Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

btw, Bernie never was going to win anything. he's a lightning rod, a rabblerouser, a thorn in the side, a cautionary tale - those guys never convert to leaders. the same feckless Democratics which made Trump possible made Bernie possible and enough young people hadn't heard good ol' fashioned leftyspeak when he began his ABC campaign to make him a thing. i love him, as a Vermonter i know he's ten pounds of #### in a five pound bag, he's closest to my politics than anyone and that will ever make him unelectable

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Sounds like he was given secondhand information and relayed it back.  No more, no less.  

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her.   It could also have been the opposite.   He's created a controversy where there is none.  They adopted their own rules giving 50% weight to leadership and 50% vote to the members.   She won 61% of the total, which is undisputed.    His issue is that there are scenarios where she may not have won the majority of members.   So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the website has a real axe to grind with Warren, and seems to think a party of 50,000 is somehow important to a national election.   This is a bit dramatic.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her. 

I was referring to the "unsubstantiated" comment.  If they had voted for her across the board, I don't see why they'd have any problem publishing the results.  The fact that they aren't after taking 45 thousand dollars from the think tank Warren's daughter sits on the board of looks suspicious.  

18 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, he did the math and made an assumption that a majority of the members didn't vote for her.   It could also have been the opposite.   He's created a controversy where there is none.  They adopted their own rules giving 50% weight to leadership and 50% vote to the members.   She won 61% of the total, which is undisputed.    His issue is that there are scenarios where she may not have won the majority of members.   So what?

Yes, I know what the rules are.  The point is that people want to know how the membership voted, versus how the leadership voted.  They released these numbers before, but they're not releasing them now.  Why? 

People understandably think this is against the spirit of transparency and democratic elections.  Just publish the results, that's all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the headlines say Candidate Wins Working Families Party Endorsement!, when that person DIDN'T win the votes of actual working families- just their bought leadership- it pushes a false narrative that the candidate is connecting with working class, grassroots voters.  I don't know whether that's correct or not, but their silence on this makes it look like it is.  

It's not a huge deal, and I don't mean to make it sound like one.  But these sorts of things add up to manipulate public perception and I think it's important to push back when people are being deceived this way.  

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

When the headlines say Candidate Wins Working Families Party Endorsement!, when that person DIDN'T win the votes of actual working families- just their bought leadership- it pushes a false narrative that the candidate is connecting with working class, grassroots voters.  I don't know whether that's correct or not, but their silence on this makes it look like it is.  

It's not a huge deal, and I don't mean to make it sound like one.  But these sorts of things add up to manipulate public perception and I think it's important to push back when people are being deceived this way.  

It’s not false at all that she won the party endorsement, based on a.vote conducted under their rules.   You’re pushing a weak narrative that is based on pure speculation.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, -fish- said:

It’s not false at all that she won the party endorsement, based on a.vote conducted under their rules.   You’re pushing a weak narrative that is based on pure speculation.

No one is saying she didn't win the party endorsement based on the rules- literally nowhere did anyone say that.  No one is disputing that. 

The question is how the votes were distributed between members and leadership.  It's based on speculation because they won't release the numbers.  If they would release the numbers, it wouldn't be based on speculation anymore.  

They have released the numbers before, and are not releasing them now.  There is no sensible explanation for why they won't grant this small bit of transparency.  

If she didn't have more support among working families than Sanders- aka, actual votes by actual members of the party instead of concentrated votes by a superdelegate majority- then it's dishonest to frame her as the 'Working Families' candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

No one is saying she didn't win the party endorsement based on the rules- literally nowhere did anyone say that.  No one is disputing that. 

The question is how the votes were distributed between members and leadership.  It's based on speculation because they won't release the numbers.  If they would release the numbers, it wouldn't be based on speculation anymore.  

They have released the numbers before, and are not releasing them now.  There is no sensible explanation for why they won't grant this small bit of transparency.  

