Election 2020

[Norah]

[The Argonaut]

Warren as a spoiler who stayed in the campaign past her expiration date is a completely bullshit narrative that only makes sense if you're wearing your Bernie Bro blinders

[Mickey]

According to Twitter (yeah, I know), Kaine was listed as a speaker before being announced as a VP in 2016, and they just changed the scheduling around. I don't think anyone is out of it yet for that reason.

Warren is definitely out, which, again, is so funny insofar as it confirms that her campaign was little more than left-spoiler.

I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion

Pretty easily--what else did she accomplish by her candidacy? She didn't accrue enough delegates to have a say in the party's platform, she's unlikely to be named to the cabinet given the fact that she's a blue Senate seat in a currently-red state. She was out of contention after New Hampshire, and yet continued to run through Super Tuesday, and we know from polling that her supporters would have broken for Bernie (i.e. the left) more than any other candidate. So, maybe you could have argued that staying in the race was a strategic decision en route to becoming VP--where the position is offered either as a reward for publicly kneecapping Bernie or because she kept her national profile, and her delegate count, high enough to merit consideration as representative of a significant voting block--but then, she would have be named VP for that argument to hold any water. Otherwise, what are you left with? What did she do?

I fundamentally view the bold part as needlessly cynical. I believe Warren to be a principled politician. I'm sure she'll get a spot in the cabinet, but I also believe she would have conducted herself the same throughout her campaign regardless of potential second-banana outcomes.

Okay but why do you believe that? Because you're using "conducting herself the same" here to mean that she would have continued to run an expensive campaign long past her expiration date whether or not she was drawing votes from her left-wing competitor--in other words, that there was actually no reason, no justification, no carrot at the end of the stick guiding her behavior. Does that make her principled? Smart? Leaving aside the fact that you actually cannot disregard the outcome, and the result of this (confirmed today!) is that the two most vocal opponents to Medicare for All--something Warren reportedly likes--are on the ticket. So where did those principles get her? What did she accomplish? Not "What did she intend to happen," but what did she actually do?

I think sometimes we overrate the rationality of these campaigns. She had enough money and enough support; and when is she going to run again than now? This was likely going to be her one chance to win.

But I'm not talking about her intention and whether it was rational or not--I'm talking about the effect of her campaign, which was DOA and had no path to victory after going 0/4 in the early states and trailing in the polls even in her home state.

[digster]

This seems like years ago but did she even stay in it for exorbitantly long? I thought she dropped out early this year.

[Mickey]

This seems like years ago but did she even stay in it for exorbitantly long? I thought she dropped out early this year.

Warren dropped out on March 5th, two days after Super Tuesday. Most of the other candidates--including one who had actually won one of the four early contests--dropped out on March 1st or 2nd.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[elliseamos]

Predict their logo!

I guess something incorporating a hammer and sickle.

[Mickey]

According to Twitter (yeah, I know), Kaine was listed as a speaker before being announced as a VP in 2016, and they just changed the scheduling around. I don't think anyone is out of it yet for that reason.

Warren is definitely out, which, again, is so funny insofar as it confirms that her campaign was little more than left-spoiler.

I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion

Pretty easily--what else did she accomplish by her candidacy? She didn't accrue enough delegates to have a say in the party's platform, she's unlikely to be named to the cabinet given the fact that she's a blue Senate seat in a currently-red state. She was out of contention after New Hampshire, and yet continued to run through Super Tuesday, and we know from polling that her supporters would have broken for Bernie (i.e. the left) more than any other candidate. So, maybe you could have argued that staying in the race was a strategic decision en route to becoming VP--where the position is offered either as a reward for publicly kneecapping Bernie or because she kept her national profile, and her delegate count, high enough to merit consideration as representative of a significant voting block--but then, she would have be named VP for that argument to hold any water. Otherwise, what are you left with? What did she do?

I fundamentally view the bold part as needlessly cynical. I believe Warren to be a principled politician. I'm sure she'll get a spot in the cabinet, but I also believe she would have conducted herself the same throughout her campaign regardless of potential second-banana outcomes.

Okay but why do you believe that? Because you're using "conducting herself the same" here to mean that she would have continued to run an expensive campaign long past her expiration date whether or not she was drawing votes from her left-wing competitor--in other words, that there was actually no reason, no justification, no carrot at the end of the stick guiding her behavior. Does that make her principled? Smart? Leaving aside the fact that you actually cannot disregard the outcome, and the result of this (confirmed today!) is that the two most vocal opponents to Medicare for All--something Warren reportedly likes--are on the ticket. So where did those principles get her? What did she accomplish? Not "What did she intend to happen," but what did she actually do?

