Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:29 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Jersey City already has a substantial financial district within almost a literal stone’s throw of Wall Street. I once lived in that neighborhood. It’s so close that it wouldn’t really be that disruptive to move if they felt like it had a huge financial benefit— Plus of course the longer-term benefit of being a brush back pitch to future NYC mayors. NFL teams move around the country so their billionaire owners can get better stadium deals, so I don’t know why you can’t imagine billionaires moving their Wall Street or Midtown offices 5 miles west.
  #252  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Jersey City already has a substantial financial district within almost a literal stone’s throw of Wall Street. I once lived in that neighborhood. It’s so close that it wouldn’t really be that disruptive to move if they felt like it had a huge financial benefit— Plus of course the longer-term benefit of being a brush back pitch to future NYC mayors. NFL teams move around the country so their billionaire owners can get better stadium deals, so I don’t know why you can’t imagine billionaires moving their Wall Street or Midtown offices 5 miles west.
Because there's incredible prestige to being in Manhattan. And, in my understanding of that crowd, incredible prestige in not being in New Jersey.
  #253  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:46 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
And yet. The “New York” Giants and “New York” Jets both play in New Jersey. Brooklyn not long ago had the basically identical reputation to “Joisey”, and now it is literally the hippest spot on the globe because people found it cheaper to live there. If De Blasio thinks he has all the leeway in the world, I think he may be mistaken.
  #254  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:48 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Maybe by nothing. But they did during 2016, it's a fact.

Yep. yep.
That still doesn't mean anything. No and no.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #255  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But as Bernie has explained many times, that’s fake news. He didn’t honeymoon in the Soviet Union, jeez. He just went to the Soviet Union with his wife immediately after his wedding and called it a “honeymoon” many times after that, until shortly before he ran for president when he set the record straight....

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...nie-sanders-u/
  #256  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:44 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
George Will is quoted at that link as having written:

Quote:
[Sanders] did not mind that in 1988 political prisoners were — as may still be the case — being tortured in psychiatric ‘hospitals.’
I would be very interested to know exactly how Will knows that Sanders did not mind such a reprehensible thing. I suspect Will doesn't have any evidence of the kind, and is talking out of his ass. I'm not saying I know this to be so, but if he does, it would have been nice of him to include it in his column. Does anyone know of such evidence?

Anyway, I'm curious as to why you linked to this.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-02-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #257  
Old 08-02-2019, 03:37 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,774
I just want to say that DeBlaso radiates waves of being a gigantic tool, and I don't know what in the hell he thinks he's doing in this race.
  #258  
Old 08-02-2019, 05:08 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
In case anyone is interested, here's the actual video of Bernie back in the USSR. It starts 1:18 in, and you'll see Bernie in the foreground on the right side.

He's certainly never denied being on the trip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Washington Post
The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called “a very strange honeymoon,” an official 10-day visit to the communist country, and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.
  #259  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:11 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,774
Yeah that's one of the things about Bernie that has the worst optics. Actually it's the single biggest thing with the worst optics. I agree with others that the Republicans would go apeshit hammering home the fact that he spent his honeymoon in a Communist dictatorship that was very well known to be an oppressive regime. He went there in 1988. Apparently he "visited the Soviet Union as part of an official delegation in his capacity as mayor". Was this a common thing back then for mayors to do? Even if wasn't, the honeymoon aspect of it makes it look like he was a Soviet sympathizer. Can he possibly campaign hard enough to blue-collar America to make up for the spin machine that's going to be running attack ads showing him as a Soviet sympathizer?
  #260  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:17 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
At this stage it's still just a minority of American voters who are paying attention. And that minority tends to be of the type recently described as "woke Twitter." These are the folks who are making donations and otherwise keeping these candidates afloat.

So they are the ones being appealed to with bad-for-the-general positions such as "tax the hell out of the rich"; Woke Twitter loves that stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
People watch highlights and commentary on the debates. If only woke twitter was paying attention, there would be zero movement in the polls after a debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I didn't claim "only".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I think my point still stands. If a significant number of people weren't paying attention, we wouldn't have seen the bumps and troughs that happened after the last debate. I don't think they are super important, polling changes seem mostly transient, but a wide group of people must be paying attention. Otherwise, we must assume that pollsters are only contacting a minority that tends to be of the type recently described as "woke Twitter."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
FWIW there is a hint of data out now: the difference in the HarrisX polling results from 7/29 - 31 and 7/30 - 8/1 (most easily appreciated in the 538 poll tracker).

