Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee


used2b

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think her campaign strategy so far is working. 

The money she's raised in the first quarter will be the better indicator (it might not be great but it wouldn't be the end of the world).  I can't stress enough how worthless polls are right now.  Mayor Pete wasn't even registering on polls six weeks ago and we have no idea where he will be six weeks from now.  

Once we get into debate season you're likely to see a whole lot of leveling out in the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The money she's raised in the first quarter will be the better indicator (it might not be great but it wouldn't be the end of the world).  I can't stress enough how worthless polls are right now.  Mayor Pete wasn't even registering on polls six weeks ago and we have no idea where he will be six weeks from now.  

Once we get into debate season you're likely to see a whole lot of leveling out in the polls.

Look, the whole point I'm trying to make is running strictly on POLICY is not the best strategy. The fact that Buttigieg went from a nobody to contender in a month because he's promoting values first is looked down upon by policy wonks. The reality is it's the correct strategy, especially if we learned anything from the Clinton/Trump fiasco in 2016.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2019 at 6:42 PM, bad_teammate said:

When it comes to people like Obama, it's only ever one "side" of the centrist/liberal/progressive debate that is portrayed as intransigent and obsessed with "purity".

Look at Klobuchar's answer here. The media response is "oh my god, just look at this pragmatic realism!"

But it's not pragmatic realism, it's ideology. It's a centrist, corporatist ideology masquerading as some kind of plain objectivity. So when centrists and liberals complain about the ideological purity test of the Left, what they're doing is pretending that their value system is completely neutral and "true" in some larger sense.

 

Obama helped clear the field for Hillary to avoid a circular firing squad in the primary ... and she then lost to someone who survived a 17-person circular firing squad.   Great advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2019 at 9:44 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Bernie isn't a problem, as long as after he loses the primary, the winner earns the votes of his supporters show up and vote D in November.

Changed.  Yeah, fuck anyone on the left who didn't vote for Hillary against Trump, whether or not they were Bernie supporters, but they shouldn't be taken for granted as a monolithic group that has to go where they are told.  There are many factors that go into supporting a candidate, and a generic Democrat doesn't necessarily satisfy all of the factors that lead someone to support Bernie or anyone else.  The focus has to be on picking a candidate who deserves and inspires enough votes on his or her own merit from them and others. Which is, of course, why we're merely mocking the ridiculous PUMAs, not blaming them for electing President McCain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Continental Op said:

I'm going to vote for Buttigieg because I think he will be better than Bernie at marginalizing women and minorities.  He's so committed to the bit that he won't even fuck a woman.   

Volcel is powerful (Bernie has never fucked)... but... to be so dedicated to silencing women that you not only deny them your essence but give it to other men?!

This is next level shit.

I need some quiet reflection time to absorb this new information.

*blows stream of bubbles out of plastic pipe*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Gonna be a long campaign for anyone who isn't male.

 

Yeah, I mean it couldn't be that they both appeal more to the youth vote than the other younger candidates, and in Buttigieg's case, is barely old enough to run for president all. 

Edited by horncyclist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hoarse whisperer has obvious bias against the white male candidates and I think it’s mostly a reaction to how the media has a tendency to favor them when it comes the coverage versus the female candidates.

It’s a legitimate grievance and the only way to create some kind of balance is to voice that grievance early and often. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Yeah, I mean it couldn't be that they both appeal more to the youth vote than the other younger candidates, and in Buttigieg's case, is barely old enough to run for president all. 

Do they appeal more to the youth vote? Is there evidence for that?

It's funny to watch the libs throw all the minorities and women under the bus as soon as two aww-shucks white guys show up to smile at them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The hoarse whisperer has obvious bias against the white male candidates and I think it’s mostly a reaction to how the media has a tendency to favor them when it comes the coverage versus the female candidates.

It’s a legitimate grievance and the only way to create some kind of balance is to voice that grievance early and often. 

Elizabeth Warren should start doing more media appearances. Every TV show would have her on, but she's choosing not to right now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides Harris who is getting a decent amount of attention (considering she's holding high priced fundraisers vs 4-5 town halls a day like Pete/Beto), who are the young female candidates polling at say, >2%, who are not getting media coverage? This is a nonstarter and it's a self defeating narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Younger than Sanders" is all of the female candidates (and most mountain ranges).

And "Besides Harris" isn't really a strong way to start that argument. She polls higher than both of them, and outraised both of them.

"Besides Harris" was because she doesn't fit the argument. She's getting plenty of coverage, especially given her extraordinarily light appearance schedule.

