Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[tcr]

voting for any candidate just because they are a woman is, indeed, sexist, just as voting for someone just because they are black or hispanic is also racist

a candidate is more than their sex or race, and ignoring or handwaving away criticism on their policy decisions in lieu of support because they are a progressive identity in the political field does indeed make someone more sexist or racist despite the actions being considered positive in action

moreover pointing out that Hillary’s campaign in 2016 could be summed up as “im a woman and not trump” doesnt make bernie misogynistic, nor does pointing out that warren’s gender does give her a boost in polls when identity politics is huge among democrats right now, with boycotts on “the old white men” make bernie misogynistic. thats a very manichaean way of viewing politics

id be careful with your arguments concerning how bernie is “implying” women shouldnt run, or any other “implication” that you can wave away contradictory information to just be “damage control / pr” because the only “implications” you can gather will be formed by your own biases. i just think youre very foamy at the mouth concerning bernie of all dudes, thats all. its disconcerting

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

MikeDawg, Bernie had concerns 6 years after the civil rights act that bussing may cause racial animus. I think that could be a smart take considering how recently people had been forced to interact together. I dont know if I would agree with it, but I can see how someone might have that take so recently after the civil rights act. Joe Biden, however, liked opposing bussing in the 80s and 90s. And he voted on it, not just newspaper quotes and shit. Real legislative authority was taken by him to implement anti bussing stuff. Its totally different, and you are a retard.

 

[MikeDawg]

voting for any candidate just because they are a woman is, indeed, sexist, just as voting for someone just because they are black or hispanic is also racist

The fact that you think this is a legitimate argument instead of a blatant dogwhistle says a lot. Just like when Bernie implied other Dems support fully open borders: blatantly untrue, but a great dogwhistle to "economically anxious" conservatives!

Literally NOBODY is voting for a woman candidate just because they're a woman. Not even close. At best, it's a tiebreaker in their decision. But nope! I guess supporters for Amy/Liz/Kamala/Kirsten/Tulsi just drew straws to decide which woman to support!

Now tell me why affirmative action is actually racist to white guys.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I edited my post. But I still kept where I called you a retard.

I cant believe that in the year 2019 saying that voting for a candidate based on nothing to do with the ability to be a good president being a bad idea is now racist. Bit of a clown world, dont you think?

 

[MikeDawg]

I cant believe that in the year 2019 saying that voting for a candidate based on nothing to do with the ability to be a good president being a bad idea is now racist. Bit of a clown world, dont you think?

See: my reply to TCR

And it's kind of weird that you're saying that when I explicitly mentioned in my last post that "ability to be a good president" should be one of the largest factors.

Also weird that you have such an issue with American voters supporting women considering the centuries of choosing white men. Unless you think it's a coincidence that a demographic making up significantly less than half the population has been elected 300 years in a row?

Then again, you're a proud white supremacist, so I don't see what moral ground you have to preach from about racism.

Joe Biden, however, liked opposing bussing in the 80s and 90s. And he voted on it, not just newspaper quotes and shit.

So when it comes to Bernie, his own words suddenly don't matter? Are you kidding me?

 

[#MAGiCVLGiRL_TRVP_B3VTZ]

Literally NOBODY is voting for a woman candidate just because they're a woman. Not even close. At best, it's a tiebreaker in their decision. But nope! I guess supporters for Amy/Liz/Kamala/Kirsten/Tulsi just drew straws to decide which woman to support!

it is pretty funny that nobody is going nuts over the possibility of the first woman president now that it's not hillary, like they had all mentally tied the idea of that happening directly to Her or something

 

[MikeDawg]

it is pretty funny that nobody is going nuts over the possibility of the first woman president now that it's not hillary, like they had all mentally tied the idea of that happening directly to Her or something

Gonna need a source for this one.

But even if you're right... wouldn't that prove my point? People aren't super concerned about electing a woman president in particular?

