Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Content Count

    14,141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by bad_teammate

  1. Voters are enigmatic. The policy-first voter is not in the majority. Hell, we're obsessed with politics here and half of us (or more) don't actually have any clear and consistent policy beliefs. Class loyalty, race loyalty, hurt feelings, spite, how TV ads make them feel... a ton of reasons voters change preferred candidates or make voting decisions in the booth. We have people here who went into the booth for this primary and just waited for a feeling to make choices. It's one of the reasons that super-low enthusiasm is bad.
  2. This is not good. Insanely low enthusiasm among his supporters. Also, relevant to this conversation, this poll shows 15% of Sanders supporters going to Trump. Lower than I would expect at this particular point in a hot primary, honestly. I would've expected a contraction to that 10-15% I mentioned in my earlier post to happen at the convention when some unity starts being built. Hopefully that's a good sign that the contraction will <10%? That low enthusiasm will make the non-voter portion rise, though.
  3. Right now I'd bet that Trump will probably get 10-15% of Bernie primary voters. A whole lot depends on how the next 7+ months go; whether or not Biden and his team make efforts to win them, whether or not the media establishment maintains its current course, etc... A chunk of Bernie primary voters will just not vote at all. Bernie generates enthusiasm among traditionally non-voting and traditionally not-loyal-to-Democrats bases (young people, Latinos, etc...) and, as of now, they are absolutely not going to make a special effort to turn out for Joe. I bet this is the most fluid range and could be extremely high (relatively). A third party candidate will likely rise up at some point (Stein or otherwise) and get a small percentage of Bernie primary voters. Is it possible for Joe to get 90% of Bernie primary voters who actually show up to vote in November? Sure. That's a best case scenario and would require a lot of things to go right for Joe. The Bernie->Trump voter # is probably fixed ~10-15%. But third party and non-voting? That shit could skyrocket if Joe doesn't do a good job. But many here seem very confident that this doesn't matter and Joe has it in the bag, so be heartened. --- Regarding "90%", I'm not even going to engage with an argument that you just made up out of thin air to get mad at. Quote me saying that and I'll respond to my own actual argument and not your pique-induced trolling campaign of just lying outright to start fights.
  4. Vox Newsweek HuffPo Lots of stuff there. I think "deep state left wing media" is kind of a low-brow attempt to dismiss all media criticism as nothing but Trumpism and especially crass in light of the subject matter. Mass media outlets that rely on access journalism do not work hard to expose powerful men. Endless effort was exerted to protect Harvey Weinstein, for instance, including members of the Clinton circle of power pressuring Rowan Farrow into dropping it. ----------------------------------------------- In the interview, Farrow stated that the turn in his relationship with Clinton was affected by his investigation into Weinstein's sexual misconduct allegations. Weinstein was reported to be a Democratic supporter and donor of Clinton. "It's remarkable how quickly even people with a long relationship with you will turn if you threaten the centres of power or the sources of funding around them," Farrow said. "Ultimately, there are a lot of people out there who operate in that way. They're beholden to powerful interests and if you go up against those interests, you become radioactive very quickly." ----------------------------------------------- Is that what's happening here? Who knows. But if that's a level of involvement that a movie producer garners, then one can only imagine the pressure when discussing the presumptive Democratic nominee, a man who the capital class sees as their savior from the horrors of an insurgent socialist left.
