax will end up costing the the people who get insurance through work slightly more, but same the businesses they work for from paying any of the money they already are. For people privately paying for insurance it would flat out reduce their yearly costs. Not only does it then cost less, there would be no insurance claim bullshit and people would be able get the health services they need when they need it.
The only unpredictable factor is how many people would actually start going and using the health care system once it doesn't make you go bankrupt for doing so and how much of an adjustment to that 4% needs to be made to account for that.
Honestly I'd like to see Bernie adopt the dividend and keep the $15 minimum wage. There's no reason we can't do both, and getting the dividend in place first softens the blow of the wage hike considerably for small business. He should change his jobs 'guarantee' into a jobs program that finds people work and helps pay moving expenses and retraining when it's appropriate. It's the 'guarantee' part that sticks in my craw since that is not a realistic promise, but the idea of having the fed help find people work and create what jobs it can is a good one.
Warren isn't my top choice, but I know that her plans articulate when something could be accomplished through executive order.
Neither of those endorsements are serious people though. They're certainly not going to expand his base.
Really disappointed in her for resorting to what I consider to be underhanded tactics once she fell behind in the polls. Especially after she essentially ripped off Bernie's entire platform. And the bias against Bernie coming from the moderators was palpable and shameful.
You realize Warren literally wrote the book on bankruptcy and the causes behind high income inequality way back in the 90s right?
Just because Sanders was the first person you heard talking about this stuff doesn’t mean he invented progressive policy. In fact, it’s been Warren who has a more accomplished record of actually putting words into action.
Nobody is saying Sanders "invented progressive policy" and its just a fact that he's been "progressive" far longer than Warren, who was a registered Republican until '95.
Saying Warren "ripped off Bernie's entire platform" is basically that. It's nonsense. Warren's been advocating and writing about income inequality and corporate malfeasance for decades.
This is just getting too wrapped up in labels and ignoring the underlying facts. Many of the policy recommendations Sanders and others have been making are based on things Warren highlighted in her writing ages ago. "The Two Income Trap" had more influence on progressive policy than all the dusty old YouTube clips of Sanders you can dredge up combined. Compelling speeches on the House floor that nobody listened to make for nice campaign material, but that's not what actually affected policy.
She had more impact on the progressive lean of the government as a private citizen through her advocacy than most actual legislators. This includes Sanders, who has been too bought into his "I'm a quirky independent" shtick to actually twist the arms it takes to get stuff done.
I am so, so very tired of the endless media spin on this, and the number of people leaping to outraged conclusions over it.
Someone leaks a document purporting that Sanders' volunteers were advised to slam Warren as appealing only to the educated and affluent.
Someone claims Sanders argued that Warren couldn't win because she's a woman.
When confronted, Warren remembers that's what happened, Bernie doesn't, and all hell breaks loose over a great heap of "he said, she said" that doesn't actually mean anything except enemy action.
At this point, I'm still rooting for either, but this dumb partisanship means neither will win.
He didn't get enough qualifying polls. However there's some criticism to be had about the lack of polling between the last debate and the deadline for this one (due to holidays). In the last week he's gotten a few that put him at the 5% threshold, but they came too late.
They’re not.
It’s perfectly possible for Sanders to think he said one thing that came across differently to the listener because he’s tactless and doesn’t choose his words carefully. It’s perfectly possible that Warren heard a message that Sanders didn’t intend to deliver because she’s been hearing one person after another tell her she’s unelectable for one dumb reason or another, and then vented about it to her confidants. Neither of this means “lying,” just that they walked away from a talk with different ideas about what transpired.
Jeez it’s like nobody on the Internet has ever been married before.
I think its pretty inappropriate to air something stupid like this out when there are more important issues.
This is a he-said she-said situation where there wasn't a victim. They should have discussed this between each other instead of pitting their supporters against each other.
This is how you get political apathy.
There’s always a “more important issue.” Usually stating that is just a way to tell people to not talk about the thing they want to do and talk about what you prioritize instead. For a lot of people, the orientation of a politician towards the role and centrality of women in public life is a big thing. It’s not helpful to minimize or discard their concerns as invalid.
They didn’t “pit their supporters against each other.” The Warren campaign distributed guidance about deescalating on this issue as soon as it broke. The acrimony is entirely manufactured by extremely online twitter dorks who default to flipping out and throwing tantrums any time anyone offends their delicate sensibilities.
Right. And Warren needed to have more evidence than he-said she-said. Bernie has said that a woman can win. He said it a long time ago. There has to be much more evidence to sway me.
Hard disagree. Don't bring it up if it isn't a campaign issue. Warren did not handle it in a satisfying way in my opinion. And CNN is fanning the flames, Twitter is just the fire.
I’m interpreting this as an admission that you don’t want to be swayed.
Sanders’ supporters have been carping on DNA test shit since last year man. Where is this sudden umbrage against cheap shots coming from now?
And even the assumption that it was a cheap shot that was intentionally leaked is just an assumption of malice. You’re not engaged in a dispassionate reading of evidence here.
Edit: it’s really worth checking out Contrapoints’ cancel culture video. You can plainly see the pattern of assumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism here. Both in what’s being done to Warren and what’s being assumed as the intention towards Sanders. It both makes people more hostile than is appropriate and more defensive.
