The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

so , this guy was there......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/21/about-that-wine-cave-dinner-i-was-there/

Good article.  I'm so tired of the demonization that the Warren and Sanders team engages in, when they are richer than 99.5% of Americans.  Pisses me off.  

It sucks. But it’s how trump won and it’s how sanders got big in the first place. Find your demon and tell everyone everything is their fault. 

Pete deserves better than what the Democratic Party is becoming. 

The polls don't show it's what the Dems are becoming, just some of the louder ones.  At least there isn't a full out takeover by a corrupt POS like the GOP.  

it twitter.  and other antisocial media.

then traditional media picks up the chatter and preessents it as news....

That's exactly it.  Although in the last six months, I think MSNBC and some other sources have figured that out and are not amplifying these voices like they were before.  Once they saw how the polls were actually shaking out, it was obvious that the voices were disproportionately loud compared to the actual influence.  

its lazy so called journalism. I mean the lack of journalism is appalling.

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

Kat said:

https://twitter.com/TeamPelosi/status/1206976392665149441

My sister is very active in working to get potential voters registered or re-registered.  She strongly emphasizes this need.  A bit shocking to see such large numbers that way in WI.

This is probably the most important issue in our country. Standing ovation for your sister.

the night Trump was elected and I was uncharacteristically drinking and taking pills to cope, I saw the missing votes in Milwaukee early that next morning and was horrified. Also that hangover and that reality of having to bow to trump and the Rs.

frankly I’m stunned the Dems didn’t raise hell over this and raise money and blanket the county street by street itemizing who did not vote and why.

this issue is the main reason I think trump has a real chance at reelection, and this Pelosi comment is a rarity from Dem leadership.

They are boxed into a corner by Clinton, THANKS HILARY, because she made an issue of accepting the results whatever they are, even if fraudulent. 

Excellent points, Lerxst.  Hillary did lay down rather surprisingly easily.  It's also surprising that so many people who probably would have voted for Hillary stayed home that fateful day.  Add to that the fact that even despite low voter turn out, Hillary  had more votes anyway.  The whole thing has been a travesty ever since.  2020 has to turn out differently or we're all screwed.

But even if Wisconsin was overturned,  didn't she need PA or Michigan too?  I'm not sure it changed the the outcome

Ok mr, let’s do Michigan next.

Detroit,  wayne county had significant 2016 irregularities, so bad they could not do a recount or examine results.

Given these irregularities, Rs somehow managed to increase their votes by 7% but Dems lost 13%. At the time IIRC the state was controlled by Rs so Wayne county had little power to review what happened. Damn that voting rights act that Roberts overturned. No voting problems here, right?

Lets take a guess that in a majority black county the black voters were purged from the rolls but somehow given this purge the Rs found 7% more votes?

Did this issue, state #2 in our analysis, get any national media attention? 

BTW the +7 Rs and -13% Dems equated to about 118,000 missing D votes if we are to assume the R +7 is accurate 2012 to 2016. And Michigan was only total 10,000 votes for trump.

its funny how the media tells us it was all about rural America voting for trump that turned the election , but in reality it was Detroit and Milwaukee? 

Edit, without projecting 7% more D votes, the raw votes for Detroit county was,

the Rs found 15k more votes and the Ds lost 77,000 votes 2012 to 2016.

Crazy....I suspected something like this but it didn't seem like it had legs.  Is it possible that fewer blacks showed up to vote in 2016?  It seems like we definitely would have heard if people were showing up to vote and they were told that they couldn't.

My understanding that it was surge in turnout in rural areas and lower voting than '16 in the cities.  Certainly there was a concerted effort on behalf of Russia and other bad actors to depress turnout through social media.  At the end of the day, I don't see how Clinton could reasonably refuse to concede the election based on depressed numbers, and it probably took several weeks to even know that level of detail.  

That’s the problem in a nutshell. We just don’t have the ability to accurately measure votes if an election is within 5%. Some states have no paper trail and only five states IIRC audit results. 

Even the best auditing will not account for a few percent being dropped off the rolls. IMO that’s what happened in the black neighborhoods of Philly, Milwaukee and Detroit. Funny how both candidates had terrible approval ratings on Election Day 2016 but only one experienced a significant drop in votes. Maybe it was all due to Obama, maybe not.

Jason P

Where do you get 5% inaccuracy from?  That's less accurate than a fox news / cnn poll.  It's also would invalidate almost every past election if true.   

Lerxst1992

Jason P said:

Where do you get 5% inaccuracy from?  That's less accurate than a fox news / cnn poll.  It's also would invalidate almost every past election if true.   

That “margin of error” is an excellent point. I firmly believe actual elections need that exact same disclaimer in many states that all polls have. (I understand it’s statistics vs inaccuracy).