I think sometimes we overrate the rationality of these campaigns. She had enough money and enough support; and when is she going to run again than now? This was likely going to be her one chance to win.

But I'm not talking about her intention and whether it was rational or not--I'm talking about the effect of her campaign, which was DOA and had no path to victory after going 0/4 in the early states and trailing in the polls even in her home state.

Well you started by calling her a spoiler. Which, if I'm not mistaken, means you were judging her intentions.

Lucky for me you are mistaken--someone can quite easily play the role of spoiler without necessarily intending to be!

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[BurtReynolds]

"I believe Warren to be a principled politician."

Ok I'm staying out of this thread.

[Mickey]

According to Twitter (yeah, I know), Kaine was listed as a speaker before being announced as a VP in 2016, and they just changed the scheduling around. I don't think anyone is out of it yet for that reason.

Warren is definitely out, which, again, is so funny insofar as it confirms that her campaign was little more than left-spoiler.

I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion

Pretty easily--what else did she accomplish by her candidacy? She didn't accrue enough delegates to have a say in the party's platform, she's unlikely to be named to the cabinet given the fact that she's a blue Senate seat in a currently-red state. She was out of contention after New Hampshire, and yet continued to run through Super Tuesday, and we know from polling that her supporters would have broken for Bernie (i.e. the left) more than any other candidate. So, maybe you could have argued that staying in the race was a strategic decision en route to becoming VP--where the position is offered either as a reward for publicly kneecapping Bernie or because she kept her national profile, and her delegate count, high enough to merit consideration as representative of a significant voting block--but then, she would have be named VP for that argument to hold any water. Otherwise, what are you left with? What did she do?

I fundamentally view the bold part as needlessly cynical. I believe Warren to be a principled politician. I'm sure she'll get a spot in the cabinet, but I also believe she would have conducted herself the same throughout her campaign regardless of potential second-banana outcomes.

Okay but why do you believe that? Because you're using "conducting herself the same" here to mean that she would have continued to run an expensive campaign long past her expiration date whether or not she was drawing votes from her left-wing competitor--in other words, that there was actually no reason, no justification, no carrot at the end of the stick guiding her behavior. Does that make her principled? Smart? Leaving aside the fact that you actually cannot disregard the outcome, and the result of this (confirmed today!) is that the two most vocal opponents to Medicare for All--something Warren reportedly likes--are on the ticket. So where did those principles get her? What did she accomplish? Not "What did she intend to happen," but what did she actually do?

I think sometimes we overrate the rationality of these campaigns. She had enough money and enough support; and when is she going to run again than now? This was likely going to be her one chance to win.

But I'm not talking about her intention and whether it was rational or not--I'm talking about the effect of her campaign, which was DOA and had no path to victory after going 0/4 in the early states and trailing in the polls even in her home state.

Well you started by calling her a spoiler. Which, if I'm not mistaken, means you were judging her intentions.

Lucky for me you are mistaken--someone can quite easily play the role of spoiler without necessarily intending to be!

Is that true? I'm not even arguing with you. I genuinely thought "spoiler" to refer to a politician who runs with the express purpose of disrupting another viable candidate's shot at winning.

...No? Perhaps it's been used that way but it's certainly not my understanding that one needs to say, "I am here to spoil!" in order to be a spoiler, and it would be weird to require intentionality as a requisite for what is essentially a structural role (i.e. you can only spoil if there's someone else to spoil it for). And, though I'm loathe to rely on dictionary definitions, this corresponds with MW:

1a: one that spoils
b: one (such as a political candidate) having little or no chance of winning but capable of depriving a rival of success

[E.H. Ruddock]

Why am I being subjected to a trag/Mickey argument in two different threads

[Mickey]

Why am I being subjected to a trag/Mickey argument in two different threads

School's out for summer bitch.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Mickey]

Great, now I have to come up with a new argument?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[BurtReynolds]

I wonder what the ramifications of the first female president being installed rather then elected will be.

[Mickey]

Great, now I have to come up with a new argument?

Try to sell me on Kamala.

She didn't do Benghazi.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Mickey]

Great, now I have to come up with a new argument?

Try to sell me on Kamala.

She didn't do Benghazi.

still no

Well, I tried my best.