The difference of moving the 3 day result window into one that included a day after the second debate was ... (drumroll) ... Biden staying stable with Sanders losing 1%, Warren gaining 1%, and Harris not moving. Next rung Buttigieg dropped 1 and Booker gained 1%. Note this is one day of post debate polling out of three move of the needle. So yeah so far my prediction that is not so off. Harris didn't drop (so far) but otherwise on the money. (Go me!) Let's see what more polling brings!
Not much movement. CarnalK, you mentioned "bumps and troughs" after the first set of debates; do you have a citation for that?

It still seems to me that only a fraction of voters are paying attention--and that this is reflected in the type of things the candidates are saying, aware as they are that they're talking to a minority (a minority known for having certain political preferences).

The ratings give us some useful information: for the second (CNN) debates, according to Forbes* and other sources, fewer than 9 million people watched the 7/30 event and about 10.7 million watched the 7/31 event.

Recall that there are over 150 million Americans registered to vote (and about 245 million who are eligible to vote).** These numbers would appear to provide more support for my position than for the position that "a wide group of people must be paying attention."


* https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoy.../#6f05796e4f6e

** https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ped-countries/
  #261  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:25 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
Biden: Here's my plan! I'll finesse Kamala Harris into challenging me to arm wrestle!
Obama: She'll break your arm.
Biden: Elizabeth Warren?
Obama: Joe? No. Just no.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #262  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Not much movement. CarnalK, you mentioned "bumps and troughs" after the first set of debates; do you have a citation for that?
It's rather common knowledge but ok.
Kamala Harris’s Debate Bounce Is Fading
Quote:
We’ve documented for years how polls tend to rise and fall — in what are often fairly predictable patterns — after events like debates and conventions. In general, what suddenly goes up in polls tends to gradually come back down after a matter of a few weeks. Conventions typically produce polling swings of 4 to 6 percentage points toward the party that just nominated its candidate, for instance — but the polls usually revert back to about where they were before after a few weeks.
  #263  
Old 08-02-2019, 06:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
I guess more to the point is this quote:
Quote:
Harris has fallen to 12.2 percentage points from a peak of 15.2 percentage points. She was at 7.0 percent before the debate, so she’s lost about a third of what she’d gained.
  #264  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:07 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's rather common knowledge but ok.
Kamala Harris’s Debate Bounce Is Fading
Okay, thanks. But how does any of that translate into evidence that "a wide group of people must be paying attention"?

Your argument seems to be that if only, say, 8% of registered voters were paying attention, then there would be no movement at all in polls after the debates. And since the polls are not completely static, then that proves that a much larger percentage of registered voters are paying attention.

I don't think that reasoning holds up.

I gather you're basing your view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters---? But even if that were the case, the relatively small changes we're seeing in reactions to the 20 Dems could stem from huge reactions by the small Woke Twitter/lefty-activist demographic--and no reactions by the vast majority of respondents. If the Woke reactions are averaged in with the 'little or no change in views' of those poll-respondents who aren't paying attention, then we'd see what we actually do see: changes of a few percentage points in approval of Biden et al.

At any rate, to come up with anything beyond speculation, we would need to take an in-depth and statistically-detailed look at the methodology of any polls we might find relevant.

In the absence of such a deep dive into the methodology: you believe that "a wide group of people must be paying attention," while I believe that only a fraction of Americans are paying attention. I don't think we're going to settle this difference in views in this thread.
  #265  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:11 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Biden seems to be in a strong position right now, but I'll point out that both in 2008 and in 2016, Hillary Clinton had bigger leads than Biden does, but that lead ultimately collapsed both times. It collapsed too late to save Bernie, but she went from having a nearly 50% lead at the start of that race to barely a 1% lead as late as April of 2016 before finally pulling away once she got closer to clinching the nomination. In 2008, Obama didn't actually lead in the polls until February. Sometimes voters just need to see for real just how "electable" someone is or isn't before changing their minds.

I see a lot of Hillary in Biden. Obviously a different gender and a number of other differences, I reckon, but there's this idea that Biden's the inevitable winner and voters often rebel against the idea of a coronation. So even though there's not much movement in the polls yet, don't be surprised if there's a sudden shift that occurs much later in the year. Voters may not really be paying attention at this point. This stage of the race is about weeding out those who have neither the funding nor the popularity to compete. But even though we're two debates in, the race has really yet to begin.

