Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 05:02 am
@blatham,
Nothing to see with Sanders apparently. Matthews was "MeTooed":

https://www.gq.com/story/chris-matthews-experience
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 05:57 am
@Olivier5,
People really need to start standing up to these feminist nutcases and stop them from destroying so many lives.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 06:27 am
@oralloy,
I think anyone comparing Sanders to the Nazis deserves a) a huge Godwin award, b) a looooong rest, and c) some weeks in rehab.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 06:27 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

I’m going to vote for Liz Warren in the NC primary tomorrow, and then just sit back and hope for the best.

Voted early, ended up losing my vote since Buttigieg dropped. Where in Nc are you?
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 06:50 am
@engineer,
I wonder how many thousands of early voters lost their vote.
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 06:53 am
@Olivier5,
Matthews gets put out to pasture because his mind is going yet there is a concerted effort to elect Biden who is probably further down that road. Shrugs

There were jokes about Reagan hitting the 'Nuke' button instead of the 'Nurse' button.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 07:03 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

snood wrote:

I’m going to vote for Liz Warren in the NC primary tomorrow, and then just sit back and hope for the best.

Voted early, ended up losing my vote since Buttigieg dropped. Where in Nc are you?


The triangle area
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 07:05 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

Matthews gets put out to pasture because his mind is going yet there is a concerted effort to elect Biden who is probably further down that road. Shrugs

There were jokes about Reagan hitting the 'Nuke' button instead of the 'Nurse' button.


Matthews has to go because of his compilation of inappropriate things. He knew it when he saw the GQ piece on him. Had little to do with senility, IMO.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 07:34 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
your friend is as much of an idiot as any Bernie-or-burster...
In behavior, not so. Never personal insults, for example. But his decision is has an identical failing to those who will only vote Sanders.
Quote:
It really amazes me how easily petty hatred and fanatism are taking over people's mind.
Yeah. It's a dangerous moment.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 07:44 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Nothing to see with Sanders apparently. Matthews was "MeTooed":

Everything I know suggests this was a matter of misogyny (or perceived misogyny). I spoke with a personal friend of his back when Hillary and Obama were in contest and told her I viewed his references to Hillary as being misogynistic. She was surprised and said he is personally not that way. On the other hand, I've also read accounts of him being an arrogant jerk and I've found that part of his character at times as well. He's very much an establishment figure tied in with the upper echelons of the NY/DC politics and media universe. A wealthy, connected celebrity. I won't come down on him hard - he's far from a Bill O'Reilly or a Roger Ailes - but I'm pleased to see him gone as a nightly news host.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 07:47 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I think anyone comparing Sanders to the Nazis deserves a) a huge Godwin award, b) a looooong rest, and c) some weeks in rehab.

Most modern popular right wing media has the role of making its audience stupider. There's an example of its success
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 09:55 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

I wonder how many thousands of early voters lost their vote.

It's a risk of early voting. I'm not bent about it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 12:00 pm
Like Trump, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is claiming the the Dem convention will be "rigged against" Sanders.

They are kind people. Honest too. They just want to help Dems succeed. And in fact, it is of course what Russian trolls have been saying as well but those are very kind and sympathetic people also.

It's times like these where you can quickly spot who your friends are versus the one's out to slit your throat.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 12:10 pm
Bernie Sanders Can’t Count on New Voters

There’s little evidence a progressive candidate can remake the electorate.

Quote:
As Bernie Sanders has taken the lead in the Democratic primary, those of us with doubts that America would elect a Jewish democratic socialist president have been able to comfort ourselves with polls showing him beating Donald Trump, often by larger margins than his competitors.

New political science research by David Broockman of the University of California, Berkeley, and Joshua Kalla of Yale erodes some of that comfort. Broockman and Kalla surveyed over 40,000 people — far more than a typical poll — about head-to-head presidential matchups. They found that when they weight their numbers to reflect the demographic makeup of the population rather than the likely electorate, as many polls do, Sanders beats Trump, often by more than other candidates.

But the demographics of people who actually vote are almost always different from the demographics of people who can vote. That’s where their analysis raises concerns about Sanders’s chances.

According to Broockman and Kalla’s figures, Sanders loses a significant number of swing votes to Trump, but he makes up for them in support from young people who say they won’t vote, or will vote third party, unless Sanders is the nominee. On the surface, these Bernie-or-bust voters might seem like an argument for Sanders. After all, Sanders partisans sometimes insist that Democrats have no choice but to nominate their candidate because they’ll stay home otherwise, a sneering imitation of traditional centrist demands for progressive compromise.

But if Broockman and Kalla are right, by nominating Sanders, Democrats would be trading some of the electorate’s most reliable voters for some of its least. To prevail, Democrats would need unheard-of rates of youth turnout. That doesn’t necessarily mean Sanders would be a worse candidate than Joe Biden, given all of Biden’s baggage. It does mean polls might be underestimating how hard it will be for Sanders to beat Trump.