If she didn't have more support among working families than Sanders- aka, actual votes by actual members of the party instead of concentrated votes by a superdelegate majority- then it's dishonest to frame her as the 'Working Families' candidate. 

you're claiming it's deceptive and trying to create a conspiracy.   nothing whatsoever is deceptive, except trying to push this narrative about a meaningless party endorsement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to MSNBC, Warren and Bernie are similar enough candidates that if you picked Bernie over Warren, it's because you're sexist. 

Who knew...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Max Power said:

According to MSNBC, Warren and Bernie are similar enough candidates that if you picked Bernie over Warren, it's because you're sexist. 

Who knew...

People trust your reporting.  :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Max Power said:

According to MSNBC, Warren and Bernie are similar enough candidates that if you picked Bernie over Warren, it's because you're sexist. 

Who knew...

 

3 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

People trust your reporting.  :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Video at link: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-who-said-supporting-bernie-over-warren-is-showing-your-sexism-goes-horribly-viral/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

@mattyglesias

I disagree with this. The problem is Bernie should be trying to convince Democrats that he’s be a good Democratic Party nominee rather than trying to convince Democrats that the Democratic Party is actually bad.

So much this.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

People trust your reporting.  :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Is that directed at me or MSNBC?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Is that directed at me or MSNBC?

Probably you.  MSNBC didn't say that.  An analyst on one of the shows did (kind of, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Quote

@mattyglesias

I disagree with this. The problem is Bernie should be trying to convince Democrats that he’s be a good Democratic Party nominee rather than trying to convince Democrats that the Democratic Party is actually bad.

So much this.

The whole "Bernie wuz robbed in 2016!" talking point has slowly disappeared as a Bernie-ish candidate (who is actually a Democrat) has gradually risen to the top of the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Probably you.  MSNBC didn't say that.  An analyst on one of the shows did (kind of, anyway).

The 3 people up there up there all seemed to "absolutely agree" and "that was a good answer" to the statement. They arent exactly offering a counter point to that opinion.

I should have stated according to democratic strategist's on MSNBC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:

The 3 people up there up there all seemed to "absolutely agree" and "that was a good answer" to the statement. They arent exactly offering a counter point to that opinion.

I should have stated according to democratic strategist's on MSNBC.

And the MSNBC host as well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That MSNBC "analyst" is the daughter of Donald Sussman, a hedge fund executive who gave a cool $22 million of the family money to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Both of her parents are billionaires.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good piece from a left perspective as per usual by Nathan J. Robinson:

I fear running Warren against Trump, because I think Trump will relish running against her. For one thing, she does have a scandal: She spent a very long time fabricating an important detail of her identity, falsely claiming to be Native American. In doing so, she allowed Harvard to pretend it had more faculty of color than it actually did. She tried to defend herself by saying that she was, in fact, Native American, citing a DNA test. This was not just offensive to Native people, but it makes Warren seem untrustworthy: Does she still think she’s Native American? What did she think the DNA test proved? Does she think it was wrong to suggest that both she and her husband were Cherokees and to contribute recipes to a Native cookbook? This may seem trivial, but character matters, and this does not speak well of Warren’s truthfulness. Trump will exploit it endlessly. She will be asked about it again and again, and I have never heard her deal with it well. 

I also think Elizabeth Warren’s “wonkish Harvard professor” persona will be easy for Trump to run against. Harvard is a bad brand. People hate it, not unjustly. It will be very easy to make Warren seem like a snob, and Warren’s professorial demeanor will not help. Trump’s whole shtick is anti-elitism, and while Elizabeth Warren may be a strong critic of Wall Street, a Harvard professor is a perfect target for Trump’s pseudo-populism. I do not have confidence that she will counter this effectively. I would be worried about Warren in a race against Trump, and my instinct is that Sanders, Kamala Harris, or Cory Booker would actually do better at appearing “relatable.” How well will Elizabeth Warren do in Michigan and Florida, rather than New York City? This is the question, and I’ve generally been very encouraged by the effectiveness with which Bernie makes his pitches to right-wing audiences at Liberty University and FOX News. 