 

[dice]

voting for any candidate just because they are a woman is, indeed, sexist, just as voting for someone just because they are black or hispanic is also racist

a candidate is more than their sex or race, and ignoring or handwaving away criticism on their policy decisions in lieu of support because they are a progressive identity in the political field does indeed make someone more sexist or racist despite the actions being considered positive in action

????????????????????????????????

ah yes, attacking a strawman with meritocracy, how noble. this take is so trash, c'mon. no one is suggesting that ppl are voting for a Woman Only Because She's A Woman, but it's not hard to understand why people would want to.. ? the insinuation here that women can't hold more than one political desire is sexist if anything. but okay.

bernie has fumbled race and gender issues many times, often eschewing direct support for broad, class-based policies. like, he personally repudiates patriarchy and white supremacy and whatever else, sure, but, as james baldwin wrote, "i can't believe what you say because i see what you do". bernie's platform ignore the inherent tie of race/class under our economic system, and fails to meet the needs of so many people. he attempts to make up for it with cutesy twitter admonitions like End White Supremacy, but doesn't do that with material politicking..? kinda fishy.

like yes, universal income or whatever else would be cool, but that says nothing about how there still are stark contrasts in community income and wages from white supremacy. it's very evident that his politics align with a white leftist perspective. bernie hasn't really had that many overt racist or sexist stunts and i think mikedawg is overblowing his faults in that respect, but lots of support from the queer and black communities has to do with warren not pussyfooting around identity as hard.

 

[Myzozoa]

mike dawg no one is gonna take u seriously trashing sanders with these pathetic 'gotcha bernie is a human w a career as a politician type stories' sorry if you background checkout the other candidates they're all way less recommendable in their histories, particularly harris. Hillary Clinton is pretty crapy candidate and uninspiring person that tried to leverage her establishment position over every other new-comer and managed to lose in a general election to the genius Donald Trump business focus group.

the rest of yall try to calm down the super smart 'women=advantage in polls due to identity politics' type dumb stuff which is arguably the same mindnumbing thing as mikedawgs sander's stuff. it's like a weird self-confirmng echo chamber on the last page, where you each say just the right amount of dumb things for the other person to confirm their view in the others' crappy logics.

 

[MikeDawg]

mike dawg no one is gonna take u seriously trashing bernie with these pathetic 'gotcha bernie is a human w a career as a politician type stories' sorry if you background checkout the other candidates they're all way less recommendable in their histories, particularly harris. Hillary Clinton is pretty crapy candidate and uninspiring person that tried to leverage her establishment position over every other new-comer and managed to lose in a general election to the genius Donald Trump business focus group.

The other candidates aren't held up as flawless messiah's in the first place, so there's nothing to refute. There wouldn't be a need to criticize his "bernie is a human w a career as a politician" moments if the dominant narrative wasn't the exact opposite of that. The problem is that the "flawless record" narrative is the main weapon his supporters use to put down other candidates who, just like Bernie, don't have flawless records. His/Biden's vote for the Crime Bill and his/Biden's denouncement of busing are prime examples of the double standard. Whenever Bernie fucks up (like calling Warren a corporate shill), it's handwaved away, usually with some lowkey bigoted bullshit (at least "low information voters" has mostly gone out of style). Meanwhile his vocal supporters crucify everyone else for far less.

Smogon's main demographic matches Bernie's main demographic really well, so it's unsurprising that any criticism of him receives pages of backlash. But national and state polls imply that people in general do see these things as more than "gotcha" moments, hence why he's fallen 10 points since March (while Biden has gone up by 2, for comparison).

 

[Myzozoa]

The other candidates aren't held up as flawless messiah's in the first place, so there's nothing to refute. There wouldn't be a need to criticize his "bernie is a human w a career as a politician" moments if the dominant narrative wasn't the exact opposite of that. The problem is that the "flawless record" narrative is the main weapon his supporters use to put down other candidates who, just like Bernie, don't have flawless records. Whenever Bernie fucks up (like voting for the Crime Bill or calling Warren a corporate shill), it's handwaved away, while his vocal supporters crucify everyone else for far less.