She hasn't had a public appearance or a town hall since March 24th. Beto has had 25 since that same date. So is it possible, and I know this is a huge stretch, that Beto and Pete are getting the lion's share of media coverage because they're out there busting their ass and pounding pavement multiple times daily, while the top female candidates (save Warren) are doing, well, not really anything?

https://www.facebook.com/pg/betoorourke/events/

 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/amyklobuchar/events

https://www.facebook.com/pg/KamalaHarris/events/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/KirstenGillibrand/events

 

So I ask again, besides Harris who is AWOL and still getting a reasonable amount of coverage, which female candidates with a non-zero chance of winning the primary are getting snubbed on media coverage? Are you going to answer, or just play rhetoric games?

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So is it possible, and I know this is a huge stretch, that Beto and Pete are getting the lion's share of media coverage because they're out there busting their ass and pounding pavement multiple times daily, while the top female candidates (save Warren) are doing, well, not really anything?



Not really doing anything except for actually having a day job, which Beto conveniently does not have.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

 


Not really doing anything except for actually having a day job, which Beto conveniently does not have.

 

 

Doesn't change anything I said. The media isn't covering the people who have given them nothing to cover. Warren is getting coverage because she's putting out policy and proposed legislation. Beto and Pete are getting coverage because they're all over the place, they're working hard, and they're media/marketing savvy. If you want the media to cover you, give them something to cover. Warren and Pete have jobs and they're doing fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

 


Not really doing anything except for actually having a day job, which Beto conveniently does not have.

 

 

Pete just has to be mayor of South Bend, IN...not that hard.  Beto's job is taking on the Big Banks, standing up to Wall Street, and reforming immigration in this country.   I'd say that's a more full-time day job than Pete's by a damn sight! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The hoarse whisperer has obvious bias against the white male candidates and I think it’s mostly a reaction to how the media has a tendency to favor them when it comes the coverage versus the female candidates.

It’s a legitimate grievance and the only way to create some kind of balance is to voice that grievance early and often. 

I have zero problem with Hoarse Whisperer wanting more attention paid to the female candidates. But if you look at her tweets, she's choosing to go negative on the white male candidates. It's so fucking stupid and not helping her cause. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

I have zero problem with Hoarse Whisperer wanting more attention paid to the female candidates. But if you look at her tweets, she's choosing to go negative on the white male candidates. It's so fucking stupid and not helping her cause. 

 

 

Completely agree that the account is awful. It's basically a Krassenstein reply account under Trump tweets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pathetic


Kind of dovetails with the word usage discussion (pornstar or woman) that happened yesterday.

I’m sure very few women are shocked by this study. It’s baked into even the most innocuous things.

How many times has the fucking “news” talked about some aspect of what a female candidate wears?

Hillary’s pantsuits, Elizabeth Warren’s sweaters, Kamala Harris’s sequined jacket, Amy Klobuchar’s shoes.

Now, the internet makes fun of Trump’s ill fitting suits and stupid long neckties but has that ever once made CNN?

No, because it’s not a thing.

If a female candidate showed up to an event looking as fucking rumpled and unkempt as Bernie, there would 100% be stories questioning her fitness for office and y’all damn well know it.

And I’m not even getting into the way ambition and “toughness” is portrayed in men vs. women.

Or how no one EVER does a story about how a male candidate with kids is going to balance being a dad and an elected official. Yet EVERY SINGLE WOMAN with kids gets a story done on her balancing motherhood with the job she wants.

Oh, and then there’s the flip side of a woman who doesn’t have kids and “what THAT says about her” story.

Yeah, I have some fucking thoughts about this.

And all of them piss me off.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 


Kind of dovetails with the word usage discussion (pornstar or woman) that happened yesterday.

I’m sure very few women are shocked by this study. It’s baked into even the most innocuous things.

How many times has the fucking “news” talked about some aspect of what a female candidate wears?

Hillary’s pantsuits, Elizabeth Warren’s sweaters, Kamala Harris’s sequined jacket, Amy Klobuchar’s shoes.

Now, the internet makes fun of Trump’s ill fitting suits and stupid long neckties but has that ever once made CNN?

No, because it’s not a thing.

If a female candidate showed up to an event looking as fucking rumpled and unkempt as Bernie, there would 100% be stories questioning her fitness for office and y’all damn well know it.

And I’m not even getting into the way ambition and “toughness” is portrayed in men vs. women.

Or how no one EVER does a story about how a male candidate with kids is going to balance being a dad and an elected official. Yet EVERY SINGLE WOMAN with kids gets a story done on her balancing motherhood with the job she wants.