Last edited by asahi; 08-02-2019 at 07:13 PM.
  #266  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:17 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,001
Aside: I beg your tolerance for a question that may already have been answered...but its making my brain itch. Those disruptive shouts from the audience? Who, what, why? Antifas? Q-Anon? Americans for Bat Boy?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #267  
Old 08-02-2019, 07:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Okay, thanks. But how does any of that translate into evidence that "a wide group of people must be paying attention"?

Your argument seems to be that if only, say, 8% of registered voters were paying attention, then there would be no movement at all in polls after the debates. And since the polls are not completely static, then that proves that a much larger percentage of registered voters are paying attention.

I don't think that reasoning holds up.

I gather you're basing your view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters---? But even if that were the case, the relatively small changes we're seeing in reactions to the 20 Dems could stem from huge reactions by the small Woke Twitter/lefty-activist demographic--and no reactions by the vast majority of respondents. If the Woke reactions are averaged in with the 'little or no change in views' of those poll-respondents who aren't paying attention, then we'd see what we actually do see: changes of a few percentage points in approval of Biden et al..
I don't see how math and reality could support this rebuttal. Harris got about an 8% bump after the debate. If only 8% were paying attention then they were all non-Harris people who all switched their preference after the debate. Or there was some other reason, untalked about, that created such a big sudden bump. Those are both really hard to believe.
  #268  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:18 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
I agree: there were clearly many people who watched highlights and were influenced by them. It’s silly to judge the impact of the debates by the Nielsen ratings for who actually watched live all the way through. Although that is still a hell of a lot more people than watch CNN or MSNBC when there are not debates on. For those channels, that was blockbuster viewership.
  #269  
Old 08-03-2019, 07:34 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I agree: there were clearly many people who watched highlights and were influenced by them. It’s silly to judge the impact of the debates by the Nielsen ratings for who actually watched live all the way through. Although that is still a hell of a lot more people than watch CNN or MSNBC when there are not debates on. For those channels, that was blockbuster viewership.
The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates.
  #270  
Old 08-03-2019, 08:49 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Aside: I beg your tolerance for a question that may already have been answered...but its making my brain itch. Those disruptive shouts from the audience? Who, what, why? Antifas? Q-Anon? Americans for Bat Boy?
"Fire Pantaleo!" Aimed at DeBlasio.
  #271  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:06 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates.

That bothers me too. Like the utter lack of evidence from the punditry or highlight clips of Beto’s strong performance Tuesday. They couldn’t really say he bombed, so they just ignored him entirely.
  #272  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:30 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
The debates were 5-6 hours total. I get that many don’t have the time to watch it all but what bothers me are the pundits who draw their own conclusions and then show snippets supporting those conclusions, and those conclusions may not be truly representative of the debates.
Related to this, I saw on MSNBC last night (I believe the origin was the Washington Post) that within minutes of Tulsi Gabbard calling Kamala Harris's record as a prosecutor into question, accounts with "bot-like" characteristics were flooding the internet with posts to the effect that Gabbard had devastated Harris at the debates.

Hmmmmmm, wonder who that could have been?

Last edited by OttoDaFe; 08-03-2019 at 09:32 AM.
  #273  
Old 08-03-2019, 09:47 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
Related to this, I saw on MSNBC last night (I believe the origin was the Washington Post) that within minutes of Tulsi Gabbard calling Kamala Harris's record as a prosecutor into question, accounts with "bot-like" characteristics were flooding the internet with posts to the effect that Gabbard had devastated Harris at the debates.

Hmmmmmm, wonder who that could have been?
It's entirely possible it could have been Russian bots, but let's not forget that there's a lot of homegrown media manipulation. I'd say the vast majority of social media and general media manipulation is homegrown. The incident you're referring to above strikes me more as garden variety tooling, which can have an impact, but it's not on the scale of what Russia does.

What Russia has done, and what it will do, isn't simply online influencing; they do full-scale information warfare. It's important to understand that what Russia did in 2016, and what they will likely do in 2020, is use weapons-grade information warfare devices. This will include deep data mining, and it will also include vast hacking operations which go beyond hashtag campaigns.
  #274  
Old 08-03-2019, 12:16 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"Fire Pantaleo!" Aimed at DeBlasio.
Why then did they interrupt Booker?
  #275  
Old 08-03-2019, 12:36 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Why then did they interrupt Booker?
Were someone's pants on fire? So it seems that you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with "Panteleo".

You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it's the "there once was a man from Nantucket" variety.
  #276  
Old 08-03-2019, 02:50 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Were someone's pants on fire? So it seems that you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with "Panteleo".

You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it's the "there once was a man from Nantucket" variety.
David Brooks on PBS last night made the same point, in different words. He said that Trump runs on values and emotions; you don't counter that with policy proposals. You have to run on a campaign of "these are the American principles that we espouse".

I've heard the exact opposite argument eloquently expressed on this very forum: that you can't run just being anti-Trump; you have to state what you're *for*.

Damfino what the right answer is. I sure hope the Democrats thread the needle and figure it out.
  #277  
Old 08-03-2019, 03:58 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Why then did they interrupt Booker?
New York, New Jersey, same thing? NFI.
  #278  
Old 08-03-2019, 04:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it's the "there once was a man from Nantucket" variety.

Well said, although I think Harris and Inslee are less guilty of this than most. Mayor Pete too, but he is not ready for other reasons.
  #279  
Old 08-03-2019, 05:14 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Were someone's pants on fire? So it seems that you can shout "fire" in a crowded theater as long as you follow it up with "Panteleo".

You know, Mario Cuomo once famously observed that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. These folks are all trying to campaign in prose. trump, whatever else, is campaigning in poetry, even if it's the "there once was a man from Nantucket" variety.
Post of the day. Very good insights.
  #280  
Old 08-03-2019, 11:04 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,774
I'm re-watching the most recent debate now to try to get a deeper read on what went down, and I noticed something that I hadn't really thought about the last time but which now seems quite significant. During the immigration question, after Biden delivered his reply (haltingly, inarticulately, and trailing off at the end), it's Castro's turn and he begins his statement by looking at Biden and saying "It's obvious that one of us has learned from the past and one of us hasn't."

The crowd erupts in cheers and applause.

It should be noted that all Castro even said at that point just amounts to "I disagree with you," but the way he delivered it obviously brought out a wave of hearty affirmation from the crowd. And this tells me one thing:

The audience likes to see Biden get smacked down.

I don't think this bodes well for his prospects against Trump if he's the nominee.

Edit - he also says shit like "the fact of the matter is that, in fact, ....". I've heard him called a "gaffe machine" but my impression of him from these debates isn't that he makes "gaffes", it's that he just sucks ass at talking.

Last edited by Lamoral; 08-03-2019 at 11:09 PM.
  #281  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Word.
  #282  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:32 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I'm re-watching the most recent debate now to try to get a deeper read on what went down, and I noticed something that I hadn't really thought about the last time but which now seems quite significant. During the immigration question, after Biden delivered his reply (haltingly, inarticulately, and trailing off at the end), it's Castro's turn and he begins his statement by looking at Biden and saying "It's obvious that one of us has learned from the past and one of us hasn't."

The crowd erupts in cheers and applause.

It should be noted that all Castro even said at that point just amounts to "I disagree with you," but the way he delivered it obviously brought out a wave of hearty affirmation from the crowd. And this tells me one thing:

The audience likes to see Biden get smacked down.

I don't think this bodes well for his prospects against Trump if he's the nominee.

Edit - he also says shit like "the fact of the matter is that, in fact, ....". I've heard him called a "gaffe machine" but my impression of him from these debates isn't that he makes "gaffes", it's that he just sucks ass at talking.
I think these are excellent observations, and you've articulated what I've been thinking. I think I've opined previously that Biden simply looks old and worn out, but you've explained in specific detail why I think he looks past his prime. You're absolutely correct: a halting delivery, trailing off at the end. I was actually nervous for Biden, wondering when the conversation would come back to him.

