• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,084
Arkansas, USA
If my son ever engages in misogynistic behaviour (especially towards his own Mother) he will see a fury from me like he's never seen before. That kind of thing will never be tolerated in my house.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
I didn't expect Hillary to be a thousand times better at running for POTUS than Joe Biden, but I guess looking at their histories, I should have.

And I think Hillary was a poor candidate who, besides running against sexism and the FBI, also made bad hires (Robby FUCKING Mook) and was outright invisible as a campaigner in the GE.

Let me say it one more time: This field of candidates sucks.
I think Hillary's weaknesses are often exaggerated to the point of making her out to be a total dumpster fire candidate, and I don't mean to take any blame off her or her advisers because a lot of her problems were created or exacerbated by the decisions they made.

That being said, she would have cruised to the nomination in 2008 if Barack Obama hadn't been the smoothest motherfucker this side of John F. Kennedy, and he still only *just* beat her. People (usually from the Bernie camp, to be fair) act like 2016 was this close, drawn-out battle, but Hillary's advantage in the delegate fight over Bernie was more than four times that of Obama's over Hillary's. She probably could have muscled the Vice Presidency out of him if that was something she really wanted, but Secretary of State was a much better place for her.

The conventional wisdom (and again, mostly from the Bernie side) that she took the nomination for granted in 2016 is basically untrue and she won decisively. What ultimately sunk her in the general election was sexism (which, what the fuck was she supposed to do about that? Not be a woman?) and the Comey letter - a self-inflicted wound by Hillary during her tenure as SOS that the media concern trolled into fucking oblivion. Which really describes just about every issue she had - genuine concern exploited and exaggerated until it was about a hundred times worse than it actually was. You couldn't tell me a year before the election that fucking email security was at the forefront of anyone's mind going in, but here we are.

The "she would have won Wisconsin/Michigan if she'd campaigned there" thing is brought up constantly but it's kind of a misdirection. Those states weren't decisive. If she'd won PA and FL (states that were nearly as close and where she actually campaigned in), she would have won without their electoral votes. It would have been kind of a weird black eye, but remember too she was on track to carry them fairly comfortably... until the Comey Letter. That's it, that's the inflection point for all of 2016.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
I'm not a big Bernie fan and Warren is my choice, and I'm as annoyed by the Warren hate from Very Bernie people as anyone... but this seems really not helpful.

Eh, if Bernie fans can talk about how all Warren supporters are rich neoliberals who don't care about poor people as opposed to Bernie supporters, who just want free health care, I see no reason to point out that it seems odd that there's a very specific kind of reaction from a small loud segment of Bernie supporters when it comes moderate suburban women. It's just odd as hell, when again, in real life, I simply don't see the same enmity. I'm not attacking Sanders at all, but rather this weird segment of online (mostly) dudes and well, people who write for socialist magazines while their parents are rent-to-own millioniares, who have this seething hatred for "PMC's."

I'd also point this happened a bit among '08 Obama supporters, but Obama supporters were a larger group, it wasn't such a supposed straight ahead class battle, and other things that lessened toxicity among the loudest supporters on that plain of argument.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
I feel like the stories on establishment guy thinking about making endorsements is emblematic of how no one will coalesce around one moderate candidate.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
I feel like the stories on establishment guy thinking about making endorsements is emblematic of how no one will coalesce around one moderate candidate.

As Yglesias's Tweet said, "the Establishment is so committed to defeating Bernie, they'll do anything except....get behind Joe Biden and support him with millions of dollars in advertising."
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
I think Hillary's weaknesses are often exaggerated to the point of making her out to be a total dumpster fire candidate, and I don't mean to take any blame off her or her advisers because a lot of her problems were created or exacerbated by the decisions they made.

That being said, she would have cruised to the nomination in 2008 if Barack Obama hadn't been the smoothest motherfucker this side of John F. Kennedy, and he still only *just* beat her. People (usually from the Bernie camp, to be fair) act like 2016 was this close, drawn-out battle, but Hillary's advantage in the delegate fight over Bernie was more than four times that of Obama's over Hillary's. She probably could have muscled the Vice Presidency out of him if that was something she really wanted, but Secretary of State was a much better place for her.