It’s also exactly why we had a voting rights act until the Roberts court gutted the law before the 2016 election.

I cite the following as either inaccurate or bizarre election results, based on statistics,

Bush v Gore
Bush v Kerry 
Trump v Clinton

2000 FL voting irregularities are famous however not so sure how many are familiar with all the bizarre voting that went on in 2004. So much, in fact, it has its own Wikipedia page. I included that and a a second link regarding Ohio 2004, which had a multitude of irregularities.

In 2016 Trump got four swing states to flip in his favor, and HE WON ALL FOUR BY ONE PERCENT. Now that’s not proof of impropriety, but I’m curious what the statistical chances of hitting the exact number needed in four states. Not two percent or three, but he hit all by one percent. Wow. It’s almost like Vlad knew exactly how many votes was needed ;-)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2005/03/hitchens200503

Lerxst1992

Ohio 2004...this was 18 months into the Iraq War which at the time was becoming very unpopular, because Bush promised a swift victory and by then it was apparent we were going to be stuck there for years.

So given that, tens of thousands of Ohioans showed up to vote for county clerk but not  President ?

from wiki... “ and more than 90,000 ballots cast in Ohio were treated as not including a vote for President; this "undervote" could arise because the voter chose not to cast a vote or because of a malfunction of the punch-card system.[33]”

Jason P

It is dumb that there isn't a national standard for voting machines.  Paper ballots seem to make as much sense as still using a megaphone to talk to someone 200 yards away instead of using a cell phone.  

mickeyrat

Lerxst1992 said:

Ohio 2004...this was 18 months into the Iraq War which at the time was becoming very unpopular, because Bush promised a swift victory and by then it was apparent we were going to be stuck there for years.

So given that, tens of thousands of Ohioans showed up to vote for county clerk but not  President ?

from wiki... “ and more than 90,000 ballots cast in Ohio were treated as not including a vote for President; this "undervote" could arise because the voter chose not to cast a vote or because of a malfunction of the punch-card system.[33]”

Ken Blackwell a black R was Sec of State. did some shady shit in black neighborhoods

new machines now. electronic with a paper backup the voter can double check.....

Lerxst1992

Remember dems also got screwed with paper ballots. Hanging chad? But there should be some sort of trail from the sign in book to the cast ballot.

The damage is what they can do to the registrations. All they have to do is erase 5% of legitimate registrations in select black and other minority  neighborhoods in a few key cities, like Philly, Milwaukee, Orlando and Detroit. I’m convinced that’s what happened in 2016.  Gutting the Voting Rights Act, which used to provide some voting oversight, was a critical win for the Rs. 

mickeyrat

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-embraced-the-high-dollar-fundraiser-circuit-for-years--until-just-before-her-presidential-campaign/2019/12/23/818fa02a-253b-11ea-ad73-2fd294520e97_story.html

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-embraced-the-high-dollar-fundraiser-circuit-for-years--until-just-before-her-presidential-campaign/2019/12/23/818fa02a-253b-11ea-ad73-2fd294520e97_story.html

Yeah, it's her pattern.  She also represented corporations on how to navigate bankruptcy laws until 2011. Then ran for Senate in 12. 

Lerxst1992

Wasn’t  she a republican for the majority of her life? Interesting comparable to trump who was a democrat for a good portion of his.

Nothingmanlives

That's why of the 2 more progressive candidates, I would take Bernie over Warren every day of the week. 

mickeyrat

Mikey Mikey Mikey.. It may have ended but dude, go fuck yourself....

Bloomberg's White House campaign used prison labor: report
https://news.yahoo.com/bloombergs-white-house-campaign-used-prison-labor-report-233546348.html

dignin

Lerxst1992 said:

Wasn’t  she a republican for the majority of her life? Interesting comparable to trump who was a democrat for a good portion of his.

Pretty dumb comparison.

Lerxst1992

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Wasn’t  she a republican for the majority of her life? Interesting comparable to trump who was a democrat for a good portion of his.

Pretty dumb comparison.

Sure, dude.

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have more in common than you’d think

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-05/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-trump-campaign-promises

The media loves to point out the craziness and impossibility of many of Trump’s promises. He said fixing healthcare would be “so easy.” He vowed to eliminate the deficit in eight years (up nearly 70% since he took office). He was going to ban Muslims and make Mexico pay for the wall. Whether his supporters believed him or not, they liked what these promises said about his priorities. “Don’t take him literally,” we were advised, just “take him seriously.”

Warren has played precisely the same game, promising a slew of absurdities, from an illegal fracking ban to an unconstitutional wealth tax to a dead-on-arrival Green New Deal.

