Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[+DieChecker]

This was interesting...

Link.

I especially liked this part...

Quote

Want to understand the Democratic primary? Continue to stay off Twitter

Back in March, I wrote a piece titled "Want to understand the 2020 Democratic primary? Stay off Twitter." The New York Times' Nate Cohn later wrote a piece "The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate."

The idea behind both articles was that Democratic primary voters differed from Democrats on Twitter in a number of ways that made Twitter unrepresentative of the larger Democratic primary electorate.

Our latest poll is merely the latest to demonstrate the dangers of reading the Twitter tea leaves.

Twitter Democrats are far younger than actual Democratic primary voters. That's a big deal when you consider that Joe Biden actually trails Bernie Sanders 22% to 21% among voters under the age of 50 in our poll. He has a huge 37% to 12% advantage over Elizabeth Warren (with Sanders back at 7%) among voters 50 years and older in the poll. Keep in mind, those under 50 and those 50 and older make up about the same portion of the electorate.

Liberal social media users are far louder than moderate or conservative social media users. Again, this fact makes it seem like Biden has far less support than he has. Warren has 23% among liberals in our poll, while Biden and Sanders are right behind her at 22%. Biden's at 34% among self-described moderates and conservatives, while no one else reaches double digits with this group in our poll. Liberals and moderates/conservatives each make up about 50% of potential Democratic primary voters.

 

[aztek]

never mind democratic voters on tweeter,  see what democratic leaders say on tweeter.  

[+DieChecker]

Looks like Harris is backing out of Medicare for All, as outlined by Sanders. And Sanders' reps are calling her names for doing so. She's spiraling down in the polls. Losing her just to the left followers to Biden, and everyone else back to Sanders. Warren isnt gaining or losing right now.

Other then the top three of Biden, Sanders and Warren, only Harris and Mayor Pete, are at 5% or more. Everyone else is basically expected to fall away. Castro though plans to stick it out to next debate. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-back-off-once-fervent-embrace-of-medicare-for-all/2019/08/19/13c76ffe-c28b-11e9-b5e4-54aa56d5b7ce_story.html?outputType=amp

https://reason.com/2019/08/20/kamala-harris-medicare-for-all-problem-is-the-democratic-partys-medicare-for-all-problem/

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

On 8/14/2019 at 4:04 PM, F3SS said:

Yet you see nothing wrong with those two calling Darren Wilson a murderer despite the facts.

Why do you use extreme language? Instead of saying that someone deserved to die you could say "sure Trump needs to argue that the cop did the right thing" or that the cop deserved to live. That's how I see it. Derserving to die and getting yourself killed aren't the same thing. You're very divisive farmer.

Oh I was speaking from a political strategy point of view not my own personal opinions.

Before Trumpism I actually preferred to examine the issues like that.

On 8/14/2019 at 5:59 PM, DieChecker said:

Hummm... I thought, from the number of articles stressing such, that telling the truth was really important. That Warren and Harris are liars, just like Trump, should be telling.

I'd love to see Warren try to defend that kind of statement in front of an audience and 50 people doing real time fact checking...

Again from a political strategy point of view

There is no fact checking what I said. Nothing I said was factually inaccurate. It was simply shifting the power in the conversation by moving the conversation from the facts surrounding the death to the larger conversation about police tactics. Tactics that have lead to Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for young black men in America 

Its simply not a winning issue for a 70 something year old white male with a history of racially insensitive statements, except of course to other angry white males, which are votes the Trumpster already has in the bag.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Farmer77

[Gwynbleidd]

Just as a matter of interest as I'm not sure how the Democratic Nominee is chosen - is Tulsi Gabbard still in with a chance or not?  I did read where they were basically shunning her a bit and I thought oh my, that's a bit cruel.  Personally, I think she's absolutely lovely.  Do they still have another debate yet and how do they choose who will be in it..  

[RoofGardener]

On 8/22/2019 at 7:23 AM, Farmer77 said:

There is no fact checking what I said. Nothing I said was factually inaccurate. It was simply shifting the power in the conversation by moving the conversation from the facts surrounding the death to the larger conversation about police tactics. Tactics that have lead to Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for young black men in America 

Indeed @Farmer77. A topic that needs much candid discussion, but is unlikely to get it. 

For example, did you know that a recent study shows that black police officers are just as likely - if not more so - to shoot a black civilian than white officers are ? 

