• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

As a reminder, that graphic is bullshit as Trump isn't even on the spectrum as he isn't a politician, just a dictator. McConnell is pretty much just a partisan. Jeb Bush... probably not so far right.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
As a reminder, that graphic is bullshit as Trump isn't even on the spectrum as he isn't a politician, just a dictator. McConnell is pretty much just a partisan. Jeb Bush... probably not so far right.
Click to expand...

Wow, a lot to unpack here.

1. Dictators aren't politicians? They can't have ideological leanings?
2. Partisans don't have ideological leanings? I mean, are parties just coincidentally associated with ideologies, then?
3. The graphic is meant to counter the assertion that Democrats are all anti-capitalist leftists, as none of them are. Not even Bernie.
 
Why Ex–Sanders Supporters Are Backing Warren

In 2016, Bernie Sanders described the Working Families Party (WFP), a grassroots progressive organization, as “the closest thing there is” to his “vision of democratic socialism.” The group endorsed him in his primary race against Hillary Clinton, and it’s grown more powerful in the past three years, as it has sought to build a multiracial populist movement nationwide. But this time around, with Sanders taking another shot for the White House, the group is throwing its weight behind someone else: Elizabeth Warren. The group’s surprising decision could be an early indicator of how progressives—including those who backed Sanders in the past—are planning to organize and vote next year.

“The political conditions are different” in this election, Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the WFP, told me earlier this week, after the group announced that Warren defeated Sanders in a vote of WFP members and leadership, earning 61 percent compared to Sanders’s 36 percent. Unlike in 2016, there is more than one progressive candidate in the race to choose from, Mitchell said. Warren “has a track record of finding that nexus between visionary structural change and also the tools to operationalize it.”
Click to expand...
 
ZiprHead said:
Why Ex–Sanders Supporters Are Backing Warren

In 2016, Bernie Sanders described the Working Families Party (WFP), a grassroots progressive organization, as “the closest thing there is” to his “vision of democratic socialism.” The group endorsed him in his primary race against Hillary Clinton, and it’s grown more powerful in the past three years, as it has sought to build a multiracial populist movement nationwide. But this time around, with Sanders taking another shot for the White House, the group is throwing its weight behind someone else: Elizabeth Warren. The group’s surprising decision could be an early indicator of how progressives—including those who backed Sanders in the past—are planning to organize and vote next year.

“The political conditions are different” in this election, Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the WFP, told me earlier this week, after the group announced that Warren defeated Sanders in a vote of WFP members and leadership, earning 61 percent compared to Sanders’s 36 percent. Unlike in 2016, there is more than one progressive candidate in the race to choose from, Mitchell said. Warren “has a track record of finding that nexus between visionary structural change and also the tools to operationalize it.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry, this can all be explained by any Sanders bot to be the result of a rigged system within the WFP and a shift to the center and blah blah blah Nyborg. Oh, and Hillary, of course. Hillary paid all of the members of the WFP to give speeches and therefore they were all corrupted.
 
ZiprHead said:
Why Ex–Sanders Supporters Are Backing Warren

In 2016, Bernie Sanders described the Working Families Party (WFP), a grassroots progressive organization, as “the closest thing there is” to his “vision of democratic socialism.” The group endorsed him in his primary race against Hillary Clinton, and it’s grown more powerful in the past three years, as it has sought to build a multiracial populist movement nationwide. But this time around, with Sanders taking another shot for the White House, the group is throwing its weight behind someone else: Elizabeth Warren. The group’s surprising decision could be an early indicator of how progressives—including those who backed Sanders in the past—are planning to organize and vote next year.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This ain't it, chief. The WFP vote to endorse Warren is highly controversial due to the fact that the votes are counted in a peculiar way: the votes from members of the group and the votes from the group leaders are weighted equally. Matt Bruenig breaks this down.

The WFP endorsement process works by tallying up party member votes and party leader votes. The member votes are given 50 percent of the vote weight while the leader votes are given the other 50 percent of the vote weight. To win the endorsement, you have to get the majority of the weighted vote.

The WFP revealed that Warren received 60.9 percent of the weighted vote on the first ballot. Naturally one might wonder: how much of this vote came from the members and how much of it came from leaders? Surely WFP should release the member vote tally and the leader vote tally to answer this question.

But when Dave Weigel asked them about this, National Director Maurice Mitchell told him that the WFP will not be releasing separate vote totals, explaining that “for there to be one true vote, and to maintain the nature of secret ballot, all of that went into the back end.”

The claim here, as far as I can tell, is not only that the WFP refuses to release separate vote totals but also that they cannot do so because their secret ballot process makes it impossible to distinguish between member votes and leader votes.

This of course is an obvious lie. They released the membership vote in 2015 when Sanders won 87 percent of it. They also put out a press release this time that said 80 percent of their members listed Warren and Sanders as their top choices for president. So they clearly have separate access to the member tally. It is not lost in the “back end” or obscured to maintain the “secret ballot” or any other bullshit like that.