The conventional wisdom (and again, mostly from the Bernie side) that she took the nomination for granted in 2016 is basically untrue and she won decisively. What ultimately sunk her in the general election was sexism (which, what the fuck was she supposed to do about that? Not be a woman?) and the Comey letter - a self-inflicted wound by Hillary during her tenure as SOS that the media concern trolled into fucking oblivion. Which really describes just about every issue she had - genuine concern exploited and exaggerated until it was about a hundred times worse than it actually was. You couldn't tell me a year before the election that fucking email security was at the forefront of anyone's mind going in, but here we are.

The "she would have won Wisconsin/Michigan if she'd campaigned there" thing is brought up constantly but it's kind of a misdirection. Those states weren't decisive. If she'd won PA and FL (states that were nearly as close and where she actually campaigned in), she would have won without their electoral votes. It would have been kind of a weird black eye, but remember too she was on track to carry them fairly comfortably... until the Comey Letter. That's it, that's the inflection point for all of 2016.

I see the reason in this argument, though I do give her more blame maybe than you do for not making sure of her firewall in WI/MI. Mook talking about GA a few days before the election was unforgivable even in light of the Comey letter coming in late and flipping the election.

Re: Sexism, I definitely wouldn't blame her for that. It's endlessly clear that this country only has time for conventionally attractive women under the age of fifty or so, preferably conservative, at least in a POTUS/VP election.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
I see the reason in this argument, though I do give her more blame maybe than you do for not making sure of her firewall in WI/MI. Mook talking about GA a few days before the election was unforgivable even in light of the Comey letter coming in late and flipping the election.

Re: Sexism, I definitely wouldn't blame her for that. It's endlessly clear that this country only has time for conventionally attractive women under the age of fifty or so, preferably conservative, at least in a POTUS/VP election.

Eh, I understand your argument, but I also think we also need an election where the Democratic female candidate hasn't had decades of smears as basically co-Public Enemy #1 to 50% of the country, sometimes amplified by the so-called Left, before we declare it's impossible for an older Democratic female candidate to win.
 

gcubed

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,785
I feel like the stories on establishment guy thinking about making endorsements is emblematic of how no one will coalesce around one moderate candidate.
No one wants to endorse a loser and right now the moderate lane is too fractured to ever have a winner. Biden is the best of the worst and until he proves he isn't completely shit by winning SC handily (if it's close in SC, the nomination is over on ST and people can quit sniping and crying about conspiracy theories and big bad centrists) people are going to shy away.

this also throws the whole line of thinking how the DNC is so scared of Bernie and he must be stopped into the trash heap. If they were that scared of a Bernie nomination you would we a lot more endorsements for Biden. I think the DNC is more scared of Bloomberg than Bernie
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
As Yglesias's Tweet said, "the Establishment is so committed to defeating Bernie, they'll do anything except....get behind Joe Biden and support him with millions of dollars in advertising."
I forgot add, I don't even think endorsements do anything, they're the bare minimum and none of the establishment will do it because... they don't want to be seen endorsing a loser? IDK WTH is going on
 

bluexy

Comics Enabler & Freelance Games Journalist
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
14,517
A couple new national polls:



YouGov is a B- Rated Pollster
#National @YouGovUS/@YahooNews (Post-debate) Poll:
Sanders 27%
Biden 21%
Warren 18%
Bloomberg 14%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 4%
Steyer 2%
Gabbard 1%



Morning Consult is a B/C rated pollster. Sanders +5, Biden even since most recent pre-debate poll.

#National @MorningConsult (Post-debate) Poll:
Sanders 32%
Biden 19%
Bloomberg 18%
Buttigieg 11%
Warren 11%
Klobuchar 4%
Steyer 3%
Gabbard 2%
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
Eh, I understand your argument, but I also think we also need an election where the Democratic female candidate hasn't had decades of smears as basically co-Public Enemy #1 to 50% of the country, sometimes amplified by the so-called Left, before we declare it's impossible for an older Democratic female candidate to win.

I'm not so sure. Through the prism of even this Democratic Primary, I think the men are getting away with some shit in their candidacies/pasts that the women don't get the same leeway for.
 

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,106
I see the reason in this argument, though I do give her more blame maybe than you do for not making sure of her firewall in WI/MI. Mook talking about GA a few days before the election was unforgivable even in light of the Comey letter coming in late and flipping the election.

