User banned (1 week); Ignoring staff post in regard to hostility
Lool bye fucwad
Shame you're seemingly immune to being permed but we'll take what we can get
-
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 Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Shame you're seemingly immune to being permed but we'll take what we can get
Was he a frontrunner aside from being fronted by the DNC and media? I'm not sure anyone wanted him.
The DNC and media don't control the polls. He was the frontrunner because he was VP to a super popular president for 8 years.
He was and still is the top polling candidate nationally for at least a year now.
That's def gonna change as these days go on as they have.
He was the frontrunner before he announced, and even polled highly in 2016 despite an insistence he wasn't going to run.
I don't think a lot of people paid much attention until they had to vote
They don't though. They're accurate, just people forgot how terrible of a campaigner Biden was.
"Those polls" are literally every poll from at least a dozen different orgs
I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Biden has a lot of support because of the image of electability. The problem is that the basis of your campaign being electability doesn't work if you start losing. Which results in declining polls, which means you start losing more. Electability is not exactly the most moving reason for someone to vote for you.
The guy needs to win and poll well more than just about any other candidate.
The CNN South Carolina black voters focus group is telling. They all support Biden because of electability. Only a single person admitted to supporting him in the primary.
I don't think so. It just means his support isn't basically concrete and firm. Butt is eating his lunch right now because he's showing himself as more "electable".
the only demographics centrists care about are upper-middle class suburbanites and boomers. everyone else gets platitudes, and if you don't like those platitudes and you don't get in line you are a literally a fascist.
Well from a materialist perspective, we cannot blame Engels and Marx because during the time period they live in, education was most accessible to those in the upper-echelons of society. Thus, they would not have been able to write and publish their work without having been well-off during that time. Lenin was walthy too, as was Che. One cannot expect a 19th-century proletariat to have had the ability and accessibility to education that would have led them to developing theories as robust and intellectually profound as Marxism.
Now with education being very accessible to most people in the western world, we cannot exonerate Steyer in the same way, unless he gives up his billions or something.
Last edited:
Biden was the frontrunner before voting started yes.
yep, if you're a d in a red area a lot of people are more than happy to throw you out with the trash
i actually think Michael Bloomberg might be my one exception to the vote blue no matter who thing. I guess climate makes that a tough decision but I really, really don't want to reward a republican billionaire literally just buying the presidency. like i just cant. i dont think id be able to do it
He's good on gun control and climate change which would be more than I could say about his challenger.
The biggest civil rights laws specifically targeting disabled Americans (IDEA and its predecessor, the ADA and its 2008 amendments) came under Republican administrations (I'm not stanning for Repubs here, but merely pointing this out). Section 8 housing voucher programs date back to Nixon (and modern public housing more broadly) and haven't been meaningfully improved by Democrats from their means-tested, quickly-evaporating nature. Unions have been allowed to wither despite being huge centers of Democratic support since the late 70s. The record shows that Dems in power are not out there fighting for these Americans. Congresspeople, yes, but not presidents.
The polls were right. Trump didn't win the popular vote, which is what the polls measure. Hillary's win in the popular vote was in line with what the polls said right before election day.
Similarly, Biden was the front runner nationally for the entire pre-primary race. He lost in Iowa because Biden's lead in the national polls was largely due to older people of color supporting him, a demographic that's basically absent in Iowa. Now that he's lost Iowa (a state that he hadn't had a consistent lead in the polls since September), that support is slipping.
I mean, Bill Clinton had NAFTA and was close to messing with Social Security. Centrist Dems don't care about the working class.
The irony here is that Southern Democrats who are overwhelmingly non-white are often the ones most ignored. I recall certain states being outright dismissed last time around because "a Democrat won't win there anyway".
I don't wish to exonerate him but surely a man like Steyer being born into wealth (was he born into wealth?) is analogous to Pete being born to noted Gramsci scholar Joseph Buttigieg. Sometimes a parent/person fails to impress upon their progeny the lessons they learned; I notice Harris has a similar backstory. If we allow for families breaking away from socialism over one generation, I think we should also allow for families trying to hop on the People's Train.
I won't mince words here, I'm salivating at putting his capital to use to push socialism (I think it'd be a better usage of it than standard Anglosphere philanthropy), so I admit my motivations are entirely mercenary. Also wanted to point out that while education is democratized now, it wasn't in Steyer's day.