Has Sanders ever brought up the DNA test thing?
Alright, I don't see any forward momentum in this conversation any more, and it's just drifting into taking shots at each other, so I'm going to stop it here.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the "story" was broke by CNN just a day or two before they hosted the debate.
This is a primary between allies. They are prepared to take on Trump and his lies/exaggerations. Every candidate is going to be lambasted this election so that point is completely moot.
This is just patently false. I have met and campaigned/canvassed with people involved in both Warren and Sanders campaign. They are good, honest people who share common goals. But now we have to stop and evaluate words, meanings, histories, to get context and feeling over whether someone is lying or not.
I can cherry pick 100s of comments from all political campaigns that lie and tear down candidates on false narratives. Like I have specifically told you once before, if you base your perception of a campaign or a politician on online comments, on Reddit of all places, you are going to be left with a shitty view of everyone. Go meet some real people who work hard on campaigns, donate to campaigns, and struggle with the issues that these candidates are speaking to.
Yeah, I want to underscore this point, based from Sanders supporters I've talked to and worked with. I think there are a lot fewer of the spoiler/libertarian types hanging onto Sanders this cycle than in 2016. I don't think there are no rabid supporters--the nature of politics more generally at this point seems to lift up extreme voices regardless of how many actually share the view--but I think many of the more anti-establishment Democratic-leaning voters that supported Sanders against Hillary in 2016 are currently lining up behind Gabbard. And Gabbard's supporters do tend, in my experience, to be a little bit more hard edged about their support, and a lot less likely to say they'll support a democratic candidate.
I'm not a huge fan of Sanders. But I don't see anything disproportionately annoying about his supporters.
Thank you.
I will add, I have met supporters of most candidates and they are are good people who have a deep amount of compassion for the poor. We disagree on how to get to where we need to go, but 100% are in agreement to do whatever it takes to defeat Trump.
I haven't met a Tulsi or Biden supporter though.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Biden supporters won't come right out and say it because they see a lot of media where liberals make fun of them or they otherwise feel like they'll be judged. And a fair number of Biden supporters that I have met and talked to are the type that would prefer another candidate but value beating Trump more (and believe that a more moderate candidate that appears to that large chunk of whites without a college degree that went so hard for Trump this last cycle is the way to get to 50%+1 electoral votes).
The two (2!) Gabbard supporters I've talked to weren't impolite, but made no secret about their hatred of the Democratic party generally, and their deep distrust in everyone else's foreign policy views.
You only know this if you’re in the tank for him. Jesus, I’m a Warren supporter and even I’m privately unsure if her being a woman will be an Achilles heel in a general election. It is not at all implausible that Bernie would think so too.
It's really fascinating to see the presumption of guilt -> abstraction -> essentialism process unfolding in action here. You've just decided that CNN and Warren are in cahoots, that Warren is deliberately lying about what he said rather than interpreted his words differently from what he intended, that Sanders didn't actually say something ill advised because he's tactless and brusque (even though we know the man to be tactless and brusque), and on and on. It's so plain to see the bandwagoning pile-on logic at play here based on scant evidence and reflexive assumptions of bad faith.
Just to start, when did Warren say anything about prejudice on his part? And why do you think CNN and the Warren campaign are coordinating on messaging here? These are all assumptions you're making because you lean Bernie so you're inclined to buy the narrative that lets him be the victim. From there it's a quick hop to essentializing everyone who isn't him as a villain, and then getting pickled in an echo chamber that just consistently reinforces that story.
There's no shortage of people who will theoretically say women could be President while shooting down any woman who actually tries on flimsy pretenses. A few anodyne public statements are hardly the "bulletproof" bits of evidence you're pretending. It's like the "here's a picture of him from nearly a half century ago protesting Jim Crow" thing all over again.
There's that conflation of Warren and CNN again. You've basically separated the world into Bernie people and "the rest" who are all in cahoots to foil Bernie, the one true hope for progress. It's a tiresome and reductive narrative that the Sanders camp leans way too heavily on. In reality, there are lots people with varying drives and incentives here and pretending everyone is part of a big conspiracy to bring your guy down just is not productive.
This is the mildest possible smear ever concocted if it is. And the fact that the Sanders camp is going mask off and letting it get this ugly just reinforces the misgivings so many people have about the guy. Even people who like Sanders are terrified of the people he surrounds himself with and who will surely ride his coattails in power.
Just listen to yourself carefully. You just said yourself that Warren has personal experience with Sanders, but then you claim you have a better idea of where his “true heart is” than she does based on picking out a few select public statements and positions he had in the past.
Don’t you think Warren might have a better read on what’s “in scope” for him to say and do in private than you might?
And honestly Bernie wasn’t even wrong. She does have an uphill climb due to being a woman. So is not even really implausible that he would think so since it’s a plausible statement about how someone sees the world. The statement wasn’t about whether women “shouldn’t” but “couldn’t” when against Trump.
Like I said. It’s like nobody on the internet has ever been married before.
They aren't married.
whoosh
First impressions would lead me to agree with you, but what in particular about that phrase/type of comment do you hate?