  5. Are you talking to me or to David Dennison, the person who brought the necessity of Bernie voters up? There is little/no risk of Bernie primary voters going to Trump. 8-12% of Bernie primary voters went to Trump and I see zero evidence of any kind that this will change. (This is the "90%" you keep referring to in a misleading way, another unfortunate use of dishonesty.) What might change, however, is third party voting and non-voting. I realize that trolling the left is your sole internal motivator, but others are (rightly) recognizing the need to turn out voters in order to win. I think this is mature and smart on their part. A woman says he did it and she told two other people at the time it happened. Biden's campaign denies it. It's a he said/she said, of course, as these things almost always are. Joe Biden has a history of lying, inappropriately touching women, and expressing disdain (even violent disdain) for people who displease him who are below him. He has some extremely powerful motivations to lie about it if it did happen, what with seeking the presidency and wanting to maintain a legacy. This woman has expressed positive views of Vladimir Putin and some of Joe's political rivals. The motivations on her part are a lot less clear, especially since there is no obvious benefit (quite the opposite, in fact), and her preferred candidate has essentially already lost. I'm a big fan of killing your idols, so I'm always happy to chuck powerful men under the nearest available bus and err on the side of believing women in these cases. (I liked Franken a lot, but was perfectly fine with him being cast aside during #MeToo. We have no shortage of white men in power.)
  6. Sounds like you guys have nothing to worry about and it's all going to work out fine. The capital class will continue to dictate Democratic policy and staffing. The suburban professional class will continue to be their target audience. No need to appease the snowflake losers in the Sunrise Movement and Make the Road or the like. Goldman-Sachs runs fiscal policy but we get some more cool identities to be the face of it. Business as usual, baby. Keep it truckin'.
  7. This is like putting a gun to your own head and telling others it's their fault if you pull the trigger. It will be Joe's job to win over voters. Voters the establishment has been flipping off for 5 years. Good luck to him.
  8. Hopefully that keeps up and we find a way to keep Joe hopped up on adderall without killing him.
  9. I don't think Biden hired her as recompense for getting Time's Up to decline to offer Biden's accuser protection. I think it's a fucked up, tiny, incestuous world of power that Biden is all tied up in like the rest of the jackals. And I'm tired of these people running the country.
  10. No worries, the Krassenstein brothers are ON THE CASE!
  11. Then why name it after herself? Seems like if you want it to be a bridge-building thing across the larger progressive movement you'd make it more candidate-neutral, right?
  12. You are only supposed to be upset with how things are going if Nancy Pelosi is also upset, dumbass.
  13. Congrats to Rougarou on successfully achieving a derail.
  14. False choice fallacies don't help, my trollish friend. If you're genuinely curious as to how I reacted to the Smollett, you can find my posts on the subject here using the search function. I don't think I ever commented on it because I never cared about it. Seemed like a huge mess, like he was misleading at best, and I don't even know what the truth ended up being behind that. What's your ultimate point? Am I a soyboy SJW?
  15. One way of attacking someone's veracity is questioning the story, absolutely. Another way of attacking someone's veracity is questioning the credibility of the accuser. You already know this, henry. Let's read. ------------------------------------------ In her tweet: #BernieIsOurFDR. That just screams credibility. And I've seen on twitter she repeatedly supported Biden over the last 30 years and has recently expressed a strong affinity for Putin. You consider this a credible allegation? ------------------------------------------- This post is attacking her credibility. You're working very hard to wave your hands around it, but it is what it is.
  16. Zombie: "You consider this a credible allegation?" Is he asking about the wisdom of her PR strategy or is he asking the about the credibility of the accusation itself? Why can't you just answer this straight? Attacking the credibility of an accuser and covering for those who do is extremely shitty. Think about what your position here is and why it is that way. Why are you running interference for people who are attacking a woman reporting sexual assault? What are you even getting out of it? No, he's not. He is saying that the accusation itself is not credible. His entire post is attacking her, specifically, not just her PR strategy. You're not illiterate, henry, you're just locked into an argument that you refuse to get out of because you would rather continue running interference for pieces of shit than backtrack in front of me. Be braver than that. My animosity here is towards men who will attack a woman for reporting sexual assault that might look bad on those who align with them politically. It is also towards those who help the aforementioned piece of shit. This is a huge part of why women don't come forward at all. They are attacked personally. Their method of reporting is attacked. Or, at absolute best for them, they are ignored completely. This. You are more outraged by mouthy Internet leftists than fellow-travelers who attack the credibility of women reporting sexual abuse. It's not a good look for you. Be a little more independent in your thinking.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...