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/07/24/white-cops-are-no-likelier-to-shoot-dead-african-americans-than-black-ones-are

This being the case, then it appears that racism is NOT the cause of the high rate of cop-shooting of black people. But SOMETHING must be behind it ? 

This is an area that liberals fear to tread. Because if racism is removed as a cause, they have to start considering that it must be something to do with the black victims themselves, and their behaviour. And THAT runs against their narrative of black victimhood.  

No Democratic nominee would DARE to go down THAT road ! 

Edited August 23, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

For example, did you know that a recent study shows that black police officers are just as likely - if not more so - to shoot a black civilian than white officers are ? 

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/07/24/white-cops-are-no-likelier-to-shoot-dead-african-americans-than-black-ones-are

This being the case, then it appears that racism is NOT the cause of the high rate of cop-shooting of black people. But SOMETHING must be behind it ?

Absolutely. 

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

This is an area that liberals fear to tread. Because if racism is removed as a cause, they have to start considering that it must be something to do with the black victims themselves, and their behaviour. And THAT runs against their narrative of black victimhood. 

 

No Democratic nominee would DARE to go down THAT road ! 

Not really. It actually amplifies the arguments of both police tactics as they relate to economic inequality and racial profiling as blacks are more likely to have police interactions I.E be pulled over ,sometimes as a result of a policy specifically directing officers to do so as in NYC, and of course increased interactions lead to increased likelihood of negative ouctomes.

Then as per your link the most common denominator between black death by cop is level of violent crime in the area .  That brings the conversation back to police tactics in vulnerable neighborhoods. 

A liberal could make that plea for compassion easily, and punctuate it quite nicely with asking Trump directly why he decided to remove the Obama DOJ mandated police reforms that could have saved little Johnny's (or whomever the latest headline maker is) life. Hell Id almost think theyd beg for the softball.

 

 

[RoofGardener]

30 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Absolutely. 

Not really. It actually amplifies the arguments of both police tactics as they relate to economic inequality and racial profiling as blacks are more likely to have police interactions I.E be pulled over ,sometimes as a result of a policy specifically directing officers to do so as in NYC, and of course increased interactions lead to increased likelihood of negative ouctomes.

Then as per your link the most common denominator between black death by cop is level of violent crime in the area .  That brings the conversation back to police tactics in vulnerable neighborhoods. 

A liberal could make that plea for compassion easily, and punctuate it quite nicely with asking Trump directly why he decided to remove the Obama DOJ mandated police reforms that could have saved little Johnny's (or whomever the latest headline maker is) life. Hell Id almost think theyd beg for the softball.

 

 

Well, that all appears to make perfect sense to me, @Farmer77. However, can you imagine ANY democratic nominee trying to explain THAT to a Black Lives Matter mob ? They'd be torn to pieces. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

This being the case, then it appears that racism is NOT the cause of the high rate of cop-shooting of black people. But SOMETHING must be behind it ? 

First, consider that African Americans have a much higher rate of incarceration than Africans, so we can rule out "genetics".

So what is it that makes African Americans so volatile, eg "Angry Black man"? It's my opinion that the treatment that Afros have received in their lives in America, being treated as inferiors, is chiefly responsible for their attitude. Which all means that racism has caused Blacks to end up in confrontations with police more than their per capita share. 

Just an opinion.

Also have to add this, if Democrats think that their "people" are not the cause of racism in America, they should rethink their thinking. The people that cause more societal anger with silly, base racist slurs thrown at Afros are poor to middle class people, aka, predominantly dems. The Dem leaders can say what they want as they point their finger at anyone but their people, but they should always recall that is was the Dems that invented the KKK, and the Dems owned *all* slaves in America just prior to the Civil War. The Dem leaders, I think, are only trying to protect their base when they blame racism on Repubs. 

 

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

they should always recall that is was the Dems that invented the KKK, and the Dems owned *all* slaves in America just prior to the Civil War.

Just stop

This isnt the hatfield and mccoys. Being a democrat isnt genetic, todays democrats have zero to do with those of 150+ years ago.

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The Dem leaders, I think, are only trying to protect their base when they blame racism on Repubs. 

IDK man I think youre having two different conversations pre Trump and post Trump.