Great post, Sean. I know a lot of people preach "listen to marginalized voices," so I hope we can all start practicing that better, especially in regards to disabled folks and the impoverished.
I'm not going to call anyone else, but y'all please take Sean's post to heart. It's not some callous "if I don't get shiny new toys I'm gonna take my ball and go home" or any kind of petulance. If somebody has voted straight democrat for 20 years, all the while being told "you can have better things later," "We'll do right by you later," and that later never comes because the can keeps getting kicked down the road in perpetuity, this represents a serious problem. Coercion via shaming isn't going to help, it's just callous.
When the can keeps getting kicked down the road, and we cannot even collectively come together to acknowledge why that is such a problem, it's tantamount to dismissing and ignoring the voices this system takes advantage of.
Yes. His father was a partner in a big law firm and a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials.
National polls of Dem candidates vs Trump are not the issue, they all pretty much lead that. Winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin or some other collection of states like AZ, FL, NC is the concern. I don't know if Bernie can flip the required states against Trump. Though I don't know if anyone can do it.
Are you asking for receipts here because you're trying to argue that Democrats routinely listen to marginalized voices and shape their platform and policies to improve the lives of people in society's margins? Or are you seriously, sincerely unaware of the uncountable number of ways liberalism and establishment democrats have used us when it's politically convenient only to leave us behind until it comes time for the next election?
States like Louisiana and Georgia have similar minority percentages comparable to California. About 60% white to 40% minorities. Yet they're solid republican states. For the Democrats, not much being done to really appeal to the average voter in these states.
I think Bernie has a chance to flip MI, PA, and WI. Not saying it's guaranteed but there's a chance. Everyone else? No way.
really says a lot about their morals. like i somewhat understand not supporting him but hating him so ardently is wild
Except California doesn't have the history of racism and systemic oppression states like LA, GA, AL, and MS have. It also has larger population centers which tends to lead to more liberal ideology. The problem is that appealing to voters in those southern states means taking a more conservative platform that disenfranchises those (mostly black) voters who do show up for Democrats.
What? Yeah it does. there's a reason why LAPD is like one of the worst police departments in the whole country.
MI, PA and WI were lost by the tiniest of margins. Any of the top 5 has similar chances at winning them
Would excluding the contributions from sex traffickers really help us defeat Trump?
We need a Democratic party that is defined by how many people we include, not by who we exclude.
/s
Wait, what? No. Putting aside that anywhere in the US has a history of racism and systemic oppression, you're talking about the state of Three Strikes, Rodney King, starvation in minority communities, and extreme redlining designed to keep cities segregated. That's to say nothing of suburban and rural California.
They do influence the polls a great deal, though, and I don't imagine you'd want to argue that them putting their thumbs on the scale can't make a massive difference.
I really think Bernie would struggle here in Florida. The repubs are going to obfuscate Sanders message and the Elderly will turn out against him in droves. Luckily, he doesn't need us to win! The rust belt states really haven't seen a lot of benefits from Trumps presidency will give Sanders message a more positive reception. I honestly feel that Georgia and NC are a lost cause this cycle. Resources would be much better allocated in states where Democrats have a realistic chance of winning.
Yeah. Let's worry a little less about Fox news, Republican talking points and 'people's eyes' and worry more about keeping things factual. No matter who the Dem nominee is- they're getting branded a socialist. Doesn't mean we need to join in.
It has its own problems with race relations, but implying the 2 regions are the same because demographics are similar just ignores entirely too much context. Additionally, it ignores the fact that 6.5% of Californians identify as black compared to a place like Georgia where that number is over 30%. The historical systemic racism in Southern former-Jim Crow States is much deeper than racial bias in law enforcement—which those states also have. It's in voting rights, housing, employment, etc.
"... like LA, GA, AL, and MS have."
No. It doesn't. It really doesn't, dude.
Which is the same in California. California try to be one of the more of liberal parts of the nation but yeah it's still suffers from the same problems as Georgia or any other state in the Union. The issues around African-Americans is systemic one Nation wide
Obama was still called a socialist even after bailing out the banks lol. Nothing will change their mind so who cares
- Status