• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
EricTheGamerman

EricTheGamerman

Banned
Aug 12, 2019
5,159
Slayven said:
The thing about the media did Bernie dirty narrrative is that, is that the media had left Joe for dead leading up to NH and IA, and then was burying him in a shallow grave in the backyard afterwards. Sure they acknowledged he would win SC, but no one expected the margins. Except people that were paying attack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Negative media coverage of Biden =/= Negative Media Coverage of Bernie, nor was the Positive Media Coverage of Biden = "Positive Coverage of Sanders." Biden got the "We're disappointed he's not performing well and it looks like other candidates might be the moderate to run with" versus being compared to Nazis, Coronavirus, and fearmongering about every single facet of his candidacy. Even when Biden was doing poorly, he wasn't being ignored like Bernie was when he was doing well.

Ignatz Mouse said:
This is only true if you cherry pick the worst of Biden's record and amplify it over the internet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's more than Cherry Picking when it comes to Biden. His record is just all over the place and blatantly awful in some areas, with changes only happening when things became politically convenient for him in some places.


Beyond both of you, the point is people were undecided and it's not like they rejected Bernie outright, they just accepted Biden's "electability" at the last minute. People want to endlessly complain Sanders turned off voters with his platform and was too antagonistic and that cost him voters, but a massive portion of the voting base didn't give a shit because they just wanted someone who could beat Trump and the narrative around Biden became compelling enough to sway them through various endorsements and wall to wall media coverage. They would have absolutely voted for Bernie if he had done better in South Carolina because they weren't opposed to him, they were opposed to Trump specifically. The increased voter turnout is not excitement for Joe Biden, it's anger at Trump. Sure, Bernie didn't make the in roads he absolutely could have in some places and that hurt him, but he wasn't some massively unpopular candidate versus the incredible popularity of Biden. There's just so much more to this primary that people throw out the window to try to punch down on Bernie every single time and elevate Biden.
 
SmokeMaxX

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,336
I know this is the era of Twitter, but you dont get any points for saying you're on the right side of history. You know why people hate Pelosi? Because shes in a position of power and getting there requires figuring out how to get things done.

That's how the government works. Go ahead and tell me how you're going to control the Senate with far leftist heros. Tell me exactly what states you're going to win. No matter how many times you look at the map, you're still gonna need that one Senator in Arizona. Or the other one in West Virginia. Or maybe you'll get lucky and win a seat in Missouri. Until the country tilts further left, you have to support people who can win. The far left can primary sitting legislators if they want, but winning a primary in Oklahoma and then losing a previously Democratic seat means less funding for education, abortion clinics, etc.
 
EricTheGamerman

EricTheGamerman

Banned
Aug 12, 2019
5,159
schuelma said:
The leader of a caucus doesn't endorse a challenger to a member of her caucus That's just..reality. Like you say, this isn't a video game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, no Pelosi choosing to endorse the piece of shit that is Cuellar is one of her worst moves. The party can choose who it supports and it literally backed one of the, if not the most, conservative Representative in the party over a new face that was performing very well and probably would have won with support.

I also think it's gross that Bernie and AOC didn't do more to support her as well, but at least they didn't endorse fucking Cuellar.
 
schuelma

schuelma

Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,901
EricTheGamerman said:
Yeah, no Pelosi choosing to endorse the piece of shit that is Cuellar is one of her worst moves. The party can choose who it supports and it literally backed one of the, if not the most, conservative Representative in the party over a new face that was performing very well and probably would have won with support.

I also think it's gross that Bernie and AOC didn't do more to support her as well, but at least they didn't endorse fucking Cuellar.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Caucus leaders do not endorse primary challengers to caucus members. That's just politics 101. The only time its even remotely possible is if the caucus member is like literally under investigation or something and is kicked out of the caucus.

You cannot lead a caucus and then leave open the possibility that you wouldn't support a member of that caucus.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Bernie had 100% name recognition. "Manufactured Consent" is a fancy way to say "People who oppose my ideas are just being tricked." It's yet another way to pass off blame.
EricTheGamerman said:
Bernie made mistakes, and a small section on the left are struggling with that, sure...

But constantly saying "No Self-Reflection" when there was blatantly a huge number of forces against him (some internal and certainly some of his own doing, I'm not denying those played a role either) just serves to piss people off. Don't do it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
People are saying "no self reflection" because there was absolutely none after 2016 and it led directly to "do the same thing expecting different results" in 2020.
 
