Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Mnementh said:

One thing I noticed recently. As you may remember, I said before that in the endorsement race it is still early, as most potential endorsers stayed on the sidelines. This is still partly true, but endorsements have picked up a bit of steam. Especially Joe Biden started to collect endorsements recently. Just look at 538s endorsement tracker and look who got how many endorsements in November (as a proxy for recently).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/

Joe Biden gained six more endorsements in November. That is more than any month before except April (as he started his campaign). Booker and Klobuchar in comparison got no new endorsements, Harris and Buttigieg got two each. Maybe we see a movement that leads to a decisive lead in support by party establishment.

Having Tim Ryan endorse him probably resulted into some of these new endorsements.

But while Biden got many in November, he didn't get much in October, especially compared to someone like Sanders. Win some, loose some. I wouldn't make a trend out of it just yet.

Yeah, maybe it is a short term burst. We will see if that continues in December and the new year.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
Mnementh said:
tsogud said:

Ahh but I think there's already a word to describe those people my friend, it's the "privileged."

That's not enough. Privileged, but interested in social issues based on identity while still unaware or ignorant towards the questions of wealth distribution. Privileged people could easily fall into other categories: privileged people who use their privileges to discriminate against other groups, privileged people that are overall ignorant of power structures or privileged people that have informed themself of the struggles of poor people and support them.

Hmm yeah, I agree, you're very much right. Now onto coining the word... 🤔🤔



 

How much will the impeachement hitting the senate bind the senators in the race? Seemingly in the weeks prior to Iowa Biden and Buttigieg can freely campaign, while Sanders, Warren and Harris are sitting in the proceedings. Will that affect the race much?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Alright, I'll bite for a bit. Time to put the Berniecrat and Tulsicrat theory in the heads of everyone here. Let's start with the basic premises that lead to the overall theory.

1) Tulsi Endorsed Bernie in 2016

2) Tulsi is a member of the Sanders Institute

3) Tulsi Met with Bernie (and only Bernie) before her presidential bid was announced.

Now that we have the factors that lead to the theory let me actually explain what the theory is along side the evidence to back up said theory. The Theory is that Bernie and Tulsi are members of the same team and that when the convention reaches around they will pool their delegates together. Most Bernie and Tulsi supports (especially the crossover which is a hell of a lot from the tulsi side) think this is the case, and even Mike Gravel says that this is the absolute best ticket for taking down Donald Trump and fixing the country. (I'd much prefer her as sec of state than VP tho, I'm on the Nina VP train). Another factor to back this up comes in the form of point 3 above. Tulsi met with Bernie and told him that she was thinking about running and do you know what bernie did? He told her to run, he pushed her to run.

2nd point and the thing that actually makes me believe a bit more is watching where they focus on. She isn't going for the Bernie crowd, she's not targeting or purposely trying to bring us over to her. Her focus is entirely different to Bernie, the demographic she's going for are people who wouldn't actually vote or don't even trust democrats and to an extent some of that group is like "screw bernie" cause of 2016 when he endorsed hillary. She's expanding the electorate in a very different way than Bernie and is trying not to overlap support unlike someone else whose taking his entire campaign, watering it down and then claiming to be the "same".

Short and sweet version, she's working with Bernie in expanding the electorate, has his blessings to run, and isn't targeting his core supporters with his message unlike another "progressive" in the race. There's also other things that Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters point out such as when they come back on stage during debates one has their hand on the others back, and when they meet at dem meet ups you see him shake hands etc with others then he meets with Tulsi and its a big hug. This is essentially the Bernie/tulsi conspiracy theory that the intersection believes in and it also helps that unlike another person in the race Tulsi would defend Bernie and Tulsi wouldn't attack or make claims such as "America doesn't want a white man" etc.

In other words here's my belief. I trust Bernie and Tulsi to pool together their delegates, and I'm 100% sure Warren is a part of the stop Bernie coalition and you can point out that she also met up with Bernie, but I'm also going to point out she met up with the head of the neoliberal wing and the stop bernie chief of staff, Hillary Clinton as well before announcing her run and after as well. That's all I'm saying.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

Let's do the Math:

Bernie: X Delegates
Tulsi: Y Delegates

This brings us to a total of X + Y delegates.

So in the end, Bernie will end up with a combined "X" delegates once you add his delegates and Tulsi's.



Around the Network
morenoingrato said:
Let's do the Math:

Bernie: X Delegates
Tulsi: Y Delegates

This brings us to a total of X + Y delegates.

So in the end, Bernie will end up with a combined "X" delegates once you add his delegates and Tulsi's.

Keep underestimating her appeal, they did it in 2016 with Bernie and look what happened. They had to rig it to stop him. Sure she doesn't have the same overall appeal but she's drawing crowds pretty big ones, and she's got a ton of crossover appeal and a lot of states are open primary states (which let's be real, all states should be open primary). She's going to out perform the polls, I don't think it'll be to the extent of Bernie, but its definitely gonna be a sizable bump.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

uran10 said:

Alright, I'll bite for a bit. Time to put the Berniecrat and Tulsicrat theory in the heads of everyone here. Let's start with the basic premises that lead to the overall theory.