Smogon's main demographic matches Bernie's main demographic really well, so it's unsurprising that any criticism of him receives pages of backlash. But national and state polls imply that people in general do see these things as more than "gotcha" moments, hence why he's fallen 10 points since March (while Biden has gone up by 2, for comparison).

no, if you attack him FOR his record in ways that are trivial it actually fuels the perception that his record is flawless for ppl who already believe that. If you think that Sanders is not the best candidate and want to demonstrate how others are better, does it make sense to attack him in an area where he is easily defendable in comparison to other candidates? imo focus on serious and recent failings, like his failure to to articulate his ideas in ways that are actually appealing to the people they would most benefit, such as is implied when you correctly point out in another post that Warren appeals to people that are sick of white-centred identity politics that Sanders has recently failed to challenge in framing his policies. there will be plenty of blunders dw.

 

[MikeDawg]

no, if you attack him FOR his record in ways that are trivial it actually fuels the perception that his record is flawless for ppl who already believe that.

I agree with you, but my point is that a lot of his blemishes aren't trivial, and he's the only candidate who gets the Alyssa Edwards treatment. I agree that the busing thing is trivial, but back in my original post that spurred this whole discussion, it was just a "while we're talking about Bernie, here's a fun fact" sidenote below the Warren point. I wasn't pushing it as a significant issue in the first place, I was just noting a little-known double standard.

On the other hand, the Crime Bill vote and calling Liz a shill/"winning because she's a woman" comments are absolutely not trivial, and the wide backlash he's received even from fans is indicative of that.

 

[Myzozoa]

you need to keep track of all the things youre claiming because reiterating ur above stuff while also posting in favor of biden and clinton just isn;t convincing, i think you're misunderstanding how skeptical that makes a reader

 

[MikeDawg]

you need to keep track of all the things youre claiming because reiterating ur above stuff while also posting in favor of biden and clinton just isn;t convincing, i think you're misunderstanding how skeptical that makes a reader

I don't think Bernie is the antithesis of Clinton/Biden, and he certainly isn't synonymous with the progressive movement as a whole. I think this common assumption that criticizing Bernie is akin to criticizing progressiveness is really flawed. That's why only 20% of Warren supporters have Bernie as their second choice iirc.

Imo, it's possible to appreciate Biden's climate plan while denouncing his touchiness and misogynistic response to the scandal while praising Hillary's healthcare efforts while denouncing her superpredator comment and Iraq war support while praising Bernie's role in dragging the narrative to the left while criticizing those things that I've critized him for.

It's a different story for transphobic conservatives concern trolling about Kamala blocking inmate reassignment (which is a completely valid critique) or a trump supporter praising Bernie's consistency and honesty (which would be more believable if they didn't feel the same way about Donald).

If there's something in particular I've said that you thought was contradictory (which is definitely possible that I'm just not remembering), I'm all ears.

 

[MikeDawg]

Switching topics, I'm actually really confused by how low Kamala's poll numbers have been, because she tends to excel in polls that ask less direct questions than, "Who is your first choice?"

Recent article for reference:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...emocratic-voters-most-want-see-drop-out-race/

She neck-and-neck with Biden for first in the "most excited about running" category, and neck-and-neck with Biden for last in the "want candidate to drop out" category. This is consistent with similar polls. She also tends to win "candidate you want to hear more about" polls.

She does have lower name recognition than the top 3 still, so that could be it. Voters have a good opinion of her but don't feel they know enough to make a firm commitment. Considering she's already on people's radars (in a very positive way), I think she could easily surge if she turns it out at the first few debates.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Also, tons of people are spiteful of Bernie's role in getting Trump elected in 2016 by staying in well past his time and using those few months to attack Hillary. Good guess!

Crazy where all those people went

Also strange how none of the people who want bernie are tearing down warren either. Makes you wonder

 

[Myzozoa]

no politician is synonymous w 'the real progessive movement as a whole' and like why even be posting abt electoral politics if thats where we begin? that was the point of my very first post itt

you can see who is representing aspects of progressive movements in issues and platforms that are bipartisanly disavowed except by such representatives. thats the big hint, and as far as I can tell, from an electoral stand point, Sanders might seem to be the most clearly involved in the contemporary long-term electoral progressive project. At a rare moment when the contradictions contained in neoliberal political economy are exhibiting intensification, Sanders is imo trying to be part of a recently newly possible progressive electoral politics. Warren has also given excellent indications of commitment to this project, but I am not aware of the extent of her previous involvement.