“Given how many voters say they would switch to Trump in head-to-heads against Sanders compared to the more moderate candidates, the surge in youth turnout Sanders would require to gain back this ground is large: around 11 percentage points,” Broockman and Kalla write in a new working paper.

About 37 percent of Democrats and independents under 35 voted in 2016. According to Broockman and Kalla’s figures, Sanders would need to get that figure up to 48 percent. By comparison, Broockman told me, in 2008, Barack Obama raised black turnout by about five percentage points.

Disclosure: My husband is consulting for Elizabeth Warren. According to Broockman, she fares even worse than Sanders in their data, sharing his disadvantages among moderates without any sign of a compensatory surge among young people. Broockman said that if either Warren or Sanders is on the ballot, more Republicans will likely be motivated to go to the polls in response. “When parties nominate candidates further from the center, it actually inspires the other party to turn out,” he told me.

In our age of extreme polarization, a widespread school of thought holds that swing voters are nearly extinct, and that turnout is everything. But that’s an exaggeration. While there seem to be fewer swing voters than in the past, they can still be decisive.

As Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, pointed out in The Washington Post, the 2018 elections saw the highest midterm turnout in over a century, yet most of Democrats’ improved performance “came not from fresh turnout of left-of-center voters, who typically skip midterms, but rather from people who cast votes” in the last two national elections and “switched from Republican in 2016 to Democratic in 2018.”

The primaries have yet to demonstrate that Sanders can generate the hugely expanded turnout his campaign is promising, though that could change when the Super Tuesday results come in. In New Hampshire, turnout increased most in the places that voted for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.

Dave Wasserman, an editor at The Cook Political Report, tweeted that most of the Democrats’ turnout bump was attributable to moderate Republicans “crossing over from ’16 G.O.P. primary — not heightened progressive/Sanders base enthusiasm.” South Carolina saw record turnout, but it benefited Biden, not Sanders.

None of this means that Democrats would be justified in denying Sanders the nomination if he arrives at the convention with a strong plurality of delegates. Doing so would tear the party apart, probably leaving the eventual nominee even less electable than Sanders is. But it does mean that if Sanders wins the primary, his campaign has to learn to persuade people, not just mobilize them.

College-educated white women, for example, helped flip the House in 2018. They favor Biden over Trump by double digits, but Sanders by only two points. Sanders, however, seems to see little need to reach out to them. Speaking to The Los Angeles Times editorial board in December, Sanders said he didn’t believe the way to win against Trump “is to just speak to Republican women in the suburbs.”

Instead, he said, “The key to this election is, can we get millions of young people who have never voted before into the political process, many working people who understand that Trump is a fraud, can we get them voting?” Even if the answer is yes, it probably won’t be enough. If he’s going to be the nominee, the rest of us can only hope his campaign has a Plan B.

nyt/goldberg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 12:17 pm
@blatham,
Speculations that the forthcoming Democrat Convention will likely be "rigged" against Sanders are merely observations based on the words and behaviors of many prominent Democrat leaders and even many Democrat supporters on these threads. Indeed the rules of the DNC, which explicitly provide enhanced (more than doubled) voting authority for "superdelegates" (i.e. current Democrat officeholders in State and Federal governments) in the 2nd round of Convention voting, explicitly provide for this possibility. Many Democrat, and others who oppose them, see this possibility as simply a means of enhancing the political prospects of Democrats. in the coming Presidential and Congressional elections - whether they facvor that outcome or not. Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

That Republicans don't wish to see Democrats succeed in the election and Democrats share the same wish for Republicans, is hardly a surprise or even remarkable. Despite these obvious facts, Blatham sees a dark conspiracy afoot here. Perhaps it is the latest manifestation of {shudder) "movement conservatism".
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 12:48 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Speculations that the forthcoming Democrat (sic) Convention will likely be "rigged" against Sanders are merely observations based on the words and behaviors of many prominent Democrat leaders and even many Democrat supporters on these threads.


(More like one "Democrat"— or quasi-supporter — on these threads.)

The use of the term "rigged" is what bothers me, georgeob. The DNC asked Mr. Sanders to help them reform the delegate rules after 2016 — it's not as if the dastardly DNC was meeting secretively in the back room of the local pork store. I get the feeling that, even if Biden or Bloomberg clearly get more votes than Sanders, a portion of his base is automatically going to cry "foul". But showing that the contest was truly "rigged" will be an uphill battle and the GOP might, trying to be clever, just end up looking clueless.

By the way, that's the Democratic Convention. There is no "Democrat" Convention. Here, even one of your guys agrees:

Quote:
There's a trend toward writers and commentators reframing the Democratic Party as the "Democrat" Party. It's seen often in right-of-center commentary, particularly on the internet. At AT we see it in potential copy all the time. (I saw it in a submission just yesterday.)

The argument goes that the party is, in fact, not "democratic" at all, so it's wrong to allow Democrats to degrade the term by making claim to it. There's certainly something to that.

