The whole "Corbyn is being smeared" stuff coming from the UK left over any negative story about him was a complete head-in-sand ostrich moment, and that approach can't be repeated here, or the same thing will happen. You literally had a twitter account called "Stats for Lefties" being unironically posted in the election thread that was to the 2019 election what Karl Rove and "Numbers to make Right Wingers feel good" was in 2012 w/ Romney/Obama.
i just completely disagree. sanders staying on-message, repeating sentiment he's stood by already for decades, and not making a bigger issue out of it is absolutely the best way to dismantle a bomb. not answering or flip flopping without justification are both explosively awful scenarios, especially for a frontrunner. being consistent, even regarding topics that could be considered controversial, is bernie's best strategy. he's got more than one "strong opinion" from his younger years and so far none of them have turned into a major issue in the press.
I'm saying that the nominally "socialist" one (Castro) is getting the benefit of the doubt to contrast with the non-nominally "socialist" one (Putin) who isn't.
So people won't have an issue with the authoritarian dictator thing, which is something we're actually much closer towards here in the US - with an executive shitting on refugees everyday. But they'll really only care about a "democratic socialist" label where he's clarified plenty of times is about social safety nets like the Nordic Model - not seizing the means of production. And they'll also not care about Trump's own hand-picked AG actually suggesting that this government should start seizing certain companies?
it becomes the news story because, what, bernie supporters on twitter pass around screenshots, also devoid of context, because they're obsessed with finding instances of "bias"? the article is criticizing bernie and the progressive movement more broadly! it did not change from a pro-bernie piece to an anti-bernie piece by an editor adjusting a headline to more accurately represent the thesis. the headline change is not the problem, lol.
Take with grain of salt:
Because I wouldn't describe authoritarians like Castro/Chavez/Maduro as actually being "socialist" in any serious manner beyond lip service, they just used the label to obtain power and then created a dictatorship while giving economic control to their cronies. This is in contrast to someone like Morales, who very much walked the walk on actual left policy that wasn't just hand-outs to political supporters in disguise even though there was a weeee little problem with him wanting to be President for life.
deadass we have as much of a chance in winning texas as we do florida
yes, it becomes the story. how it's shared doesn't so much matter as that it's shared. specifically among the crowd that's most likely to take greatest offense to it. outlets put out sanders-critical articles all the time and it's water under the bridge. the new york times editng a headline to be distintly more anti-sanders post-publication is bigger news. that's just the way it is.
youre right its not. but it sure feels like it looking at some polls
And demographics.
If you want to make a distinction between Nordic Social Democracy and crony authoritarianism, it helps to distance yourself from the assholes who used left ideology to turn their countries into authoritarian hellscapes so that you can help push back against "both side-ing".
Yeah I don't think 3 races is a good metric to say that high turnout may hurt him. Especially when he won the popular vote of all 3 lol
The issue with Florida is it's like 4 different states in one. Very few candidates are equally palatable throughout the state.
Yes. Caucuses always have lower turnout. NV had lower turnout than Iowa, even with more opportunity to caucus.
Take with grain of salt:
Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?
FiveThirtyEight's polls and forecast for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary election.projects.fivethirtyeight.com
Because it's possible no one will have a majority of delegates.
It's also strange to make that claim with Nevada as in a higher turnout scenario latino voters would probably have been a bigger share of the electorate.
That shows who will win the majority of delegates and thus the nomination. You need 1991 to have a majority which is 50% + 1 delegate.
aight, i'm always for talking out any subject, but this is several replies now where you've been very condescending. cheers.
No doubt in hell lol. You can a conversation about the things Cuba has and hasnt done well after 1959, there is definitely lots to talk about about.