mental gymnastics about who supports who as their second choice with the election over year out is not relevant. in addition so what if a trump supporter likes a sanders idea? there is an election to win over here and differences between candidates to discern. Ultimately with the electoral college and voter suppression the stakes for drawing people to new ideas have never been higher. So any of these candidates should aim to win that voter segment. No they cannot win out the evangelicals w/o a long-term project that would require full control of each branch of gov, against that, each day of the trump administration gathers steam for that block.

your 2nd paragraph reads as some variation of 'doesn't matter who the candidate is it will all be the same', does that sound right to you? at some point you have to think to yourself that some people are more power hungry and have more contradictory interests and weaknesses than others.

then the 2nd half of that post seems paranoid, ironically about sussing out the difference between 'legitimate progressive' concerns about Kamala Harris and conservative trolling, and then more worries that it's all the same between Trump supporters as w Sanders'.

 

[MikeDawg]

Crazy where all those people went

Idk what this means. 35% of people want him to drop out. That's the second most behind De Blasio. Objectively, he is the most hated realistic candidate. If I'm misinterpreting what you meant, my bad, but I don't see your point.

Sidenote: Crazy how the supporters of the 2 most progressive of that bunch who are also women are the ones who most want him to leave. Take that as you will.

Also strange how none of the people who want bernie are tearing down warren either. Makes you wonder

Idk what this means either. Those charts show that Harris supporters like Warren the best, followed by Pete supporters. Bernie fans are only ahead of Biden fans in liking Warren, which is sad considering how ideologically similar Bernie and Liz are. Considering Biden is the most conservative, it figures his supporters would be least excited about a progressive candidate. Also, more Bernie fans than "none" want Warren to drop out.

But I'm still confused... what are you trying to prove? That Bernie wasn't attacking Warren in that tweet? That Bernie fans don't attack Warren in general? I don't know how you can draw conclusions about either of those questions from this graph.

 

[MikeDawg]

no politician is synonymous w 'the real progessive movement as a whole' and like why even be posting abt electoral politics if thats where we begin? that was the point of my very first post itt

you can see who is representing aspects of progressive movements in issues and platforms that are bipartisanly disavowed except by such representatives. thats the big hint, and as far as I can tell, from an electoral stand point, Sanders might seem to be the most clearly involved in the contemporary long-term electoral progressive project. At a rare moment when the contradictions contained in neoliberal political economy are exhibiting intensification, Sanders is imo trying to be part of a recently newly possible progressive electoral politics. Warren has also given excellent indications of commitment to this project, but I am not aware of the extent of her previous involvement.

mental gymnastics about who supports who as their second choice with the election over year out is not relevant. in addition so what if a trump supporter likes a sanders idea? there is an election to win over here and differences between candidates to discern. Ultimately with the electoral college and voter suppression the stakes for drawing people to new ideas have never been higher. So any of these candidates should aim to win that voter segment. No they cannot win out the evangelicals w/o a long-term project that would require full control of each branch of gov, against that, each day of the trump administration gathers steam for that block.

your 2nd paragraph reads as some variation of 'doesn't matter who the candidate is it will all be the same', does that sound right to you? at some point you have to think to yourself that some people are more power hungry and have more contradictory interests and weaknesses than others.

then the 2nd half of that post seems paranoid, ironically about sussing out the difference between 'legitimate progressive' concerns about Kamala Harris and conservative trolling, and then more worries that it's all the same between Trump supporters as w Sanders'.

idk you said previously complimenting something Biden/Hillary did makes the reader "skeptical" that I actually care about the issues im critiquing Bernie on. I said it's not a stretch for a Hillary supporter (or non-hater, I guess?) to care about sexism and racism and healthcare, unlike eg a Donald supporter pretending to care about trans rights. That's all

 

[GatoDelFuego]

But I'm still confused... what are you trying to prove? That Bernie wasn't attacking Warren in that tweet?

I'm not sure how exactly this is possible but somehow inside your head you think that sanders has declared war on warren. Why would you think this is proof that bernie WASN'T attacking warren, when there is no proof by anyone of any kind that he WAS.

Idk what this means.

Crazy how the supporters of the 2 most progressive of that bunch who are also women are the ones who most want him to leave. Take that as you will.

What are you trying to say? The two most progressive of those 5 are somehow warren and HARRIS? Or that the supporters of the 2 most progressive candidates who are also women (nevermind that there are only two) candidates of these 5 candidates want bernie to drop out, which doesn't mean anything considering every candidate's supporters want the other candidates to drop out.

Are u trying to loop this into your "bernie is a misogynist" thing?

Maybe I need to spell it out

Idk what this means either. Those charts show that (statistics)

just wondering, have you tried using your obsession with polls to make your own conclusions of what people think, or the reasons behind poll numbers being what they are? Cause it looks to me like you're just parroting that "X's numbers are down so they're not gonna win" or "Y's numbers are up week 26 out of 72 this election cycle so that must mean they're the answer".

See, being excited about a candidate running doesn't actually mean that you support them, or will vote for them. Maybe that's an explanation to the mysterious question of why people don't actually want to vote for kamala harris

 

[MikeDawg]

I'm not sure how exactly this is possible but somehow inside your head you think that sanders has declared war on warren. Why would you think this is proof that bernie WASN'T attacking warren, when there is no proof by anyone of any kind that he WAS.

Most people think he attacked Warren with that tweet. There's a dozen articles about it. Idk why you think I just made it up. lol

What are you trying to say? The two most progressive of those 5 are somehow warren and HARRIS?

Of those 4, yeah absolutely.

Or that the supporters of the 2 most progressive candidates who are also women (nevermind that there are only two) candidates of these 5 candidates want bernie to drop out, which doesn't mean anything considering every candidate's supporters want the other candidates to drop out.

As you clearly noted, they want Sanders to drop out at much higher rates than Biden's and Buttigieg's supporters. Keep up.

Are u trying to loop this into your "bernie is a misogynist" thing?

If that's what came to your head, then sure. I just pointed out the trend.

Maybe I need to spell it out
View attachment 181643

In this same comment, you already acknowleged that I said Kamala (and Warren's) supporters especially want Bernie to drop out. Maybe the illustration will help someone else get it, though?

just wondering, have you tried using your obsession with polls to make your own conclusions of what people think, or the reasons behind poll numbers being what they are?

I tried real hard, I promise. Your logic was just too broken. In fact, I still have no idea what you're trying to say. lol

Cause it looks to me like you're just parroting that "X's numbers are down so they're not gonna win" or "Y's numbers are up week 26 out of 72 this election cycle so that must mean they're the answer".

Idk why you're bringing up election polls. This was about Bernie being A) misogynistic, and B) a sore loser. If you want to talk about how polls are fake news and Bernie is actually winning, you're a few pages late.

And why are you being so aggressive? It's not that deep. lol

See, being excited about a candidate running doesn't actually mean that you support them, or will vote for them. Maybe that's an explanation to the mysterious question of why people don't actually want to vote for kamala harris

Now THIS is a reach. lmao

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Im convinced. Im gonna vote Biden in the primaries.

 

[MikeDawg]

Oh I see. I interpreted "crazy where all those people went" as "they all disappeared". Which would make no sense at all. My b

im gonna keep everything I said in that last comment tho but replace my first comment with:

"Um ok what's your point? Warren and Kamala supporters are potentially spiteful that Bernie helped Trump get elected? No shit, that would be why they're voting for a different progressive and want him to drop out. Or maybe they're put off by one of the other reasons I've noted throughout the last 2 pages? That would also explain why they're voting for a different progressive and want him to drop out."

What's the "gotcha!" moment you're looking for here? Cuz your point seems really unambitious tbh. "Hah! A bunch of supporters for female candidates hate Bernie, but only a few Bernie supporters hate Elizabeth Warren!" leaves me pretty underwhelmed.

And please don't act like the slight difference between Liz's and Kamala's bars is significant, because it's both incredibly close and easily balanced while staying within the moe. I hope that isn't what you were going for, at least. Considering you just went on a rant about me apparently "obsessing" over some poll numbers, it would be kind of ironic.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

MikeDawg. Dog. My boy. You cannot be a progressive and be a former prosecutor who put people in prison for weed and bragged about being harsher on crime than was necessary.

 

[MikeDawg]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142174035758862336

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.