Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:

96583UP wrote: Businessman Tom Steyer is standing between them during the back and forth. As Mr. Sanders walked away, Mr. Steyer went to talk to him and said: "I don't want to get in the middle. I just want to say hi Bernie."

"Yeah, good, OK," Mr. Sanders responded.

L-O-fucking-L

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

I think you’re badly misreading how a female candidate weaponizing white-feminist social justice issues against a male candidate is being received by many democratic voters.

Bi_3 wrote:Britney Cooper, writing in Time:

“ But as we watch – and I with growing dread – the winnowing down of the Democratic field potentially to three white men, Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg, we are faced again with the problem of gender. I have, thus far, been disappointed watching progressive white feminists and feminists of color alike continue to argue for a socialist revolution on the grounds that gender would be covered. They make this same case about race, and that, too, is dubious.

Sanders is the most progressive and revolutionary candidate on the merits, these folks argue, so the fact that Warren is a woman – and similarly progressive – can’t matter. The insistence that an elderly white man’s socialist revolution will better address my 21st-century black feminist gender concerns is textbook white liberal paternalism. How will Sanders white masculinity affect and inform how he governs? This is a question that we should get to ask. Being progressive doesn’t mean that one’s race or gender ceases to matter in one’s leadership style and prerogatives, especially not in a world where gender and race are always presumed to matter for how women and people of color will govern.

For these voters, class — and Bernie’s strident advocacy for working-class folks and socialist values — trumps more menial concerns of women’s equality. The language of “women’s equality” seems to be from a 20th–century playbook, and of course, our gender analysis is far too sophisticated now to attend to such concerns. Meanwhile, we have not managed to elect a woman to the presidency in 244 years of being a nation-state. To claim now that Warren’s gender is incidental is also to make the claim that the gender of the 45 men who have been president is also incidental. Of course that’s absurd.”



Yes, yes it is.

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

I think you’re badly misreading how a female candidate weaponizing white-feminist social justice issues against a male candidate is being received by many democratic voters.

Poll conducted January 15-16

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well if it’s “broad consensus among political reporters and operatives” it must be true

I mean, scenario one is that someone decided they would electorally benefit from creating conflict amongst the progressive crowd while keeping their own name out of it, the way campaigns do all the time, and that reporters who follow these operations for a living and operatives who conduct them have experiential insights that are leading to consensus. In this scenario, one of her top aides was asked about the handshake refusal at the debate that this article is primarily about, and said something to the effect that Sanders had gone after Warren directly the week prior and was now whining about her hitting back.

Scenario two is that the person you’ve already decided to be mad at developed a moron-level plan to create a story that directly implicates her as the leaker and encourages people she’s trying to win over to question her honesty. In this scenario, her top aide just blurted out that his boss was the leaker, Bepop and Rocksteady style.

I think you’re badly misreading how a female candidate weaponizing white-feminist social justice issues against a male candidate is being received by many democratic voters.

Poll conducted January 15-16

I don't think the strategy is effective at all, but that's never stopped them from pushing it anyway. They don't seem capable of understanding why it always backfires.

verb_to_trust wrote:The fact we are talking so much about this Warren/Sanders thing means we're fucked. That's all it means.

The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.

Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

96583UP wrote:

hm, would you look at that

The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.

Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Spoiler: show

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:Trump would probably wipe the floor with Biden in a debate. Not on the issues, but just strength and personality wise.

Biden fumbles all over himself constantly. He'll look old and weak next to trump.

Bi_3 wrote:Pretty much this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ergs-race/

It's not too late to get on board team. Bloomberg can fund the entire party's slate in 2020 by himself and give the Blue team the best chance to retake the senate and actually pass meaning reform instead of pontificating at rallies.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Pretty much this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ergs-race/

It's not too late to get on board team. Bloomberg can fund the entire party's slate in 2020 by himself and give the Blue team the best chance to retake the senate and actually pass meaning reform instead of pontificating at rallies.

And what then? In 2024 the Republican version of Bloomberg buys the election? We need to get money out of politics. Does Bloomberg intend to fix this if he successfully buys the election? Someone should ask him.

Bi_3 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Pretty much this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ergs-race/

It's not too late to get on board team. Bloomberg can fund the entire party's slate in 2020 by himself and give the Blue team the best chance to retake the senate and actually pass meaning reform instead of pontificating at rallies.

And what then? In 2024 the Republican version of Bloomberg buys the election? We need to get money out of politics. Does Bloomberg intend to fix this if he successfully buys the election? Someone should ask him.

I don't know, but look at the alternative:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... a-centrist

JW: Do you think it’s legitimate for voters to be concerned about people in their later 70s running for the highest office in the world?

Sure, just like it’s legitimate for people to ask about whether you’re mature enough when you’re 35. I’m not joking. I mean, I went through the same thing when I was 29 years old. Well, wait a minute, are you old enough? And so, it’s totally legitimate.

Binyamin Appelbaum: So we have a 35-year-old limit. Should we have one at the top end too?

No.

BA: Should there be a top? Why not?

Because why would you? Show me where it’s been a problem.

BA: Why 35 then?

Thirty-five ——

JW: Well, President Reagan ——

Well, look, guys. I think you guys are engaging in ageism here. Now look, all kidding aside, I don’t think they’re — the voters will be able to make a judgment. You’ll make a judgment whether or not you think I have all my cognitive capability, I’m physically capable, and I have the energy to do the job. And so.

MC: So now your message is more you’re running on experience, a restoration of sanity, invocations of the Obama era. How do you convince younger voters that you are the person to help move the party into the future? So that’s a bit of a nostalgia thing.

No. By the way, just so you know, my message isn’t that I’m going to return to the Obama era. My message is twofold. Number one, the next president of the United States, I think you’d all have to admit, is going to have to be able to do two things. [BIDEN’S PHONE RINGS] What the hell is that?

KK: You’re getting a call.

Oh.