"Conservatives" are right, dems for years screamed racism when it wasnt there or wasnt provable.  Reagan basically shaped the current political right wing paradigm and he we now know for sure he was racist as ****. Ronald Reagan’s Long-Hidden Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon He however did a really good job of using the "dog whistle" as to keep from being pinned down as a racist and that technique of course left the dems kinda swinging at air over the decades . 

Today though the mask has come off and the dog whistle has been tossed aside because "conservative" voters simply dont care. Trumpism is racist as ****

Here is a (another) good example

Federal Agencies Have Been Sending Employees Articles From White Nationalist And Conspiracy Websites For Months

Quote

n Thursday, BuzzFeed News reported that an immigration judges union sent a letter of complaint to EOIR for its inclusion in an August newsletter of a VDare blog post that attacked its members with anti-Semitic slurs. After publication of that story, an EOIR press secretary said that the Department of Justice “condemns Anti-Semitism in the strongest terms” and that the post should not have been included. A former senior DOJ official said that the email in question was “generated by a third-party vendor that utilizes keyword searches to produce news clippings for staff. It is not reviewed or approved by staff before it is transmitted.”

“That’s absolutely incorrect,” said TechMIS CEO Steven Mains, adding that EOIR was the most specific and particular of the company’s clients. The agency’s staff would review its work “down to misspellings” if there was anything wrong before sending, he said.

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

Its looking more and more like maybe we'll have to ask who will the Republican nominee be?!?!

Joe Walsh and the other Republicans who may challenge Trump in the 2020 primaries

Joe Walsh Courts Kellyanne Conway’s Husband for Possible Trump Primary Challenge

Quote

Former Republican congressman Joe Walsh has been courting George Conway to join his likely primary challenge of President Donald Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination, according to The New York Times. Walsh reportedly met with the conservative lawyer, vocal Trump critic and husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway this week and asked him to formally join his campaign in a senior role. “I think Walsh’s plan to attack Trump for his dishonesty, amorality, instability and incompetence is absolutely the right approach, and I’ll do whatever I can to help,” George Conway said in a statement. He stopped short of saying if he had agreed to join the campaign, however. Earlier this year, President Trump lashed out at “Mr. Kellyanne Conway” on Twitter, calling him a “stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!”

 

Ok probably not but Trump may get a primary challenger or two who could make some stink stick to him through the primary process

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So what is it that makes African Americans so volatile, eg "Angry Black man"? It's my opinion that the treatment that Afros have received in their lives in America, being treated as inferiors, is chiefly responsible for their attitude. Which all means that racism has caused Blacks to end up in confrontations with police more than their per capita share. 

Just an opinion.

Liked your comment for the most part.  I wonder a bit about the volatile part.  I think there is  some residual there of slaves are not supposed to talk back or look defiant, when  they do it is jarring.

An angry white man screaming at another motorist at the scene of a traffic accident as you pass by makes you tsk, tsk and maybe think "a***ole."   An angry black man screaming at a white motorist makes many people think, "I better call the cops."  Much the same with Hispanics and Asians, they are not supposed to show anger or resentment.

I do agree the treatment has been humiliating for most of the last 400 years.  My great-grandfather and his brother owned a country butcher shop  in a little town outside of Dallas.  In that day, Blacks and Hispanics, (there were no Asians around) were not allowed in the front door, they had to go around back.  My grandmother told me about a guy they called Uncle Ray.  He was a pit master who bought his meat from them sometimes.  My grandmother said they loved his barbecue if he brought a sample around.  But they would NEVER be seen buying from him.  That was unthinkable.  It just wasn't done.  That was 60 years ago, its only a little different now.

[Tatetopa]

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Its looking more and more like maybe we'll have to ask who will the Republican nominee be?!?!

At this point, I think President Trump's biggest challenger is going to be Donald Trump.

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

At this point, I think President Trump's biggest challenger is going to be Donald Trump.

Agreed. In fact I was thinking his performance at the G-7 is likely to dictate if he gets any challengers at all.

I dont think anyone would have a shot at beating Trump in a primary but if there are undecided voters out there like foxnews keeps telling us there are it would be really nice if a conservative spent a few months during the primary explaining to them all the things wrong with Trump and Trumpism.

 

[Farmer77]

Hmmmm this helps explain some folks on here's love of gabbard

How duplicitous trolls are using Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy to foment disruption and chaos

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Ok probably not but Trump may get a primary challenger or two who could make some stink stick to him through the primary process

Tell you what... If there was a serious challenger from the GOP, I'd very likely vote for him/her.