Arkeband

Arkeband

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
7,663
schuelma said:
Without moderate democrats the GOP would control the House. Again, there needs to be a recognition of actual political realities in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unfalsifiable claim. However, there is empirical evidence that voter apathy largely comes from beliefs like "both parties are the same". Additionally, nonvoters tend to be progressive, which makes sense if both parties actively spurn that demographic.

From NPR:
"The one consistent finding from 1972 up through 2008 and in subsequent elections are that voters and nonvoters have different preferences on economic policies," said Jan Leighley, co-author with Jonathan Nagler of the book Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States.

Her research found that nonvoters are more likely, for example, to support a redistribution of wealth, housing bailouts and expanded social safety net programs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Captjohnboyd

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,569
Arkeband said:
Unfalsifiable claim. However, there is empirical evidence that voter apathy largely comes from beliefs like "both parties are the same". Additionally, nonvoters tend to be progressive, which makes sense if both parties actively spurn that demographic.

From NPR:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I hate to break it to you but those economic redistributive non-voters also tend to be racists. Non-voters are not the progressives you think they are
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Labor said:
"Nonvoters tend to be progressive"

Man look
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the perfect post.

The fact that your username is Labor sells it even more.

People who don't vote just don't give a shit about politics, I would guess at least 90% of them could not express a coherent ideology or world view. Yes, there are some conscientious objectors, but even a majority of them are full of shit (how many times have you heard "I don't vote because of the Electoral College" even outside of the context of presidential elections?).
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Labor said:
"Nonvoters tend to be progressive"

Man look
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Specifically, look here! https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/truth-about-non-voters/607051/

Nonvoters are also far less progressive than is commonly believed. They are more likely than voters to support constructing a wall on the southern border with Mexico, less likely to support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, less likely to support abortion rights, and less likely to favor gun control. Nonvoters do skew left on some important economic issues, such as support for a higher minimum wage. But on the defining cultural issues of the moment, they are markedly more conservative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, I really thought Gabbard was going to give it a third-party run, but I'm glad she's not!
 
John Dunbar

John Dunbar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,229
not a fan of tulsi, but i never saw any compelling reason to think she was thinking about a third party run, and the russian asset stuff was just nonsense.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
John Dunbar said:
not a fan of tulsi, but i never saw any compelling reason to think she was thinking about a third party run, and the russian asset stuff was just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
tbf Hillary said she was a Republican asset, the New York Times misreported it. She also never accused Tulsi of being a willing Republican asset, though given how often she goes on Fox News to hand-wring about the Democrats and spout Republican talking points I don't think that's an unfair assessment.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
saenima said:
What you fail to understand is that the game itself does not allow meaningful change, if you play by its rules. By design. You might argue that Sanders was destined to fail. But guess what. So was Warren. I guess she didn't really understand it either.

Let's be clear about why Sanders was destined to fail though. The Democratic Party leadership only really cared about one thing this primary. Get Sanders the fuck out of the race. Liberals ran the whole spectrum of idiocy, to the ludicrous point of seriously considering backing motherfucking Bloomberg. Effectively, a Republican millionaire, as close to Trump as you can reasonably get. Bloomberg. Let that sink in. Only Biden waking up from the dead prevented that scenario.

You're right in that Sanders did not deserve anyone's vote a priori. But this is true for everyone.

Your last point is not something to commemorate. Voting party over policy is how we get parties that stop listening to their voter base. It's how Dems got into the position they're in, where they mostly stand for nothing but the survival of the broken system that allows them to even exist. I don't vote for teams and neither should anyone. I vote for policy.

The Dem Party nowadays is essentially the old Republican Party with less overt racism and a weak tactical use of idpol come election time. Past election time it's back to the same old 'better things are not possible' and 'let's look for compromise from the weakest position possible and call it a win'.

The Democratic Party became the 'We Can't' Party.

A real opposition party does not vote to fund putting children in cages while chiding protesters with civility scolds. They get to the fucking streets and protest alongside the people
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you for your posts over the last few pages. You are right on these points.

I think it's important to remember that the Democratic Party is not a true opposition party. They are paid to be ultimately ineffective by the donors. Someone like Sanders challenges this and so cannot be tolerated. Which is why you saw the party coalesce around Biden before Super Tuesday, to avoid splitting the race and making Bernie nominee. I don't have a problem with that because Bernie needed to earn those votes even in a 2-man primary, and he failed to do so. At the same time, Biden needs to earn the votes of progressives in the general election.

Moving forward I think that leftists should starve bad Democratic candidates of votes, and vote for good Democratic candidates to gradually change the face of the party. As it is right now this is not a progressive party on the national level. We are going to have to fight like hell to change the party into an actual workers party and not just a mouthpiece for Wall Street and the healthcare industry.
 
