2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Delphic Oracle]

Nope. But the same cretins that constantly attacked Hillary have now gotten onboard the Tulsi train so I'm hoping to enrage them by calling her "trash" at every opportunity.






https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1129724977400418304





I read the freaking list.






A lot of them have been getting suspended from Twitter due to mass reporting of rather innocuous posts.

I see a post on Twitter with a picture of part of a spreadsheet.

That and some people on Twitter swearing up and down they are being persecuted.

Solid case you've got there.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I see a post on Twitter with a picture of part of a spreadsheet.

That and some people on Twitter swearing up and down they are being persecuted.

Solid case you've got there.

Uh, perhaps reading for content would help? The author of the piece about Tulsi's list is on there and explains how (but not who from) she got it. The tweets actually give some background.

If it's a put up job, there's a lot of work involved because the names check out to be those who've criticized her (to put it as nicely as possible).

 

[Aridas]

Marainne Williamson qualifies for a debate spot.
The Dems trying to portray themselves as the party of reason friendly to science just took a blow with a New Age Woo monger like WIlliamson in the spotlight.
Look past all the talk about love and forgivness, and Willaimson is just another mystic con artist praying on the suckers. OK, she is not as bad as the right wing fundies, but being "not bad" is no the same as "good".

My first reaction here is... Who? I think that this is literally the first time I've heard of this candidate. Given that, I obviously can't comment much, either positively or negatively.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Uh, perhaps reading for content would help? The author of the piece about Tulsi's list is on there and explains how (but not who from) she got it. The tweets actually give some background.



If it's a put up job, there's a lot of work involved because the names check out to be those who've criticized her (to put it as nicely as possible).

A lot of fawning responses, a lot of people announcing they are now following the "enemies", some people saying they are on the list, being harrassed/censored, and please visit their website. Some say they are circumventing their problems by using one of their numerous "backup" accounts (which is hi-lar-i-ous, since that's a well known way to get your accounts flagged as bots).

Could you link to the piece where some semblance of journalistic credibility is in place about this? I don't enjoy hunting through twaddle to find this hidden gem. It's like linking to an hour long video without a timestamp because somewhere in there is 2 minutes of relevant data.

But the author's Twitter feed itself.

Hoo boy.

I was trying to avoid a comparison to Alex Jones, but...nope that shoe fits.

Fringers use the "I'm being blacklisted/silenced, follow/watch/pay attention to me" shtick since forever.

ETA: having put some time in on Congressional campaign work now, I'll say any presidential candidate who has their highest level staffers spending time on the Twitter Enemies List certainly deserves to lose. Social Media Coordinators are a thing and not having one is definitely a misstep, but they are kind of a ways down the food chain over in the corner of the Communications Department and far too busy trying to impress upon the all-volunteer moderators that the latest guidance recommended using "food providers" instead of "farmers."

More likely, though, these people retweeting each other's theories about how Gabbard is a Russian spy probably are the only ones who think they are a high priority to the inner circle of a national campaign.

 

[Venom]

Marainne Williamson qualifies for a debate spot.
The Dems trying to portray themselves as the party of reason friendly to science just took a blow with a New Age Woo monger like WIlliamson in the spotlight.
Look past all the talk about love and forgivness, and Willaimson is just another mystic con artist praying on the suckers. OK, she is not as bad as the right wing fundies, but being "not bad" is no the same as "good".

Any woo believer can get a debate spot. The bar isn't very high; low polling and fundraising threshold.

Wake me up when a sizable chunk of Democrats endorse her or she gets widespread support from the left electorate. I don't think anyone "took a blow" here.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A lot of fawning responses, a lot of people announcing they are now following the "enemies", some people saying they are on the list, being harrassed/censored, and please visit their website. Some say they are circumventing their problems by using one of their numerous "backup" accounts (which is hi-lar-i-ous, since that's a well known way to get your accounts flagged as bots).

Could you link to the piece where some semblance of journalistic credibility is in place about this? I don't enjoy hunting through twaddle to find this hidden gem. It's like linking to an hour long video without a timestamp because somewhere in there is 2 minutes of relevant data.

But the author's Twitter feed itself.

Hoo boy.

I was trying to avoid a comparison to Alex Jones, but...nope that shoe fits.

Fringers use the "I'm being blacklisted/silenced, follow/watch/pay attention to me" shtick since forever.
ETA: having put some time in on Congressional campaign work now, I'll say any presidential candidate who has their highest level staffers spending time on the Twitter Enemies List certainly deserves to lose. Social Media Coordinators are a thing and not having one is definitely a misstep, but they are kind of a ways down the food chain over in the corner of the Communications Department and far too busy trying to impress upon the all-volunteer moderators that the latest guidance recommended using "food providers" instead of "farmers."

More likely, though, these people retweeting each other's theories about how Gabbard is a Russian spy probably are the only ones who think they are a high priority to the inner circle of a national campaign.

Fringers like Trump's supporters. The POTUS just launched a website to make it easier for his conservative droogies to report FB and Twitter if they've been shut out unreasonably.

Ya gotta figure a bit of "It's Travis" into your calculations. Did you really expect to see a peer-reviewed scientific article? Your original post seemed to insinuate that it was made-up. There's a genuine faction out there who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Fringe? Certainly. But any pro-or con group pertaining to any of the minor candidates right now is going to be fringe. But "fringe" reactions can be interesting. I read it as Travis confessing that he's trying to irk her campaign supporters enough to "make the list". (Heck, I'm impressed that Travis is up over 80,000 followers on Twitter and still bothering with us mere mortals.) I see no reason to doubt that Tulsi's campaign of rank amateurs would have someone who thinks it's wise to distribute a list of names to watch out for. If someone from her group has actually said that it's a Target List or Enemy List? I'm not so sure. But that may be a sotto voce kind of thing like Trump's callout to Russia to find those enemy emails. "Here's the people who hate Tulsi and where you can find them on social media. Now, we don't condone anything in the way of harassment, but you should be aware of who they are, anyway."

 

[theprestige]

Meanwhile, Harris to healthcare professionals: I didn't need your racist votes anyway.

More reactions to Harris's (now deleted) tweet here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Meanwhile, Harris to healthcare professionals: I didn't need your racist votes anyway.

More reactions to Harris's (now deleted) tweet here.

I don't care about Harris one way or another but she's not exactly wrong. There have been studies that show disparity in patient treatment by race in many areas of care. My current work involves collecting HEDIS measure data, and all the major payors prefer racial demographics to be included for further statistical analysis. Harris may be perceived as a wild radical but I doubt anyone would say the same for entities like United Health Care and Humana. Actual people who are not politicians and not operating for political reasons are collecting and analyzing data; surely that at least can be respected.

Just because a politician is using something politically doesn't mean that thing isn't real.

 

[theprestige]

I don't care about Harris one way or another but she's not exactly wrong. There have been studies that show disparity in patient treatment by race in many areas of care. My current work involves collecting HEDIS measure data, and all the major payors prefer racial demographics to be included for further statistical analysis. Harris may be perceived as a wild radical but I doubt anyone would say the same for entities like United Health Care and Humana. Actual people who are not politicians and not operating for political reasons are collecting and analyzing data; surely that at least can be respected.

Just because a politician is using something politically doesn't mean that thing isn't real.

I'm not disputing the reality of the claim. I think this is one of those things that went over well with her friends and supporters in private, giving her the false impression that it would go over well with the public at large. Whatever valid point she may have been trying to make, that ship has sailed, caught on fire, and sunk into the swamp.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't care about Harris one way or another but she's not exactly wrong. There have been studies that show disparity in patient treatment by race in many areas of care. My current work involves collecting HEDIS measure data, and all the major payors prefer racial demographics to be included for further statistical analysis. Harris may be perceived as a wild radical but I doubt anyone would say the same for entities like United Health Care and Humana. Actual people who are not politicians and not operating for political reasons are collecting and analyzing data; surely that at least can be respected.

Just because a politician is using something politically doesn't mean that thing isn't real.

Similarly, I have read research on just how bad medical professionals are at understanding statistical medicine and in assessing their own behaviors. The claims by people in the field in these tweets are not credible.

 

[theprestige]

Similarly, I have read research on just how bad medical professionals are at understanding statistical medicine and in assessing their own behaviors. The claims by people in the field in these tweets are not credible.

Instead of deleting her original tweet, Harris should have followed up with another tweet, telling healthcare professionals that not only are they racist, they're also too stupid to understand that they're racist.

There are many things that work (in a sense) in an academic debate, that don't work at all in a political campaign.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Instead of deleting her original tweet, Harris should have followed up with another tweet, telling healthcare professionals that not only are they racist, they're also too stupid to understand that they're racist.