The problem for Warren is you can’t say “Don’t take her literally.” The whole appeal of her shtick — and it is a shtick, even if she believes it — is that she does her homework. She’s no reality TV star making it up as she goes, she has a plan!

Because she has to stay on brand, she felt compelled to explain how she’d implement single-payer healthcare without raising taxes on the middle class. It’s a disaster, costing $52 trillion over the next decade, while eliminating private insurance plans (sorry union voters!) and cutting funding to hospitals while magically accomplishing comprehensive immigration reform. Oh, and it does raise taxes on the middle class, she just hides it.

Now, our best health policy wonks are weighing in. It’s an interesting discussion, but it has as much bearing on real life as a debate among leading military strategists over the best way for the Klingons to finally conquer the Romulan Empire.

But let’s say using a lot of policy jargon and accounting gimmickry wins her the nomination and the presidency. What then? It’s axiomatic that she will fail to achieve what cannot be achieved. Will she admit that she overpromised, or will the apple lady follow the playbook of the orange man, and blame a rigged system and shadowy evil actors working to deny us our heart’s desires? The latter is likely, given that such rhetoric is another thing she has in common with Trump.

Lerxst1992

From before trump was president, summer 2016

” Am I the only one who thought there was a remarkable resemblance between the indignant, morally self-righteous tone of U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) speech at the Democratic Convention and Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention? Moral self-righteousness is a response to perceived injustice, and both of these politicians see a world filled with injustice that must be addressed. Both see a political system that has failed to protect the average citizen because the system is rigged. According to Trump, “I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens,” and according to Warren, “People get it: The system is rigged.” Even more remarkably, both are critics of economic globalization and the trade deals that have made this globalization possible.

Trump narcissistically goes on to claim, “I alone can fix it,” but he has already secured the nomination of a major party. Warren is still concealing her own political ambitions behind her support for Hillary Clinton, but her description of the Clinton she was supporting sounded a lot more like a description of Warren.

According to Warren, “Hillary will fight to hold big banks accountable,” but this endorsement followed a policy prescription associated with Warren (“when big banks get too risky, break ‘em up”), not with Clinton. Similarly, her claim that “Hillary will fight for American workers” is preceded by a policy recommendation that “the United States should never, never sign trade deals that help giant corporations and leave workers in the dirt.” Given Warren’s criticisms of both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the still-to-be-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership, both of which have been strongly supported by Clinton in the past, one has to wonder whether Warren is actually endorsing Clinton or trying to force Clinton to start acting more like Warren.

Trump and Warren both share a fundamental political characteristic: Their rhetoric divides us rather than unites us. Both of them identify as an “outsider” who bears fundamental responsibility for our dismal plight—a scapegoat—and both propose simplistic remedies to restore the American promise.”

https://fortune.com/2016/07/30/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-two-party-system/

CM189191

Oh look, both sides are bad

*wank*

Lerxst1992

Warren is not 100% wrong but the methods she is using,  divisive rhetoric, and dishonest ideas are not helping the liberal cause. The shame is she could have been an outstanding candidate.

dankind

Lerxst1992 said:

Jason P said:

Where do you get 5% inaccuracy from?  That's less accurate than a fox news / cnn poll.  It's also would invalidate almost every past election if true.   

That “margin of error” is an excellent point. I firmly believe actual elections need that exact same disclaimer in many states that all polls have. (I understand it’s statistics vs inaccuracy).

It’s also exactly why we had a voting rights act until the Roberts court gutted the law before the 2016 election.

I cite the following as either inaccurate or bizarre election results, based on statistics,

Bush v Gore
Bush v Kerry 
Trump v Clinton

2000 FL voting irregularities are famous however not so sure how many are familiar with all the bizarre voting that went on in 2004. So much, in fact, it has its own Wikipedia page. I included that and a a second link regarding Ohio 2004, which had a multitude of irregularities.

In 2016 Trump got four swing states to flip in his favor, and HE WON ALL FOUR BY ONE PERCENT. Now that’s not proof of impropriety, but I’m curious what the statistical chances of hitting the exact number needed in four states. Not two percent or three, but he hit all by one percent. Wow. It’s almost like Vlad knew exactly how many votes was needed ;-)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2005/03/hitchens200503

We sure could use Hitch these days. I miss his take on damn near everything. Sure, he pissed me off more than half the time I read his columns or watched his interviews, but he always came with receipts. I canceled my subscription to The Nation and withdrew my application for a job there when they let him go. I didn't want to read (or edit) a bunch of columns that made me feel comfortable in my own worldview; I liked that he was always there to remind subscribers, and adamantly, that there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our narrow-minded philosophies. There's really no one like him anymore. I mean, sure, there are contrarians, but no one does their homework like he did.

The Juggler

Biden/Kasich 2020!