[+DieChecker]

On 8/21/2019 at 11:23 PM, Farmer77 said:

Tactics that have lead to Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for young black men in America 

It my belief this is cultural mainly. If the society you grew up in teaches you to either run from, or fight with, the police... that society is going to get shot, and killed, more often then the national average.

Edited August 24, 2019 by DieChecker

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

It my belief this is cultural mainly. If the society you grew up in teaches you to either run, or fight, the police... that society is going to get shot, and killed, more often then the national average.

I definitely think that plays into it for sure. There was as study done not too long ago that juxtaposed similar incidents with white and black perps that showed a higher percentage of blacks had non lethal force used on them than whites but that also I think goes back to cultural differences in terms of communication in general.

That doesnt make it OK at all IMO, it does give us a starting point for a conversation towards making things better though

[+DieChecker]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I definitely think that plays into it for sure. There was as study done not too long ago that juxtaposed similar incidents with white and black perps that showed a higher percentage of blacks had non lethal force used on them than whites but that also I think goes back to cultural differences in terms of communication in general.

That doesnt make it OK at all IMO, it does give us a starting point for a conversation towards making things better though

True. It doesn't make it ok, but IHMO, I think many people are trying to fix issues that are not the underlying issue.

[Gwynbleidd]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Hmmmm this helps explain some folks on here's love of gabbard

How duplicitous trolls are using Tulsi Gabbard’s candidacy to foment disruption and chaos

That is such rubbish - not you Farmer, but the way they've worded that re pol.  On pol they actually like Tulsi Gabbard and I know a lot of ppl on there would've liked to see her as the nominee.  I can't say what Reddit thought as the Donald or whatever they used to call the right wing area has been totally separated from Reddit now apparently.  My Husband was complaining about it because he used to go there all the time to read it for laughs.  But I can definitely say pol absolutely loved Tulsi.  

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True. It doesn't make it ok, but IHMO, I think many people are trying to fix issues that are not the underlying issue.

Interesting. When discussing police violence I dont personally think racism is the underlying issue. At least not in the "i hate black people" sense.

What do you think the underlying issue is?

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, pixiii said:

That is such rubbish - not you Farmer, but the way they've worded that re pol.  On pol they actually like Tulsi Gabbard and I know a lot of ppl on there would've liked to see her as the nominee.  I can't say what Reddit thought as the Donald or whatever they used to call the right wing area has been totally separated from Reddit now apparently.  My Husband was complaining about it because he used to go there all the time to read it for laughs.  But I can definitely say pol absolutely loved Tulsi.  

IDK reading the article certainly made some dots connect for me as it relates to the sudden upswell of right wing support she received right around the first set of debates.

One on here in particular stood out to me who I know takes his guidance from those types.

[Gwynbleidd]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK reading the article certainly made some dots connect for me as it relates to the sudden upswell of right wing support she received right around the first set of debates.

One on here in particular stood out to me who I know takes his guidance from those types.

TBH I was kinda surprised she did an interview on Fox  

edit: Forgot to mention Tucker was almost drooling.  Seriously.  Awkward.

And you know how much I can't stand Tucker - I just saw Tulsi come up in my Youtube feed and thought what the? She's on Fox? With Tucker? 

Edited August 24, 2019 by pixiii

[Farmer77]

Just now, pixiii said:

TBH I was kinda surprised she did an interview on Fox  

So was I but it the more I thought about it the more it makes sense to me

Regardless of what they tell you in public Trump is anathema to the classic conservativism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries on many many levels so if a moderate democrat could get their voice heard it stands to reason they may be able to pull some small amount of votes...and every little bit helps!

[Gwynbleidd]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

So was I but it the more I thought about it the more it makes sense to me

Regardless of what they tell you in public Trump is anathema to the classic conservativism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries on many many levels so if a moderate democrat could get their voice heard it stands to reason they may be able to pull some small amount of votes...and every little bit helps!

Well after I heard her speak - I thought wow, she's actually really lovely and well spoken, not snarky like some of the pollies are.  I especially liked the way she called out Kamala Harris.  I'm not really a big fan of Harris at all.  But I thought Tulsi might be a good option for people who are more centrist rather than left or right. Ah well, I was really hoping to see her in this upcoming debate but I don't think she will be.