They won’t release the member vote because they don’t want to release it. If they wanted to release it, then they would, as they have in years past.
Click to expand...

Given the number of leaders versus members, it's a simple math problem to figure out how many of the members would have had to vote for Warren in order to see the outcome:

bur.png

If 22 percent of WFP members voted for Warren, then 100 percent of the WFP leaders had to vote for Warren to achieve a 60.9 percent weighted vote. On the flip side, if 80 percent of WFP members voted for Warren, then 41.8 percent of WFP leaders had to vote for Warren to achieve a 60.9 percent vote.

If you believe, as is obvious, that the reason WFP won’t release a membership vote total this time is because Warren did not win the membership vote, then this means Warren got anywhere from 22 to 40 percent of the member vote. This further means that 82 to 100 percent of the WFP leadership voted for Warren. This is the stark split they don’t want to reveal but are nevertheless very incompetent at hiding.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. There is no question that they would have released the vote tallies, as they have in previous years, unless something was fishy.
 
PyramidHead said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
As a reminder, that graphic is bullshit as Trump isn't even on the spectrum as he isn't a politician, just a dictator. McConnell is pretty much just a partisan. Jeb Bush... probably not so far right.
Click to expand...

Wow, a lot to unpack here.

1. Dictators aren't politicians? They can't have ideological leanings?
2. Partisans don't have ideological leanings? I mean, are parties just coincidentally associated with ideologies, then?
3. The graphic is meant to counter the assertion that Democrats are all anti-capitalist leftists, as none of them are. Not even Bernie.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't have an ideology beyond his own ego. That's the sole saving grace of this administration.
 
I can totally see Warren taking out Bernie, and winning the nomination, and I can see her losing to Trump. That's the one way I can see Trump winning.
 
I can see Warren beating Sanders and Biden and winning by energizing the already anti-Trump women's votes. Trump by November 2020 may be so toxic by then, Sponge Bob Squarepants could beat him. It looks like the Ukrainegate crap may be a big problem for Trump. How many more big fuck ups can Trump pull off before election day?
 
She would do very well by pointing out the incompetent cabinet members of Trump's administration she would immediately fire. Then the incompetent economic advisers she would show the door. Goodbye Betsy DeVos. Ben Carson. Rinky-dink Perry. Goodbye Larry Kudlow.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
She would do very well by pointing out the incompetent cabinet members of Trump's administration she would immediately fire. Then the incompetent economic advisers she would show the door. Goodbye Betsy DeVos. Ben Carson. Rinky-dink Perry. Goodbye Larry Kudlow.
Click to expand...

Enter Alexandria "we can just print money" Occasional Cortex?
 
Derec said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
She would do very well by pointing out the incompetent cabinet members of Trump's administration she would immediately fire. Then the incompetent economic advisers she would show the door. Goodbye Betsy DeVos. Ben Carson. Rinky-dink Perry. Goodbye Larry Kudlow.
Click to expand...

Enter Alexandria "we can just print money" Occasional Cortex?
Click to expand...


Sorry. AOC never did that. Despite the Trump tax cuts creating $1 trillion dollar tax cuts, Trump wants MORE tax cuts. And some tax cuts slated soon to expire, the GOP leadership wants to make permanent! Wheeee! If it is economic incompetence you are looking for, Trump and the GOP have you covered!

Soon the entire nation will become the successes we see in Louisiana and Kansas.

“Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter”.
- Vice President Dick Cheney
 
It is beginning to look like Pelosi will be forced to back an impeachment process now, and that is going to have a huge impact on the entire election season. We live in interesting times, unfortunately. It is very late for them to get started, but better late than never. Trump's attempt to use military aid to Ukraine in order to force them to help with his election campaign is almost impossible to ignore.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
She would do very well by pointing out the incompetent cabinet members of Trump's administration she would immediately fire. Then the incompetent economic advisers she would show the door. Goodbye Betsy DeVos. Ben Carson. Rinky-dink Perry. Goodbye Larry Kudlow.
Click to expand...

Replacing incompetents with technocrats isn't much of an improvement. Warren's education adviser is a shill for charter schools.
 
Derec said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
She would do very well by pointing out the incompetent cabinet members of Trump's administration she would immediately fire. Then the incompetent economic advisers she would show the door. Goodbye Betsy DeVos. Ben Carson. Rinky-dink Perry. Goodbye Larry Kudlow.
Click to expand...

Enter Alexandria "we can just print money" Occasional Cortex?
Click to expand...

Are you still running under the delusion that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility?
 
Biden and Warren are the most vulnerable to losing to Trump. If they can beat him anyone can. Warren is vulnerable because of the Pocahontas thing. Biden is vulnerable because of his multiple reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom