GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 22 19, 3:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: August 2 19, 5:06 pm 
Offline
GRB's obsessive compulsive baseball poster
User avatar

Joined: October 12 07, 12:28 pm
Posts: 24690
Location: Raptured
33anda3rd wrote:
ThatGuy wrote:
Williamson is delightfully kooky sometimes, but she's taken some really, really awful and harmful positions in the past. Doesn't matter that she spoke coherently about what's happening in Flint. Wouldn't care if she was flung into outer space.


I thought she did better in the debate, compared to her entry status, than anyone else. But. Her stances on stuff like AIDS and vaccinations are highly anti-science and she is a complete non-starter as a nominee for POTUS. It's BS that Anderson Cooper in the post-debate interview or moderators in the debate don't ask about her anti-vaxxer silliness while they are hyper-critical of the higher-profile candidates like Warren and Bernie.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 2 19, 6:19 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
I guess but the stage was huge for the debate and they helped normalize this wackjob by not asking her then. She got to pontificate on love and peace and reparations and no one asked when the audience was at its peak about the anti-vaxxer stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 3 19, 6:11 am 
Offline
Veteran Player
User avatar

Joined: April 27 10, 11:08 pm
Posts: 951
#1 is the same, but the others have changed.

Warren
Sanders
Pete


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 3 19, 10:31 am 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 36750
Location: Huis Clos
FYI Bernie or busters

Quote:
Since her departure from the Republican Party, Warren has busied herself promoting a “level playing field” and a fairer system for workers and consumers. Her ideals, while not out of step with those of a mid-century liberal Republican, would represent a marked shift away from the economic status quo if implemented. In an interview for this article, Noam Chomsky called Warren a “credible candidate” who is “pretty good on domestic policy.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 3 19, 4:00 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10474
Location: Lost in the Cloud
lukethedrifter wrote:
FYI Bernie or busters

Quote:
Since her departure from the Republican Party, Warren has busied herself promoting a “level playing field” and a fairer system for workers and consumers. Her ideals, while not out of step with those of a mid-century liberal Republican, would represent a marked shift away from the economic status quo if implemented. In an interview for this article, Noam Chomsky called Warren a “credible candidate” who is “pretty good on domestic policy.”


I know i'm not being addressed here, but from this Bernie stan, I would be more than happy to pull the lever for Warren if Bernie drops out and of course against the cheeto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 5 19, 7:02 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28382
Location: extremely online
There's barely any such thing as a bernie or buster. It's a narrative created in bad faith to bring progressives to heel. Everyone with a brain knows that if Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination, she will be the most progressive presidential candidate to ever win a party's nomination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 5 19, 7:21 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
There's barely any such thing as a bernie or buster. It's a narrative created in bad faith to bring progressives to heel. Everyone with a brain knows that if Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination, she will be the most progressive presidential candidate to ever win a party's nomination.


Thrill, what you're repping here is the false narrative, which is spun to ensure doubters that the movement Sanders has inspired doesn't have any politically irresponsible crazies in it. It has a lot.

There's a movement of nutjobs pushing "Bernie or Bust 2.0" (just Bernie or Bust plus the GND) who proclaim in their manifesto that:

Quote:
...purported progressive presidential contenders too spineless to endorse Sanders’ political revolution in 2016 – we think especially of Elizabeth Warren – should be distrusted as fitting stewards of today’s Green New Deal.


Nate studied this. He found that:

Quote:
Only 28 percent of Democrats fell into the category of considering only one candidate. (By comparison, 67 percent are still considering multiple candidates, and 5 percent aren’t considering any current candidates.) So Sanders isn’t getting 28 percent of 100 percent — he’s getting 28 percent of 28 percent. That means just 8 percent of the overall Democratic electorate truly falls into the “Bernie or bust” category.


I find the word "just" really odd there because "8 percent of the Democratic electorate" is how WI, PA, MI and maybe OH were lost and could be lost again. It's damn near 1 in 10, a dangerous amount of people to be like "it's the one guy I like or nobody". Or.....

Polling finds that 12% of Bernie voters voted Trump in the general in 2016. That's a sign of that 12% being [expletive] sociopaths, so let's not prop them up as some noble folk who will all do the right thing. The thing about this cult of personality around Sanders is there's gonna be a high % who are just drawn to the cult of personality.

Imagine a Democratic party in which 10% of their electorate stayed home or voted for the opposition party because their primary candidate didn't win the nomination. Would we have had a Democratic POTUS in our lifetimes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 5 19, 7:38 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28382
Location: extremely online
The false premise is that before Bernie showed up, that 8% was out voting for every Dem that ran. As if Bernie didn't energize a previously non-voting or 3rd party voting population.

But sure, keep putting the blame on passionate, politically engaged leftists and not on the democratic party for failing to energize non-voters who, according to pretty much all polling data, overwhelmingly prefer their ostensible platform to republicans, but still don't get out and vote. Waste of [expletive] time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 5 19, 7:58 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
The false premise is that before Bernie showed up, that 8% was out voting for every Dem that ran. As if Bernie didn't energize a previously non-voting or 3rd party voting population.

But sure, keep putting the blame on passionate, politically engaged leftists and not on the democratic party for failing to energize non-voters who, according to pretty much all polling data, overwhelmingly prefer their ostensible platform to republicans, but still don't get out and vote. Waste of [expletive] time.


"Politically engaged" is mutually exclusive with "non-voters" who "still don't get out and vote."

Engaged with the Sanders movement and being Very Online and "engaged politically" which = "going to vote"? Those are different things.

Edit...

Also: let's argue w/ arguments rather than your perception that I'm anti-Bernie or anti-progressive movement who wants to discount the people in that movement without cause. Account for 12% going Bernie -> Trump. Account for the post above decrying Warren in your math of "barely any such thing as Bernie or Bust." Account for the stubbornness of the 8% who wouldn't participate unless the perfect candidate was involved. Account for Big Amoco. There's very much such a thing as Bernie or Bust and it is not good for where we need to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 5 19, 9:08 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24231
Big problem with the labeling in Nate's article. Saying you're only considering one candidate at the moment is not the same as saying you won't vote for the eventual candidate. The wording of the poll doesn't factor in that possibility. So I'd say Nate is incorrect in labeling those people "Bernie or Bust" or "Biden or Bust". It probably works establishing a floor, as he's doing in the article, but HIS labeling doesn't accurately reflect what was asked.

I'm not considering any of Biden, Delaney, Beto, Pete, etc... If Warren was not running, I'd say right now I'm only considering Sanders. If it gets to Indiana and neither of them is on my primary ballot by that point, I'll be considering someone else. The eventual nominee gets my vote no matter what, but no way would I say I'm considering the whole field.

There's also the difference between what so called "purists" say they'll do, and what they actually do.

This has been noted here before, but the vast majority of Bernie voters showed up for Hillary last time. 92% I think? Maybe 94%? More than Hillary's primary voters showed up for Obama in 2008. That kind of behavior is a reality that has to be priced in, recognizing that a good chunk of voters either don't operate ideologically or vote based on particular motivations which are only satisfied by certain candidates.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group