So much prediction at this point is just gut feeling, but there is something that I think we should all find very troubling about a Warren nomination. I have the same feeling I had when Tom Perez was running against Keith Ellison for DNC chair, and we on the left were told that there was “no difference” between the two, because both were Progressives. (Turned out there was indeed a difference.) It was difficult to prove them wrong, but it felt like they were wrong. Now, I’m being told that there is no difference between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. This, too, feels wrong, and I think we will see just how wrong it is if Elizabeth Warren actually wins the nomination and then the presidency. Bernie Sanders poses a threat. (The journalists are rallying behind Warren. The New York Times celebrated Warren meeting the million-donation threshold as a “milestone” but didn’t run a story when Sanders met the same threshold months earlier. Expect endless profiles of Warren as the great Unifier.) 

Of course, it isn’t just gut feeling: I think there are things Elizabeth Warren has done that are incredibly troubling, such as her strange comment that Israel is under threat from “demographic realities, births.” (If this isn’t just racist code for “too many Arab babies” then I’m not sure what it means.) In These Times examined Warren’s record on military issues and concluded that “once Warren’s foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to wither” and even “judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade.” Since foreign policy is so much of what a president does, and historically where presidents have had an almost unimpeded power to shape policy, this means: In one of the main realms of presidential power, there is absolutely no reason why a leftist should support Elizabeth Warren. 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/the-prospect-of-an-elizabeth-warren-nomination-should-be-very-worrying/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Everything else aside, how did Delaware ethnicity enter into it? Is that a thing in Oklahoma?

I think Delaware is in Maryland.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Good piece from a left perspective as per usual by Nathan J. Robinson:

I fear running Warren against Trump, because I think Trump will relish running against her. For one thing, she does have a scandal: She spent a very long time fabricating an important detail of her identity, falsely claiming to be Native American. In doing so, she allowed Harvard to pretend it had more faculty of color than it actually did. She tried to defend herself by saying that she was, in fact, Native American, citing a DNA test. This was not just offensive to Native people, but it makes Warren seem untrustworthy: Does she still think she’s Native American? What did she think the DNA test proved? Does she think it was wrong to suggest that both she and her husband were Cherokees and to contribute recipes to a Native cookbook? This may seem trivial, but character matters, and this does not speak well of Warren’s truthfulness. Trump will exploit it endlessly. She will be asked about it again and again, and I have never heard her deal with it well. 

I also think Elizabeth Warren’s “wonkish Harvard professor” persona will be easy for Trump to run against. Harvard is a bad brand. People hate it, not unjustly. It will be very easy to make Warren seem like a snob, and Warren’s professorial demeanor will not help. Trump’s whole shtick is anti-elitism, and while Elizabeth Warren may be a strong critic of Wall Street, a Harvard professor is a perfect target for Trump’s pseudo-populism. I do not have confidence that she will counter this effectively. I would be worried about Warren in a race against Trump, and my instinct is that Sanders, Kamala Harris, or Cory Booker would actually do better at appearing “relatable.” How well will Elizabeth Warren do in Michigan and Florida, rather than New York City? This is the question, and I’ve generally been very encouraged by the effectiveness with which Bernie makes his pitches to right-wing audiences at Liberty University and FOX News. 

So much prediction at this point is just gut feeling, but there is something that I think we should all find very troubling about a Warren nomination. I have the same feeling I had when Tom Perez was running against Keith Ellison for DNC chair, and we on the left were told that there was “no difference” between the two, because both were Progressives. (Turned out there was indeed a difference.) It was difficult to prove them wrong, but it felt like they were wrong. Now, I’m being told that there is no difference between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. This, too, feels wrong, and I think we will see just how wrong it is if Elizabeth Warren actually wins the nomination and then the presidency. Bernie Sanders poses a threat. (The journalists are rallying behind Warren. The New York Times celebrated Warren meeting the million-donation threshold as a “milestone” but didn’t run a story when Sanders met the same threshold months earlier. Expect endless profiles of Warren as the great Unifier.) 