Zombegoast

Zombegoast

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,239
Kirblar said:
Bernie had 100% name recognition. "Manufactured Consent" is a fancy way to say "People who oppose my ideas are just being tricked." It's yet another way to pass off blame.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And it has nothing to do with decades of propaganda from Republicans. With democrats now doing the same thing.

Ronald Reagan was against socializing medicine because it doesn't give people the freedom of choice.

Democrats and Pundits now using the same talking about point, telling them they like their private insurance and the public option giving them a "choice".
 
Azzanadra

Azzanadra

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,806
Canada
User Banned (1 week): ignoring the modpost in regards to hostility
Cheebo said:
Chapo actively push their audience to stay home and help Trump get re-elected. They are effectively an arm of the Republican Party. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lol, you liberals do a lot more to keep people at home with your constant kicking down and berating of leftist Bernie supporters and with takes like these.
 
alexiswrite

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Zombegoast said:
And it has nothing to do with decades of propaganda from Republicans. With democrats now doing the same thing.

Ronald Reagan was against socializing medicine because it doesn't give people the freedom of choice.

Democrats and Pundits now using the same talking about point, telling them they like their private insurance and the public option giving them a "choice".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Looking at the arguments people make in politics as about people's relationship to radical change is way more informative than viewing it as a genuine ideological battle.
 
saenima

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
Apharmd said:
Thank you for your posts over the last few pages. You are right on these points.

I think it's important to remember that the Democratic Party is not a true opposition party. They are paid to be ultimately ineffective by the donors. Someone like Sanders challenges this and so cannot be tolerated. Which is why you saw the party coalesce around Biden before Super Tuesday, to avoid splitting the race and making Bernie nominee. I don't have a problem with that because Bernie needed to earn those votes even in a 2-man primary, and he failed to do so. At the same time, Biden needs to earn the votes of progressives in the general election.

Moving forward I think that leftists should starve bad Democratic candidates of votes, and vote for good Democratic candidates to gradually change the face of the party. As it is right now this is not a progressive party on the national level. We are going to have to fight like hell to change the party into an actual workers party and not just a mouthpiece for Wall Street and the healthcare industry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Corporations all but own the two political parties. Workers and therefore the vast majority of people have no real representation. Democrats who support Biden and the other establishment candidates are essentially arguing for the privilege of fighting over scraps.

Please dare to want better.

Personally, i'm getting old. But my strongest wish for the newer generations is for them to completely renege on the cowardice and selfishness of both mine and the older generations.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
saenima said:
Corporations all but own the two political parties. Workers and therefore the vast majority of people have no real representation. Democrats who support Biden and the other establishment candidates are essentially arguing for the privilege of fighting over scraps.

Please dare to want better.

Personally, i'm getting old. But my strongest wish for the newer generations is for them to completely renege on the cowardice and selfishness of both mine and the older generations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You can want a "Worker's Party" all you want. The white working class will never play ball because they collectively value white supremacy over class solidarity. And thus, you must look for other coalitions that are able to work towards those goals without throwing minorities under the bus in the process.
 

Deleted member 11637

Oct 27, 2017
18,204
Fuck me LA Times, remove your paywall for all these coronavirus articles.
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
The Albatross said:
This is both sidesism though. Like sure, Biden acting like your comely grandfather is his brand, while someone wrongly accusing a civil rights legend of killing cats is part of their brand, but one is normal, adjusted human behavior (Biden), and one is disgusting.

That it is part of their brand to be offensive or say horribly false things either for laughs or political capital shouldn't excuse them from criticism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see the point of this criticism. Is the longterm goal to get them to stop? Like I criticize Dems for civility politics because I feel it has a tendency to paper over material issues with niceties and decorum. The ultimate goal is to draw focus away from what I consider to be the distractions of performative civility, but I wouldn't expect Biden and his wing of the party to stop deploying this strategy. The strategy clearly produces (electoral) results coinciding with their goals (electoral performance). Criticizing the Cumtown guys for being nasty online is trying to make a case that they shouldn't exist or do what they do, the correct target for this is to go after their audience. Telling your liberal friends how bad cumtown is and how you shouldn't pay them any attention is preaching to the choir. Indeed, if their schtick is making typical liberals mad at their antics then surely getting mad at their antics is actually leaning into their branding?

Which is to say I think trying to criticize someone with "stop doing the things that fulfill your career/life/strategic goals" is a total waste of time.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 8741

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,917
I know it's a low bar, but at this point in our nation, I just want an adult in the room. I genuinely would breathe better if fuckin Mitt Romney was in charge. I don't even like the dude at all.

