All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Superbat]

No, but I can say, "At least I don't believe he will actively damage this country, like Trump. Maybe he'll surprise me and get something done that isn't renaming a post office."

So your criticism of him would still remain.

I did the same thing in 2016. When people were skeptical of Hillary, I didn't lie to them. I told them that Hillary was not going to give them what they wanted but a Trump presidency would mean that even if they got the Present they wanted in 2020, fixing every one of Trump' messes would get in the way of progress.

I did my best to get people to turn out to vote for Hillary but I didn't pretend she didn't have any flaws.

[4saken1]

When Bernie becomes the nominee, are you going the rest of the election cycle without saying anything negative about Bernie? That seems excessive.

I can say without a doubt that while I may make a sideways comment now and again about Sanders were he to become the nominee, it won't be anywhere in the same ballpark or even the same universe as far as frequency or inaccuracy (not to say it was all inaccurate, but they tended to throw a whole fuckton of BS against the wall just to see what would stick) and flat out hyperbole that Sanders supporters did to Hillary in 2016.

[Mister Mets]

With questions about the most diverse Democratic presidential primary in history getting down to a bunch of white people who made the next debate, and concerns that the Academy Award nominations might leave out notable performers of color, there are some arguments that the way these things are determined is flawed and there is a solution that allows for people to take diversity into account.

The argument goes that instead of asking people for their favorite, at least during early stages, they should allow them to mention slates. So Democratic voters can be polled on their three favorite candidates and put more thought into what type of field they want represented on a debate stage than if they're only selecting one. Likewise, Oscar voters could nominate multiple people in each contender to include more than one of their favorites.

Do you guys think this would be a good idea?

[4saken1]

How would you even do that? If someone links you to your posts calling Bernie toothless, are you going to tell them you were wrong?

Toothless Bernie is still better than having Agent Orange for a second term, who will do a lot more damage when he doesn't need to worry about being re-elected. Better to stay in place than go backwards! I'd be more worried about Sanders getting re-elected when his supporters turn on him because he hadn't gotten one tenth of what he promised done and 'realize' that he's become just like all of the other politicians.

[Tami]

With questions about the most diverse Democratic presidential primary in history getting down to a bunch of white people who made the next debate, and concerns that the Academy Award nominations might leave out notable performers of color, there are some arguments that the way these things are determined is flawed and there is a solution that allows for people to take diversity into account.

The argument goes that instead of asking people for their favorite, at least during early stages, they should allow them to mention slates. So Democratic voters can be polled on their three favorite candidates and put more thought into what type of field they want represented on a debate stage than if they're only selecting one. Likewise, Oscar voters could nominate multiple people in each contender to include more than one of their favorites.

Do you guys think this would be a good idea?

I think at least one state does elections that way. Maine has Ranked Choice voting.

Maine to allow ranked votes in general presidential election

Is this what you were thinking of?

[Tami]

Obama campaign guru: Trump would love to run against Bernie

Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager is warning that Democrats would struggle in a general election against Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jim Messina predicted that Trump would exploit Sanders’ stamp of socialism in battleground states needed to defeat Trump, keep control of the House and have a shot at winning the Senate.

“If I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders,” Messina said. “I think the contrast is the best. He can say, ‘I’m a business guy, the economy’s good and this guy’s a socialist.’ I think that contrast for Trump is likely one that he’d be excited about in a way that he wouldn’t be as excited about Biden or potentially Mayor Pete or some of the more Midwestern moderate candidates.”


This is not the first time Messina has questioned Sanders' viability as a general election candidate. His latest remarks come amid Sanders’ first-place showing in the marquee Iowa Poll and as the Vermont senator‘s messaging has increasingly focused on his electability.

[Mister Mets]

I think at least one state does elections that way. Maine has Ranked Choice voting.

Maine to allow ranked votes in general presidential election

Is this what you were thinking of?

I was thinking more than when voters are asked by pollsters (whose polls often determine who is invited to primaries) who they're planning to support, they're asked for their top three rather than just their favorite.