Of course, it isn’t just gut feeling: I think there are things Elizabeth Warren has done that are incredibly troubling, such as her strange comment that Israel is under threat from “demographic realities, births.” (If this isn’t just racist code for “too many Arab babies” then I’m not sure what it means.) In These Times examined Warren’s record on military issues and concluded that “once Warren’s foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to wither” and even “judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade.” Since foreign policy is so much of what a president does, and historically where presidents have had an almost unimpeded power to shape policy, this means: In one of the main realms of presidential power, there is absolutely no reason why a leftist should support Elizabeth Warren. 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/the-prospect-of-an-elizabeth-warren-nomination-should-be-very-worrying/

He was great on the Useful Idiots pod last week.

I agree with what he said and I also worry about her getting flustered so easily. She really comes off as unprepared and something of a goof when she gets rattled and Trump is NOT the person you want to face in that scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Everything else aside, how did Delaware ethnicity enter into it? Is that a thing in Oklahoma?

Delaware are an Indian Tribe.

But, I had not heard her tell that story.  Has no impact on me though.  :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Delaware are an Indian Tribe.

But, I had not heard her tell that story.  Has no impact on me though.  :shrug:

I realize that. It’s just that I thought Liz’s heritage came via the Cherokee in Oklahoma, which makes sense. I have no idea how the Delaware came into the picture as they’re an eastern tribe.

Agree.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit:  Never mind. 

Edited by McJose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, McJose said:

What happened to all the posts where people said they believed Trump really is a scratch golfer and/or it’s OK if Trump cheats because everybody cheats at golf?

The Kremlin is probably having a server outage right now. The bot accounts will be back online later today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, McJose said:

What happened to all the posts where people said they believed Trump really is a scratch golfer and/or it’s OK if Trump cheats because everybody cheats at golf?

In the Trump MAGA thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jobber said:

The Kremlin is probably having a server outage right now. The bot accounts will be back online later today.

Looks like there’s about 12 hours of comments deleted. :lmao:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In the Trump MAGA thread?

Ahhh..you’re right.  The “2020” thing threw me.

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q3 fundraising numbers are starting to come in - first two to announce:

Bernie Sanders - $25M

Pete Buttigieg - $19M

 

Both of those are strong numbers - particularly given their non-front-runner status.  Bernie showing he can still be a fund-raising machine - and its also pretty clear that he won't be dropping out of the race until the convention.

I expect both Biden and Warren will be in the same range.  But, this might be a shot across the bow for Harris if she can not get close to these numbers.

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

Sanders: $25M

Buttigieg: $19M

Booker: $6M

 

 

Booker will be out before Iowa unless he makes a big move in the next couple of months.  He rallied late, just to get to $6M, but that is not enough to run an effective campaign in the early states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toshiba said:

Why do people say things like this?

Ren is good people.  He has a healthy skepticism for conventional wisdom.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  In this case - he is jumping on something without really thinking it through.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Bernie’s number is amazing. He’s going to stay in until the end, and you gotta think that helps Biden. 

I don't think he will stay in until the end and I don't think Biden would benefit at all if he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I don't think he will stay in until the end and I don't think Biden would benefit at all if he did.

I will be surprised if he leaves before the nomination is sewn up.  He has the money, the desire, and has no real incentive to help the DNC here.  Bernie has a message, and he will use every opportunity he gets to deliver that message.  Realistically, this is his last chance on a national stage.  I don't think he walks away from that.

 

I do agree that his campaign won't have much impact on Biden's campaign.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He stuck it out against Hillary way past when he had any hope. Seems like he'd have even more interest in sticking around this time with talk of the possibility of a contested convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Bernie’s number is amazing. He’s going to stay in until the end, and you gotta think that helps Biden. 

It may help Biden make the top 2, but it won’t help him win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I didn't say that it locks up Biden as the winner but of course it helps him. If Bernie drops out, all his support goes to Warren. If Bernie stays in, he splits up the progressive vote and that gives Biden a much better chance. This isn't complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Look I didn't say that it locks up Biden as the winner but of course it helps him. If Bernie drops out, all his support goes to Warren. If Bernie stays in, he splits up the progressive vote and that gives Biden a much better chance. This isn't complicated.

You haven't explained the part where it "gives Biden a much better chance."  Will Biden get more delegates at the convention if Bernie stays in the race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.