1) Tulsi Endorsed Bernie in 2016

2) Tulsi is a member of the Sanders Institute

3) Tulsi Met with Bernie (and only Bernie) before her presidential bid was announced.

Now that we have the factors that lead to the theory let me actually explain what the theory is along side the evidence to back up said theory. The Theory is that Bernie and Tulsi are members of the same team and that when the convention reaches around they will pool their delegates together. Most Bernie and Tulsi supports (especially the crossover which is a hell of a lot from the tulsi side) think this is the case, and even Mike Gravel says that this is the absolute best ticket for taking down Donald Trump and fixing the country. (I'd much prefer her as sec of state than VP tho, I'm on the Nina VP train). Another factor to back this up comes in the form of point 3 above. Tulsi met with Bernie and told him that she was thinking about running and do you know what bernie did? He told her to run, he pushed her to run.

2nd point and the thing that actually makes me believe a bit more is watching where they focus on. She isn't going for the Bernie crowd, she's not targeting or purposely trying to bring us over to her. Her focus is entirely different to Bernie, the demographic she's going for are people who wouldn't actually vote or don't even trust democrats and to an extent some of that group is like "screw bernie" cause of 2016 when he endorsed hillary. She's expanding the electorate in a very different way than Bernie and is trying not to overlap support unlike someone else whose taking his entire campaign, watering it down and then claiming to be the "same".

Short and sweet version, she's working with Bernie in expanding the electorate, has his blessings to run, and isn't targeting his core supporters with his message unlike another "progressive" in the race. There's also other things that Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters point out such as when they come back on stage during debates one has their hand on the others back, and when they meet at dem meet ups you see him shake hands etc with others then he meets with Tulsi and its a big hug. This is essentially the Bernie/tulsi conspiracy theory that the intersection believes in and it also helps that unlike another person in the race Tulsi would defend Bernie and Tulsi wouldn't attack or make claims such as "America doesn't want a white man" etc.

In other words here's my belief. I trust Bernie and Tulsi to pool together their delegates, and I'm 100% sure Warren is a part of the stop Bernie coalition and you can point out that she also met up with Bernie, but I'm also going to point out she met up with the head of the neoliberal wing and the stop bernie chief of staff, Hillary Clinton as well before announcing her run and after as well. That's all I'm saying.

Ehh, I mean even if that were the case she's not really polling that well at all so how much will it actually help... My guess, not that much but we'll see though.

Also, I must say, that Warren remark is ridiculous. You can talk with neoliberals and not be a neoliberal you know. Sanders has closely WORKED with prominent Republicans in the past to make sure bills/amendments got through, and describes most of the primary field as his friends. By your logic Bernie would be a secret republican/neoliberal agent. And that's just not true.

Last edited by tsogud - on 27 November 2019

 

I've seen 7 Bloomberg ads in the last two days. Thats more ads than i've probably seen for all candidates combined for the whole race so far.

Last edited by jason1637 - on 27 November 2019

jason1637 said:
I've seen 7 Bloomberg ads in the last two days. Thats more ads than i've probably seen for all candidates combined for the wholer ace so far.

Looks like he wants to practically buy the election by buying tons of ad space to drill his image into everybody's minds.



tsogud said:
Mnementh said:

Uh, I always had a somewhat cloudy understanding of what I understand being a SJW. But this is clear and simple and very much helps me with a definition: Someone who cares more about the question if a man holding the door open for a women is sexist than about a homeless starving in the streets.

EDIT: I realize that puts it very harshly. To make clear: I think social injustice issues are important and should be addressed. I only think that people which I refer to as SJW have their priorities mixed up. But probably not out of malice or something, but naivite and that they most likely grew up in an environment without poverty. Which is why they don't really emotionally connect to people that are suffering through poverty.

I always found it interesting how the term sjw is being used as an insult nowadays, like pursuing social justice is somehow bad or something.

Technically an sjw is just someone who promotes socially progressive views, so most of us would be put in that category.

Colloquially, it's seen as a pejorative now because it's been co-opted by socially conservative individuals and more often then not it's used by them to undermine substantive socially progressive claims/arguments. I've seen it almost always used by the socially conservative against feminists to discredit feminism entirely as just a vapid, self-aggrandizing ideology.

Don't throw fuel to the conservative fire, imo being a sjw ain't really a bad thing.

I always viewed it like this. Social justice is a good thing. People who are committed to social justice causes are properly called social justice activistsWarrior is a tongue in cheek term added to the end by conservatives to mock people for supposedly taking it too seriously or too far. It's like the term "feminazi" in that way, except that conservatives have mostly stopped using feminazi altogether from what I've seen and started using SJW to mean all social justice activists. I choose to throw the warrior term right back at them. They're status quo warriors, because if you notice, they're not just using SJW to mean people who think that white people should be excluded from things to teach them how oppression feels (real thing that happened at a college in Washington state, btw), but rather using the term SJW against anyone who dares allow any piece of media to feature a non-"cisgendered straight white male Christian" at all ("A lesbian protagonist?! These SJWs shove their politics down our throats!!!!11!!one!!).