Someone whose top choice is Bernie Sanders might also be able to say they want to give a platform to Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang.

Someone whose type choice is Joe Biden might also be able to say that they'd like to hear more from Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar.

With the Academy Award nominating ballots, Oscar voters whose top choice for Best Actress is Renee Zelwegger in Judy could also vote for two more, and ensure diversity by suggesting Awkwafina and Lupita Nyong'o (who incidentally gave my favorite performance in the category in Us.)

There is a later phase when people should make one choice (or have something like ranked voting that brings them down to a finalist) but it could be premature right now.

[SquirrelMan]

The best part is that dude Andy did in fact endorse a middle aged white dude not long after that. So it's okay for him to be critical of a young female POC doing essentially what he did. Nothing more than racist gaslighting

In his defense, everybody left is middle aged or older white, or Yang.

[SquirrelMan]

I know you and many other Hillary supporters are upset about her losing in 2016. I am too, it gave us Trump.

But you're going to have to make your peace with Bernie. He's going to be the nominee.

worstblogever supported Sanders in the 2016 primaries.

That makes your assumptions...

superbad!

[worstblogever]

I did my best to get people to turn out to vote for Hillary but I didn't pretend she didn't have any flaws.

Well, that's the difference between you and Bernie Sanders.

You know when I stopped supporting Bernie as a candidate?

When he was already all but eliminated in the primary and he said Hillary Clinton was not "qualified", and then stayed in for months. The minute that story broke, I went, "WHAT THE F***, BERNIE?!?"

And then, when after the DNC, he went from supposed superman who was always diving in front of cameras on cable news to talk about himself to the invisible man, as his supporters trashed the woman who beat him. If he actually gave a s*** about what he says he does, he would have campaigned his ass off to prevent a Trump presidency, and sang her praises.

But he didn't. So we're on the brink of war, the ones he supposedly doesn't want, AGAIN. And we're locking children in cages. And white nationalism is the strongest it's been in decades as anti-Semitic attacks increase. And there are two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And foreign countries are interfering in our elections.

He could have helped prevent all that, but instead, figured, "F*** it, what's the worst that can happen? I'll wait four years and try again."

So forgive me if I support the candidates who did support the party, and have done all they can to do more than talk bad about Trump on cable news instead.

[Theleviathan]

There are obviously downsides. Whatever method there is of implementing a national election day is going to have some tradeoffs.

The primary is the de-facto real election in many areas where opposition is token at best. When my congresswoman has Republican opponents, she wins by a 2:1 margin, so it doesn't really change her odds relative to when Republicans opt not to bother with a sacrificial lamb.

I have no problem with the "why not both" argument.

However, if the plans only apply to Election Day that makes me suspect that it's more about the hope of partisan gain than meaningful participation. It'll be too late to make a difference in the majority of elections, where the winner is known on November 1.

There are no significant trade-offs at all. You're projecting your concerns about partisan gains on me when that is your primary concern. Then you dress it up with strawmen and weak arguments. Just admit you think Republicans would suffer under this and save the farce please.

It would take no significant trade-offs to impact the ability of every citizen across the nation to comfortably vote and participate in elections on all level of their communities. If that's a problem for one party or the other....maybe they should work more on having the support of American citizens and less on restricting their right to vote in order to gain elected power.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Well, that's the difference between you and Bernie Sanders.

You know when I stopped supporting Bernie as a candidate?

When he was already all but eliminated in the primary and he said Hillary Clinton was not "qualified", and then stayed in for months. The minute that story broke, I went, "WHAT THE F***, BERNIE?!?"

And then, when after the DNC, he went from supposed superman who was always diving in front of cameras on cable news to talk about himself to the invisible man, as his supporters trashed the woman who beat him. If he actually gave a s*** about what he says he does, he would have campaigned his ass off to prevent a Trump presidency, and sang her praises.