Seriously, at this point, I know some people don't like Biden, but I just don't care. Give me an adult.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Octodad said:
I know it's a low bar, but at this point in our nation, I just want an adult in the room. I genuinely would breathe better if fuckin Mitt Romney was in charge. I don't even like the dude at all.

Seriously, at this point, I know some people don't like Biden, but I just don't care. Give me an adult.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah on the flip side of the usual Era discourse, my fiancee nannies for a wealthy family, both the mom and dad are strong Republicans but they hate Trump and the mom said she'll vote Democratic this year just to get him out. They were talking about Biden's address and the mom said something like "you know, I didn't like Obama, but at least I never had to worry about him handling things like these, and I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Biden right now."

And like... yeah. I'm not convinced Biden would be a great president, but the government simply being able to operate on a day-to-day basis without any of Trump's self-induced chaos? It's a very low bar, but one I think he wouldn't have any problem clearing.
 

Deleted member 8741

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,917
Aaron said:
Yeah on the flip side of the usual Era discourse, my fiancee nannies for a wealthy family, both the mom and dad are strong Republicans but they hate Trump and the mom said she'll vote Democratic this year just to get him out. They were talking about Biden's address and the mom said something like "you know, I didn't like Obama, but at least I never had to worry about him handling things like these, and I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Biden right now."

And like... yeah. I'm not convinced Biden would be a great president, but the government simply being able to operate on a day-to-day basis without any of Trump's self-induced chaos? It's a very low bar, but one I think he wouldn't have any problem clearing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So many wealthy conservatives that aren't die hard Trumpers are going to do the same. I think it's going to be a bloodbath. Biden is tolerable for them. They voted for Trump in 2016 because "the system will hold him accountable" and they thought the conservative policy would benefit them. Now they realize that's not true and they're cutting ties.
 
platocplx

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,072
Octodad said:
So many wealthy conservatives that aren't die hard Trumpers are going to do the same. I think it's going to be a bloodbath. Biden is tolerable for them. They voted for Trump in 2016 because "the system will hold him accountable" and they thought the conservative policy would benefit them. Now they realize that's not true and they're cutting ties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
yep id be shocked. This is why this is a great time for progressives to try and win down ticket races. and honestly thats where we can see a ton of new policy changes.
 
Christo750

Christo750

Member
May 10, 2018
4,263
I've stated here that I would vote for Biden despite the transparently blind preferential treatment by the DNC around his terrible campaign, but given Trump's uniquely awful response to COVID-19, I'm going to do so with gusto now. Biden is, IMO, the worst possible fix and is the equivalent of putting a lid on Trumpism, which will cause Trumpism to do nothing but boil over harder than before, but I want this motherfucker to go down so bad.

Considering that Biden's voting history being in lockstep with the group-think that got us in a 40-year decline is still present within him, I'm really unsure how it'll go. Given his age and condition, if he picks a bullshit VP like Klobuchar or Harris, it only makes that vote harder. It'll be Tim Kaine all over again.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Octodad said:
So many wealthy conservatives that aren't die hard Trumpers are going to do the same. I think it's going to be a bloodbath. Biden is tolerable for them. They voted for Trump in 2016 because "the system will hold him accountable" and they thought the conservative policy would benefit them. Now they realize that's not true and they're cutting ties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The way I see it is this: if I suddenly woke up and didn't know who any of these politicians were, and you showed me a clip of Biden's address on coronavirus and told me that was the president, I wouldn't think anything of it. He's like when they use a generic president in a movie or a TV show, just a bog standard, calm, professional authority figure (usually white and male). It's not that we can't do better, but he's functional.

Chaser, the dad my fiancee works for works in finance, he manages stock portfolios for athletes. This is basically ruining his life. Dunno if he voted for Trump in 2016, but he's hated him at least ever since he became president, and while he probably wouldn't have been able to stomach Bernie or Warren, Biden's a pretty safe bet for him.
 
Cat Party

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,419
I don't want to be too negative on the "protest vote" crowd. I can envision a scenario where I, too, would withhold a vote for president.

But this just isn't the time. There is a tangible difference between what a Trump presidency means for the most vulnerable and what a Biden presidency means.

I am not, in any way, excited about Biden. I have my own list of what I want to see in year one from the next Dem president, and I frankly don't think Biden will do any of it. IMO, the best chance with Biden is that he runs essentially a caretaker presidency, where the federal government gets a chance to recover and re-equip from four years of chaos and cruelty. Then, we get a chance at a more bold administration. That's worth voting for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.