There are many things that work (in a sense) in an academic debate, that don't work at all in a political campaign.

It does affect the public and therefore is a public policy concern; however Twitter is not an appropriate medium for meaningful conversation much less meaningful analysis of complex issues. I cannot understand why people insist on using such a limited platform for communication. Twitter is the digital equivalent of hastily scrawled graffiti on a building viewable only by traffic rushing by. It is a medium for the careless to bray poorly-considered bullet points to the impatient.

People worry that Facebook is damaging society but I think Twitter is worse.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't care about Harris one way or another but she's not exactly wrong. There have been studies that show disparity in patient treatment by race in many areas of care. My current work involves collecting HEDIS measure data, and all the major payors prefer racial demographics to be included for further statistical analysis. Harris may be perceived as a wild radical but I doubt anyone would say the same for entities like United Health Care and Humana. Actual people who are not politicians and not operating for political reasons are collecting and analyzing data; surely that at least can be respected.

Just because a politician is using something politically doesn't mean that thing isn't real.

Well, the problem is a lot of people work at a "clinic or doctors office or hospital" who do everything they can for every patient that comes in. It's placing the "disparity of treatment" on the shoulders of the front-line medical professionals.

It's the same problem Democrats have when messaging on hydrocarbons, they end up alienating coal miners, rig technicians, and industrial workers.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, the problem is a lot of people work at a "clinic or doctors office or hospital" who do everything they can for every patient that comes in. It's placing the "disparity of treatment" on the shoulders of the front-line medical professionals.

It's the same problem Democrats have when messaging on hydrocarbons, they end up alienating coal miners, rig technicians, and industrial workers.

It is the fault of those front line medical professionals (allegedly).

 

[TragicMonkey]

It is the fault of those front line medical professionals (allegedly).

Isn't it? If the data shows that in a given patient population one particular subsection of that population is receiving inferior care - say, lack of follow-up on diagnoses that warrant it-- then it does indeed bear consideration that perhaps the staff aren't doing all they should.

Very few professions are so holy they render the practitioner immune from all possible criticism. Cops and soldiers do important jobs, too, but they can screw up and when they do they are very much accountable for it.

Any medical professional who gets indignant and tries to huff their way out of evidence-based conclusions because they find them insulting is not really that professional to begin with.

 

[theprestige]

Isn't it? If the data shows that in a given patient population one particular subsection of that population is receiving inferior care - say, lack of follow-up on diagnoses that warrant it-- then it does indeed bear consideration that perhaps the staff aren't doing all they should.



Very few professions are so holy they render the practitioner immune from all possible criticism. Cops and soldiers do important jobs, too, but they can screw up and when they do they are very much accountable for it.



Any medical professional who gets indignant and tries to huff their way out of evidence-based conclusions because they find them insulting is not really that professional to begin with.

"Shut up," Harris explained in her third tweet on the racism of healthcare professionals.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Shut up," Harris explained in her third tweet on the racism of healthcare professionals.

Like I said, Twitter isn't a good medium for political discussion.

 

[Minoosh]

If anyone has time to read New Yorker articles (I do it on the treadmill), this piece gives some insight into the various Dem contenders:

Confessions of a presidential candidate

Buttigieg and Warren come out looking pretty good, other candidates not so great. But the ability to write engagingly is probably not much of a marker for administrative competence. Besides which, most probably had ghost writers.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Isn't it? If the data shows that in a given patient population one particular subsection of that population is receiving inferior care - say, lack of follow-up on diagnoses that warrant it-- then it does indeed bear consideration that perhaps the staff aren't doing all they should.



Very few professions are so holy they render the practitioner immune from all possible criticism. Cops and soldiers do important jobs, too, but they can screw up and when they do they are very much accountable for it.



Any medical professional who gets indignant and tries to huff their way out of evidence-based conclusions because they find them insulting is not really that professional to begin with.

If it's a systemic issue, not really.

There's a clear socioeconomic divide, which opens the door to environmental health, diet quality, and other factors.

Then there's administrative inequality in the form of delivering better care to patients with insurance (higher likelihood of payment), again highly affected by income and job type.

 

[Aridas]

Very few professions are so holy they render the practitioner immune from all possible criticism. Cops and soldiers do important jobs, too, but they can screw up and when they do they are very much accountable for it.

Should be accountable, at least. Sadly, far too often, they seem not to be held accountable in any meaningful way.