But he didn't. So we're on the brink of war, the ones he supposedly doesn't want, AGAIN. And we're locking children in cages. And white nationalism is the strongest it's been in decades as anti-Semitic attacks increase. And there are two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And foreign countries are interfering in our elections.

He could have helped prevent all that, but instead, figured, "F*** it, what's the worst that can happen? I'll wait four years and try again."

So forgive me if I support the candidates who did support the party, and have done all they can to do more than talk bad about Trump on cable news instead.

Did you vote for Hillary in 2016.... Because what she did to Obama in 2008 WAS MUCH MUCH INCOMPARABLY WORSE. Oh and statistically she caused more damage to his campaign. So if we are going to have purity tests here...

[Superbat]

Well, that's the difference between you and Bernie Sanders.

You know when I stopped supporting Bernie as a candidate?

When he was already all but eliminated in the primary and he said Hillary Clinton was not "qualified", and then stayed in for months. The minute that story broke, I went, "WHAT THE F***, BERNIE?!?"

And then, when after the DNC, he went from supposed superman who was always diving in front of cameras on cable news to talk about himself to the invisible man, as his supporters trashed the woman who beat him. If he actually gave a s*** about what he says he does, he would have campaigned his ass off to prevent a Trump presidency, and sang her praises.

But he didn't. So we're on the brink of war, the ones he supposedly doesn't want, AGAIN. And we're locking children in cages. And white nationalism is the strongest it's been in decades as anti-Semitic attacks increase. And there are two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And foreign countries are interfering in our elections.

He could have helped prevent all that, but instead, figured, "F*** it, what's the worst that can happen? I'll wait four years and try again."

So forgive me if I support the candidates who did support the party, and have done all they can to do more than talk bad about Trump on cable news instead.

Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton and campaigning for her is what convinced me to phonebank for Hillary. I went out of State to help her because I knew staying in California was pointless.

People are still mad about 2016 but it does no one any good to continue dwelling on it. I disagree about blaming Bernie for Hillary losing in 2016 but that's not what we need to be talking about now. Focus on the future.

[The Overlord]

Well, that's the difference between you and Bernie Sanders.

You know when I stopped supporting Bernie as a candidate?

When he was already all but eliminated in the primary and he said Hillary Clinton was not "qualified", and then stayed in for months. The minute that story broke, I went, "WHAT THE F***, BERNIE?!?"

And then, when after the DNC, he went from supposed superman who was always diving in front of cameras on cable news to talk about himself to the invisible man, as his supporters trashed the woman who beat him. If he actually gave a s*** about what he says he does, he would have campaigned his ass off to prevent a Trump presidency, and sang her praises.

But he didn't. So we're on the brink of war, the ones he supposedly doesn't want, AGAIN. And we're locking children in cages. And white nationalism is the strongest it's been in decades as anti-Semitic attacks increase. And there are two more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. And foreign countries are interfering in our elections.

He could have helped prevent all that, but instead, figured, "F*** it, what's the worst that can happen? I'll wait four years and try again."

So forgive me if I support the candidates who did support the party, and have done all they can to do more than talk bad about Trump on cable news instead.

And Clinton used the Piped Piper strategy to help Trump get the nomination for the GOP:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...d-trump-214428

Did she put the country first with that?

And Bernie did campaign for her:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...ry-clinton/amp

This seems like another smear campaign by the donor class Democrats:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...tigate-primary

Shouldn't the centrist Democrats take a lot of the blame for allowing Trump to get into power and caring about hold grudges against Bernie instead of trying to put forward the best plan to defeat Trump?

Biden wins the nomination and his electability argument fails and he loses to Trump, can we finally admit the centrist Democrat electability arguments have failed, because that could happen.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Did you vote for Hillary in 2016.... Because what she did to Obama in 2008 WAS MUCH MUCH INCOMPARABLY WORSE. Oh and statistically she caused more damage to his campaign. So if we are going to have purity tests here...

What did she do to Obama?