Oh, and then there’s the flip side of a woman who doesn’t have kids and “what THAT says about her” story.

Yeah, I have some fucking thoughts about this.

And all of them piss me off.

 

You are, of course, completely right. 

One of me and my wife’s favorite scenes from the movie Lincoln is when they are debating the 13th amendment a congressman stands up and points out that if its passed, the negro men would have to be given the right to vote. That to not do so would be immoral. And are we prepared for that? A discontent murmur runs through the crowd of congress. 

Then he points out, what’s next? The Vote for Women? And the congress erupts in loud disapproval.

In many ways sexism is far more prevelant and apparently tougher to overcome than racism against other men. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preference vs. Can Beat Trump

Straight White Male Christians
Biden: +9
O'Rourke: +1

Straight White Male Jew:
Sanders: -1

Gay White Male Christian:
Buttigieg: -5

White Women:
Warren: -3
Klobuchar: -1

Black Woman:
Harris: -8

The POC and Female intersectionality hitting Kamala like a ton of bricks here. Her and Mayor Pete hearing a lot of, "Oh I like you, I just really want someone who can beat Trump!" right now.

Both Pete and Kamala can beat Donald, Dems.

New Campaign Song?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin poll

Since January...

Sanders +9
Biden -3

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Warren raised $6 million.  Not terrible, but not great.

She has $11.2m COH because she transferred $10.4m from her Senate campaign.  Spent $5.2m in Q1

tenor.gif?itemid=9744716

A very bad burn rate. Time to switch from those craft brews to Steel Reserve.

Edited by bad_teammate
got the state wrong because I'm a dumb idiot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this might be a good sign for Kamala, because the always-online, early-adopter types who jump in with donations this early skew white and progressive, so the fact that she's basically even with three white people that progressives like in terms of numbers of people might bode well for her going forward.

Q2 movement will be interesting to watch:
- Does Buttmentum continue?
- Does Bernie plateau?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:
Female intersectionality hitting Kamala like a ton of bricks here. Her and Mayor Pete hearing a lot of, "Oh I like you, I just really want someone who can beat Trump!" right now.

i don't think that's a fair assessment re: kamala.  the delta was high because her "preferred choice" was high, because it was a california poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 


Kind of dovetails with the word usage discussion (pornstar or woman) that happened yesterday.

I’m sure very few women are shocked by this study. It’s baked into even the most innocuous things.

How many times has the fucking “news” talked about some aspect of what a female candidate wears?

Hillary’s pantsuits, Elizabeth Warren’s sweaters, Kamala Harris’s sequined jacket, Amy Klobuchar’s shoes.

Now, the internet makes fun of Trump’s ill fitting suits and stupid long neckties but has that ever once made CNN?

No, because it’s not a thing.

If a female candidate showed up to an event looking as fucking rumpled and unkempt as Bernie, there would 100% be stories questioning her fitness for office and y’all damn well know it.

And I’m not even getting into the way ambition and “toughness” is portrayed in men vs. women.

Or how no one EVER does a story about how a male candidate with kids is going to balance being a dad and an elected official. Yet EVERY SINGLE WOMAN with kids gets a story done on her balancing motherhood with the job she wants.

Oh, and then there’s the flip side of a woman who doesn’t have kids and “what THAT says about her” story.

Yeah, I have some fucking thoughts about this.

And all of them piss me off.

 

I'll just add this to the "likability,"  and which candidate you want to have a beer with.  https://www.vogue.com/article/2020-women-candidates-quirky-hobbies-intellect-too

 

Quote

Did you know that Beto O'Rourke was in a punk band named Foss in the 90s and that Pete Buttigieg taught himself to speak Norwegian, basically for fun? Chances are, you might, because male candidates are routinely covered as both serious contenders and as multi-faceted human beings. Groundbreaking!

But what if—stay with me—I told you that the women candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination also had fun hobbies and vast intellectual curiosity? And that these charismatic qualities are lurking just beyond all of the narratives about their nebulous "likability" and totally offensive efforts to remove Al Franken from Congress for groping a woman?

In the spirit of covering women candidates for the "rock stars" they, too, are: read on for 19 colorful character quirks and staggering academic achievements of Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar. Two of them even have dogs!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a Beer With Rank - The 2020 field

Tier 1 - I would actually like to; sounds genuinely fun

Warren, Klobuchar, Gabbard, (Biden), Chasten Buttigieg, Jane Sanders, Rosario Dawson

Tier 2 - I guess it would be fine

Castro, O'Rourke, Booker, Harris

Tier 3 - God no, please don't make me

Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Gillibrand

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...