I kind of jokingly wonder if staying out of WI and maybe MI actually helped her, lol. Clinton's approvals are best when she's not running for something. Maybe not kicking the hornets nest was better lol.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,781
I'm not so sure. Through the prism of even this Democratic Primary, I think the men are getting away with some shit in their candidacies/pasts that the women don't get the same leeway for.

Oh sure - I'm not saying there'd be no sexism in another situation.

But, I think why Hillary lost was "sexism + 30 years of being Public Enemy #1 so much that the smears even infected other left-leaning people' so I'm saying let's try an election where the problem is just 'sexism' to see if the problem is actually that, or like the inherent racism, classism, and tilted electoral system, it by itself isn't something that is doom to a left-leaning candidate.

My take on this is seeded a lot by seeing left-leaning people unironically repeat false Rush Limbaugh type smears of Hillary during the 2016 primary.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,084
Arkansas, USA
It's unbelievable to me the extent to which the truth about the Corona virus is being distorted. Its genetic structure is similar to the common cold. It has the ability to mutate seasonally and stay around for years. It is a much bigger threat than SARS or Ebola ever were. It's why epidemiologists are saying that it could conceivably infect the majority of the world's adult population.

But here we have the Trump administration downplaying the threat and worrying more about the fucking stock market than people's lives. It's par for the course I guess, but even from them it's fucking revolting. Stop the damn narcissism and take this shit seriously so the worst case scenarios don't happen.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,492
It's unbelievable to me the extent to which the truth about the Corona virus is being distorted. Its genetic structure is similar to the common cold. It has the ability to mutate seasonally and stay around for years. It is a much bigger threat than SARS or Ebola ever were. It's why epidemiologists are saying that it could conceivably infect the majority of the world's adult population.

But here we have the Trump administration downplaying the threat and worrying more about the fucking stock market than people's lives. It's par for the course I guess, but even from them it's fucking revolting. Stop the damn narcissism and take this shit seriously so the worst case scenarios don't happen.

FUCKING THIS
 

MMBosstones86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,181
It's unbelievable to me the extent to which the truth about the Corona virus is being distorted. Its genetic structure is similar to the common cold. It has the ability to mutate seasonally and stay around for years. It is a much bigger threat than SARS or Ebola ever were. It's why epidemiologists are saying that it could conceivably infect the majority of the world's adult population.

But here we have the Trump administration downplaying the threat and worrying more about the fucking stock market than people's lives. It's par for the course I guess, but even from them it's fucking revolting. Stop the damn narcissism and take this shit seriously so the worst case scenarios don't happen.

Yup. Literal hell.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,885
It's unbelievable to me the extent to which the truth about the Corona virus is being distorted. Its genetic structure is similar to the common cold. It has the ability to mutate seasonally and stay around for years. It is a much bigger threat than SARS or Ebola ever were. It's why epidemiologists are saying that it could conceivably infect the majority of the world's adult population.

But here we have the Trump administration downplaying the threat and worrying more about the fucking stock market than people's lives. It's par for the course I guess, but even from them it's fucking revolting. Stop the damn narcissism and take this shit seriously so the worst case scenarios don't happen.

These fascists are scared shitless, because they saw what Ebola fear-mongering did to polling, and now they're on the other end, having to play defense.

They want everything to do with Covid-19 to be wrapped up with economic rhetoric because they think that's a better field to play on, rather than having to address the logistics and infection rates that are relevant to a pandemic response.

There will be very little info from this administration that won't be tied up with happy sounding rhetoric from coke heads like Kudlow
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,212
I am thinking about buying the dip because I have a small fortune to legitimize, but I don't want to follow Kudlow's advice.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
I might add, its an interesting contrast that most people self-identify as conservative, then moderate and liberal, yet politically most people register as democrats, then (now)independent and republican.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,007
I am thinking about buying the dip because I have a small fortune to legitimize, but I don't want to follow Kudlow's advice.
I'm not joking, Kudlow's advice is to buy stocks every day. I remember seeing him on CNBC years ago. Market up, market down, didn't matter every day was a great day to buy he would say.
 

LGHT_TRSN

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,132
With any luck they are never-Trumpers who may still vote R downballot but won't vote for Trump.

...but more likely they're just cowards that don't like being associated with the party of Trump, but will still vote for him in the ballot box.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,505

True title: Many Republicans are too afraid to admit they are Republicans despite always voting Republican.

Temporarily embarrassed Republicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.