2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
But in the same way, Trump is the reason we will have "socialism" (healthcare) in the next few years. The gains by Democrats will make it possible.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Follow-up by Caitlin: Former MSNBC Reporter Spills Details On Pro-Establishment Bias In Media





I agree with her completely that the utterly corrupt state of media is the biggest problem of our democracies today and I don't think Trump is far off when he calls them the enemy of the people.
Click to expand...

Sound like the executive was right to review Clinton commentary. The commentator wanted to argue that Clinton was out of step with party and country....and then went on the get substantially more votes than her opponent.

If people are going to say a bunch of stuff full of crap more often with a specific person, higher review could be necessary.
 
Travis said:
A private citizen, with the handle The Hoarse Whisperer, tweeted about how Sanders is the biggest reason we have Trump as president (true) and MSNBC host Brian Williams read it on the air as an example of backlash Sanders is receiving.



Briahna Joy Gray and David Sirota (who, by the way, continues to push the BS idea that the DNC rigs the primaries) then appealed to their followers to doxx The Hoarse Whisperer so they could ruin his life in retribution for not being part of their cult.
Click to expand...

And Sanders ordered this, right? He said “ruin his life for not being part of my cult!”? Right?

This happened?
 
More mainstream journos spilling the beans: Mass Media’s Phony Freakout Over Bernie’s WaPo Criticism Is Backfiring

Caitlin Johnstone said:
[...] Taibbi is correct. Trust in the mass media continues to plummet, and these stupid, nonsensical hissy fits they throw whenever criticized are only making it worse.

What cracks me up most about all this is that the faux outrage over Sanders’ criticisms of The Washington Post was completely unnecessary for everyone involved. They could have just ignored it and let the news churn bury it, but they’re so insulated in their little echo chambers that they seriously believed they could get the public rallying to their defense on this. The general consensus was something like “Ah ha! Bernie did that media-criticizing thing that we all agreed nobody’s allowed to do anymore! We’ve got him this time, boys!”

And all they accomplished in doing this was giving honest journalists an opportunity to inform the public about the insider tricks of their trade. You may be absolutely certain that the information that has been given to the public by Cohen, Ball, Enjati and Taibbi will remain in high circulation throughout the Sanders campaign in response to the increasingly shrill torrent of establishment smears, breaking the spell of mainstream media trust for all who view it. [...]
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Sound like the executive was right to review Clinton commentary. The commentator wanted to argue that Clinton was out of step with party and country....and then went on the get substantially more votes than her opponent.
Click to expand...

Campaigning for redundant votes in urban centers, instead campaigning for the votes she needed to win the election, seems pretty out of step to me. Ignoring the electoral system, and the actual win condition of the campaign, seems pretty out of of step to me. Did she forget which country she was running for president of?
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
A private citizen, with the handle The Hoarse Whisperer, tweeted about how Sanders is the biggest reason we have Trump as president (true) and MSNBC host Brian Williams read it on the air as an example of backlash Sanders is receiving.
Click to expand...

So you're saying people shouldn't go online and find the first random comment from any random nobody they can that supports what they've already decided to be outraged about and start screaming about how it means something?

Interesting.
 
theprestige said:
Campaigning for redundant votes in urban centers, instead campaigning for the votes she needed to win the election, seems pre out of step to me. Ignoring the electoral system, and the actual win condition of the campaign, seems pretty out of of step to me. Did she forget which country she was running for president of?
Click to expand...

That sounds counter majoritarian and actually against what is in step with the majority of Americans.

You can't spin away that most Americans supported her for president.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That sounds counter majoritarian and actually against what is in step with the majority of Americans.
Click to expand...
Simple majority rule was expicitly not ever the objective. Campaigning on the assumption of victory by simple majority is completely out of step with the country, both in principle and in practice.

You can't spin away that most Americans supported her for president.
Click to expand...
Most voters is not the same as most Americans. Your standard is flawed and your claim is spurious. No amount of spin will help you here.
 
theprestige said:
Simple majority rule was expicitly not ever the objective. Campaigning on the assumption of victory by simple majority is completely out of step with the country, both in principle and in practice.


Most voters is not the same as most Americans. Your standard is flawed and your claim is spurious. No amount of spin will help you here.
Click to expand...

We were not discussing out of step with a physical country. It was actual human beings we were talking about. And the actual human beings backed Clinton. She was in step with them.

You can go on fivethirtyeight and toggle popularity between everyone and likely voters. They are within less than a percentage point of each other.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We were not discussing out of step with a physical country. It was actual human beings we were talking about. And the actual human beings backed Clinton. She was in step with them.
Click to expand...
Millions of actual human beings didn't back Clinton. Including the ones who voted against her in key states and cost her the election. She was woefully out of step with exactly that part of the country she needed to win.

You can go on fivethirtyeight and toggle popularity between everyone and likely voters. They are within less than a percentage point of each other.
Click to expand...
If there's one thing we learned in 2016, it's that political polling is also out of step with the country.
 
theprestige said:
Millions of actual human beings didn't back Clinton. Including the ones who voted against her in key states and cost her the election. She was woefully out of step with exactly that part of the country she needed to win.


If there's one thing we learned in 2016, it's that political polling is also out of step with the country.
Click to expand...

2016 confirmed that political polling gets it right.

You are moving the goalposts from the country to part of the country she needed to win. If the person linked had a view aligned with that, it wouldn't have warranted a comment from me.
 
BobTheCoward said:
2016 confirmed that political polling gets it right.
Click to expand...
In fact the opposite is true. The Clinton 2016 campaign relied on polling to determine not to put any significant effort into getting in step with the parts of the country she needed to win the election.

You are moving the goalposts from the country to part of the country she needed to win. If the person linked had a view aligned with that, it wouldn't have warranted a comment from me.
Click to expand...

Being out of step with the part of the country that one needs to win a national election counts as being out of step with the country, in my opinion. Elected officials represent the entire electorate, not just the part of the electorate they're "in step" with.

With which they are in step.

Anyway, your "anti-majoritarian" complaint is a red herring. Majority rule was never the intention.
 
theprestige said:
In fact the opposite is true. The Clinton 2016 campaign relied on polling to determine not to put any significant effort into getting in step with the parts of the country she needed to win the election.



Being out of step with the part of the country that one needs to win a national election counts as being out of step with the country, in my opinion. Elected officials represent the entire electorate, not just the part of the electorate they're "in step" with.

With which they are in step.

Anyway, your "anti-majoritarian" complaint is a red herring. Majority rule was never the intention.
Click to expand...

I interpret the post I was responding to as making a majoritarian argument. Whatever the intention of the system is, I'm responding to the argument being made, not what I wish it to be.

If someone makes the wrong interpretation from polling doesn't mean the polling is wrong.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I interpret the post I was responding to as making a majoritarian argument. Whatever the intention of the system is, I'm responding to the argument being made, not what I wish it to be.
Click to expand...
You lost me. Which post is making a majoritarian argument, in your interpretation?

If someone makes the wrong interpretation from polling doesn't mean the polling is wrong.
Click to expand...
I have no opinion about that.
 
angrysoba said:
I’m not interested in defending Sanders so much as getting the person accusing him of ordering a doxxing to substantiate the claim. It looked like you were attempting to do so on Travis’s behalf but having fallen short you are now backing away.
Click to expand...

Well you were are wrong. And now you make another false claim.

Good grief. I am not and never have been pro-Sanders. I simply didn't want to wait for Travis before finding out what he was on about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom