-
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.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Okay, then tell that to the voters. As it happens, Bloomberg is polling third nationally behind Biden and Sanders and has won a whopping zero delegates.
We agree to disagree then. I think if youre going to run for a spot on the democratic ticket, you at the very least, shouldn't be the opponent of the party youre attempting to get the nom for. But I guess some people think we should allow donald trump to run as a democrat. Kind of crazy anyone would be cool with that honestly.
I disagree. None of the other candidates want him to buy his way in. They'll take turns shooting his legs out from under him.
It's settled now so I suppose we'll find out who is right at/after the debate.
Last time I checked, someone buying their way into an election, whether it's from ridiculously expensive ad buys, cringe-inducing influencer pushes, or direct donations to the DNC, isn't called democracy.
Pffft and some people say that Bernie is not a unity candidate.
weren't the rules changed to allow him on the stage in the first place?
Good for them. The leadership opposition's motivations for opposing Sanders were transparent as hell. Glad the workers are seeing through it.
I believe that he's a registered Democrat
And if you start requiring that you have to be a Democrat to run in the primary, that means Bernie can't run
I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
Only so he can run on their platform. Hes a republican. His policies are going to be republican. He should not be allowed on the ticket.
The hope that the democratic primary voters see through it better?
Cause if they don't then we're fucked anyway
Bloomberg isn't running for the Republican nom? I mean say what you want about the rank and file dems, I'd give them the bare minimum credit that they'd be against "smarter Trump" once his past is broadly exposed. Also, the prevailing sentiment is that Bloomberg is a terrible debater, so seeing how he deals with people dragging him through his past racist comments and policies should hopefully be effective. No one knows for sure though.
You realize anyone can qualify for the Dem ticket if they fill out paperwork in time, right?
Being smarter than someone doesn't mean you would be a good debater. Bloomberg has zero charisma and isn't really a great speaker.
I remember thinking republicans were above it before they nominated Trump.
Half expecting the same w/ democrats wrt bloomberg especially considering he's polling so high right now.
The DNC specifically changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage for the debates. He only qualified because they wanted him to.
Qualifying for the debate has literally nothing to do with qualifying to run in the primary. Not sure why you're conflating the two.
Bernie has run against Democrats. Bernie has taken every opportunity to put daylight between himself and the Democratic Party. Bernie has historically has poor participation in Democratic Party fundraising and functions.
But he qualifies for the primary so he gets to run, as it should be. The Party standard-bearer should be decided by the actual members of the party. I am not in favor of an authoritarian party structure.
Bloomberg was a Republican for 5 out of 78 years, that is such a nonsense argument against a guy with real problems
Especially when everyone knows why he became a Republican and it had nothing to do with policy. Bernie gets a pass for (occasionally) becoming a Democrat for the exact same reason Bloomberg "became a Republican" in 2001. An easier path to election
Especially when everyone knows why he became a Republican and it had nothing to do with policy. Bernie gets a pass for (occasionally) becoming a Democrat for the exact same reason Bloomberg "became a Republican" in 2001. An easier path to election
I think it's important to shy away from making huge generalizations and I personally don't like the term "Bernie Bro" (yes I know it's in some of the articles linked below, it's a dumb term). I really dislike Pete but I think all of the "mayo" and "rat" stuff is ridiculous and childish, as was the snake emoji business for Warren. I'm trying to imagine the reaction if people started referring to Sanders as a rat or a snake constantly or came up with a shitty, denigrating nickname for him and just kept that in play at all times when referring to him as has happened with Pete.
It's clearly not the entirety of Sanders supporters here or elsewhere but it's hard to argue that any other candidate has a subset of supporters with such a toxic reputation.
Nevada Union Says Sanders Supporters Harassed Members Over Medicare-For-All
The Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 workers, in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada, said Sanders supporters attacked the union online.
www.forbes.com
Bernie Bros Are Loud, Proud, and Toxic to Sanders’ Campaign
The Vermont independent is grappling with a toxic wedge of fandom that threatens to distract from his campaign and turn off potential supporters.
www.thedailybeast.com
The mean side of a political revolution
Some digital media experts say the level of hostility in pockets of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' online following outweighs that within the social media circles of his Democratic rivals.
www.cnn.com
On the other hand, mischaracterizing Sanders supporters as "brownshirts" or whatever bullshit Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews wants to propagate is insane and needs to be called out.
trump was a better reflection of the republican base than 'establishment' republicans. the average GOP voter runs off white grievance politics and "owning the libs". they ate Trump up. do you think the average democratic voter is really secretly a bloombergite? (and if so, what does that say about bernie's chances?)
The problem for Bloomberg is that the Democratic base is not a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals.
Yes, and they should have. Again, a not insubstantial number of voters currently support him. The party should it be denying voters the ability to hear from a viable candidate. They deserve that information.
Don't you think it's a good idea for Bloomberg to have to face the other candidates and explain his record rather than be able to pump endless "Mike Will Get It Done" ads (featuring Obama, no less) without pushback on primetime TV?
I actually have no idea what the party rules are about this. I would think that you have to be actually eligible for the office to qualify for the primary race (natural born citizen, 35 years old, not legally dead). Are you saying that's not right?
I already qualified my position as to why Bernie isn't a problem. He is a democrat and his positions align on the democratic policy spectrum. Bloomberg's do not.
#NeverWarren Attacks.
Mayor Pete Compared them to Trump Supporters.
Bernie's Supporters are least likely to support the eventual nominee.
When he announced in Feb 2019, he had to send a letter to surrogates asking them to chill out.
Sanders had to apologize to Joe Biden just a month ago.
Sanders has to regularly urge his supporters to show restraint.
And by regularly, I mean regularly.
Most recently that Culinary Union was attacked.
Even The Onion has picked up on how overzealous they can be.
Nevermind that this thread multiple times, multiple threads in OT, and PoliERA have been locked because a certain subset of Democratic Voters supporting a certain candidate have turned to negative attacks against other users.
Last edited:
And that should be a good thing for every other prospective nominee, because right now Bloomberg is spending a shit load of money to run a general election campaign inundating people with adds and growing his support unopposed. He'd be a piñata on the debate stage, the literal strawman billionaire plutocrat come to life for everyone else to take a solid whack at.
Then you checked wrong. Primary voters have the right to bases their decisions on whatever criteria they want. They best way to fight against the influence Bloomberg's money has on the election is to allow him in the debates, where his money doesn't matter and he will have to face his opponents and the electorate directly.
Thanks. I think I can see your point, though I don't entirely agree with it. In particular, the part about prevailing sentiment about who is/isn't a good debater. I think this is probably just an irreconcilable difference in opinion, though, which is fine.
I'm still of a mind he shouldn't be on the stage if for no other reason than he didn't qualify prior to him paying to have the rules changed, but what's done is done I guess.
What positions do and do not "align on the democratic policy spectrum" is so vague and free flowing, there is literally no way to actually enforce a rule like that if it was created
Democrats don't like it when you intentionally target black people with your police force and spy on mosques. Republicans do.
The Bolded portion is my exact point, and I agree with you on just about everything here. I am in no way saying that all Sanders supporters are malicious trolls, but also saying that you cannot ignore the fact that a disproportionate number of malicious trolls do so in defense of Sanders--compared to other candidates.
It's kind of funny that there is no study on how much the public option will cost the US, and yet they continue to use that as an attack. Bernie should just tell them how much will their plan cost. All Bernie has to say is that his plan will be cheaper because there are two studies about his plan showing that.
Bernie isn't a democrat.
He's an Independent that caucuses with the democrats.
Bloomberg technically is actually part of the party, so depending on which definition you choose, he's more of a democrat than Bernie.
That said, it's irrelevant either way, since they are both running within the DNC system.
But you'll argue for capitulating and taking money from an authoritarian racist and allowing him into the field while trying to suggest a candidate who has been part of the party for decades and is on the same spectrum as the party should would be equally disqualified (despite the fact i already gave my reasoning for the distinction).
I think if you want to run on the party's ticket you at the very least, shouldnt be oppositional to their positions IE being a republican. I wouldnt call such a stipulation authoritarian either lol
Unless were saying there are no distinctions between the republicans and democrats I'm not sure I agree with this
That goes without saying. At minimum, you'd need to be eligible for the office you're running for to file campaign paperwork and actually run and/or declare a party. But beyond that, anyone can run.
Bernie Sanders didn't speak at the Republican convention in support of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Bernie Sanders wasn't endorsed by Rudy Giuliani when he ran for mayor as a Republican.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop replying to you. I cannot in good faith continue to argue with you about this when you are being purposefully disingenuous. Without sarcasm, it is genuinely depressing.
Actually, he shouldn't be running in the Democratic primary in the first place, but the DNC (and others, apparently) would rather vote for a known racist, transphobic, misogynist Republican than anyone who would actually want to support the working class.
Here's the thing, if Bernie supporters come of as overzealous, can anyone really blame their passion? Like the world is literally dying around us and evil capitalists still rule the world with their shit-eating grins. You underestimate how people will react when you back them in a corner like this, look at what Lenin did to his enemies when their material conditions were bad enough. I'm not saying that's what will happen here, but its only natural that anger and resentment will continue to build.
In the abstract it's so disheartening when people say we can't afford m4a when so many other developed nations have some form of universal healthcare. And then people in those countries hear how much everything from ambulance rides to prescriptions cost in the US and it just dumbfounds them. We're so beaten down that these costs are they way it has t obe that people have a hard time accepting that if we forced prices in line with the averages in other countries, m4a would be no problem to pay for.
We already see how this worked out for a billionaire in 16. Idk why we expect it to be different this time around.
- Status