But here's the thing: back around 2006, the term "liberal" became radioactive. This was a culmination decades in the making. Efforts to turn the word "liberal" into a curse had been carried out by a small number of conservative columnists for many years, with middling success. It was probably the rise of the internet, with the entrance of real, unvarnished opinion onto the national stage, that clinched it. It was very likely Sarah Palin's slashing use of the term in the 2008 campaign that put the cap on the matter.

From that point on, they couldn't run fast enough. They had defended themselves for years by pointing to the dictionary definition of "liberal": "Oh, but liberals are generous and openhanded – what could possibly be wrong with that?" But that didn't work any longer, and they began casting around for replacements, such as "left-liberal" and "progressive," none of which quite clicked. Today it's "social-democrat." Whatever – they all mean the same thing.

This marked a vast and unheralded victory in the battle against the left. No longer could leftists hide behind a term representing everything open and good while attacking conservatism as dank, unhealthy, and medieval. The poisoning of "liberal" remade the battle space in a way unseen in half a century.

So what's wrong with doing the same to "Democratic Party"?

We need to make the party name as ridiculous, shifty, and unacceptable as "liberal." Ruining the very name of America's left-wing party would be something to write home about. But we can't do this by attacking a party that doesn't exist. Striking against the "Democrat" Party accomplishes nothing. It's a tactical error that may provide a moment's emotional release but nothing more.

We need to clean our sights, home in on our target, and make every round count. Once the Dems have been humiliated, we may well wish to recover the term and restore the respectable patina it once wore. Until then, we use "Democratic" as an insult, and make the jackasses hurt.

americanthinker/dunn

ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 12:54 pm
@hightor,
Republic party peeps having trouble with the use of Democratic. Poor old white snowflakes eh.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 01:20 pm
@hightor,
I'll agree that the term "rigged" (it wasn't mine) has some pejorative implications, that aren't necessarily accurate in the present conversation. It's also true that the Superdelegate provision in the DNC rules were motivated (at least in some quarters) by concerns about possibilities not unlike the one involving Sanders today. Politics (even Democrat politics) is hardball with winners and losers, and hard fought convention fights have occurred in both Political Parties (though more frequently among Democrats than Republicans in the last few decades). I don't have any theoretical beliefs or concerns on this matter - the situations both have faced are a somewhat random series of events, and the human behaviors that underlie both are somewhat similar.

The party composed of people who identify themselves as 'Republicans' is called the Republican party. I call the one composed of people who identify themselves as ' Democrats', the Democrat party. To me It's a matter of grammar and English usage.. Perhaps we should start calling the members of Nancy Pelosi's cohort in the Congress "Democratics" and name the party after them.

Historically believe the origin of the term arose from that of the "Democratic Republican Party in Jacksonian times - the subsequent omission of the 2nd descriptor appears to have started this mess.

My father was for many years a Democrat Congressman from Michigan, and he and a good friend from the adjoining 15th district (John Dingell Sr. - later succeeded by his son who was I believe the longest ever serving member of Congress) both called it the Democrat Party.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 02:02 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Despite these obvious facts, Blatham sees a dark conspiracy afoot here. Perhaps it is the latest manifestation of {shudder) "movement conservatism".

The point, of course, is that these notions are being pushed by Trump and other Republicans (and covert players) only to cause dissension on the left. There's no other plausible motive. They aren't trying to bring aid and assistance to the Democrats. They aren't giving a tutorial on democracy.

As elections now are decided by turnout, much effort is being put into suppressing that turnout. Generating internal dissent within the left is a key element of this strategy. "Divide and conquer" as Michelle Bachmann put it. And the Russians are contributing
“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

As I've written before, there was a clear earlier instance of such strategies during the Obama/Clinton contest where the GOP covertly set to a project of trying to persuade Democrat-voting women that Obama had stolen the nomination from Hillary and therefor women should reject him and vote for McCain. It was a big social media project (built around inter-linked MySpace) sites and involving planted operative to appear on news shows. Here's a key player. She wasn't a Dem, she was a Republican operative. Fox was delighted to host her a number of times. At the time, a reporter from Wired looked into the Clintons4McCain website and found it had been registered to the GOP in May, 2008. Here the GOP operative is talking as a rep of JustSayNoDeal which was one of the MySpace sites linked with Clintons4McCain and she appeared in media (on Hardball, for one example) as rep of that group.



You know, just passing this on in the event you are interested in learning.

edit: Let me add that I spent two months digging into this story. It's the only time I've posted on the internet using a false ID (posting as a female). I had a number of conversation with this woman and with a guy named Will Bower who was the tech and PR boy involved in the operation and with the reporter from Wired. I know what I'm talking about.

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Mar, 2020 02:23 pm
Good point from Greg Mitchell
Quote:
Greg Mitchell
@GregMitch
Yeah, the Dem "establishment" and "billionaire class" really "fixed it" for Biden--yet somehow he had no money, no organization in most states--not even Calif. Maybe preferences of actual masses of voters have something to do with it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:51:25