Trump is almost as old as Biden so age would be an issue for Trump, except for the fact that Trump is an utter and total buffoon on stage and people have come to expect that from him. Trump doesn't debate; he entertains, he puts on a show, like he's on the WWE. He doesn't have to stay on script; he quite easily goes off script and it doesn't hurt him. But that's not Biden's game.
  #283  
Old 08-04-2019, 07:38 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Those are the reasons Biden never got anywhere in his previous runs, even when he was younger and still vigorous. His skills are in backslapping and dealmaking, not in campaigning, although he can still crank up a good speech when he wants to. The basis for supporting him this time is nostalgia for Obama, and that will only hold up for so long.
  #284  
Old 08-07-2019, 05:48 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Take it with a grain of salt, but Klobuchar's campaign is saying she's close on the fundraising piece.
It looks like Klobuchar is in by her campaign's statement last Friday. (Washington Post cite)

Two more are close - Yang and Castro. They hit the fundraising requirement and only need one more major poll at 2%. Yang thought he qualified but the DNC disallowed one of his polls since it and another were both sponsored by NBC. Simply statistical noise might get them across the line since the qualifying line is lower than the margin of error in most of the polls. Gabbard claims she meets the donor requirement but only has one major poll at 2%. That's harder to back into by luck or influence. The story mentions getting quite a bit of attention out of the last debate.

So that takes us to 8 included with maybe up to 11 in the debates unless something big happens.
  #285  
Old 08-07-2019, 06:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
...

Edit - he also says shit like "the fact of the matter is that, in fact, ....". I've heard him called a "gaffe machine" but my impression of him from these debates isn't that he makes "gaffes", it's that he just sucks ass at talking.

Then you havent listened to his latest speech, where he calls out trump and the GOP.
  #286  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's a fair assessment.

TLDR: The USSR trip was part of a sister city deal between Burlington and Yaroslavl. It had been scheduled far in advance, and when they decided to get married, they scheduled their wedding to accommodate the trip. They were part of a delegation including ten other Burlingtonians. Sanders' schedule there was full of official meetings, interviews, and other functions. So it was a business trip, not a vacation.

If you had happened to take a business trip to the USSR immediately after getting married, and took your wife with you, wouldn't you call that trip a "honeymoon"? If not, you have no sense of humor.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone other than Fox News viewers are going to care at all about this in 2020, and apparently the other 347 Democratic candidates feel the same way, as none of them have tried to make an issue of it as far as I know. Slacker spent all of 2016 assuring us that Bernie's support was going to collapse as soon as people found out about this. Guess he's still waiting.
  #287  
Old 08-08-2019, 03:47 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
FOX News has always kept most of their anti-Bernie powder dry until he was the nominee and it’s too late. You point out that it hasn’t yet been pimped heavily on FOX, but imply that everyone knows about it?

ETA: And other Democrats aren’t saying anything about it because it would be risky to their own campaigns. If he were the frontrunner they would definitely bring it up.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-08-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #288  
Old 08-08-2019, 04:35 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
In 2016 there was maybe something to be said for the argument that Hillary was always in a strong enough position to not want to "go low".

Now...the likes of Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Klobuchar are all doing so well that they don't want to take the risk of going on the offensive against Bernie? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
  #289  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
In 2016 there was maybe something to be said for the argument that Hillary was always in a strong enough position to not want to "go low".

Now...the likes of Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Klobuchar are all doing so well that they don't want to take the risk of going on the offensive against Bernie? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

You were doing so well, but now you are regressing.

Being tagged as a “McCarthyite” can be damaging to their prospects for a veep or Cabinet spot, even to their standing among liberal donors for their own future races. The scenario where that risk gets set aside is when it’s down to Bernie and one other candidate, but Bernie has a substantial lead and the other candidate needs to throw a Hail Mary.

None of these caveats apply to the general election.
  #290  
Old 08-08-2019, 05:35 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
If you had happened to take a business trip to the USSR immediately after getting married, and took your wife with you, wouldn't you call that trip a "honeymoon"? If not, you have no sense of humor.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone other than Fox News viewers are going to care at all about this in 2020, and apparently the other 347 Democratic candidates feel the same way, as none of them have tried to make an issue of it as far as I know.
It's not that relevant to the primary. It would be doom in the general election. It's the optics of it, not the specific details of the trip, that will be used successfully against him. There's a freakin' video of him with his shirt off, drinking and singing songs with Russians. Don't think that every single Trump campaign ad wouldn't show the country that video, or that it wouldn't rocket to the top of the meme-o-sphere and be seen by everyone with a computer or a phone, day in, day out, for week after week after week.

I like Bernie Sanders as a guy. I think he's got a lot of heart and he is a tough fighter. But I don't share the idea that he could connect easily with working class America - most blue collar people in this country do not understand what Democratic Socialism is and they don't care how things are done in Norway and Sweden; they don't buy into class warfare, they don't view the 1% as a boogieman, and "Wall Street" and "Big Banks" are meaningless abstractions to them.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017