U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think Sanders has a shot at all. In 2016 it was a 2 person race. Clinton (no candidate) was ever going to get 100% of the primary vote. Sanders had a sizable built in audience. Additionally Republicans and Russian trolls worked around the clock to bolster Sanders in an attempt t undermine Clinton. Those two factors will not work out in Sanders favor in 2020. Sanders might finish respectfully in a few States but I doubt he actually wins a single one. 

The bigger challenge he will face now is that he's not the only one advocating progressive policies. I believe you already referenced this above, but his message is diluted since he's now sharing the stage with Warren, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and the ~73M others who have tossed their hats into the ring.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

The bigger challenge he will face now is that he's not the only one advocating progressive policies. I believe you already referenced this above, but his message is diluted since he's now sharing the stage with Warren, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and the ~73M others who have tossed their hats into the ring.

Sanders will be helped by lots of GOP and Russian propaganda that will attempt to sour feelings and create division. The propaganda probably will earn Sanders a greater share of media coverage as well.  

I suspect all the extra coverage will make Sanders seem like a front runner right up until voting starts. Then his initial poorer than expected performances will create negative buzz as folks on the right will call it evidence of corruption. 

Hopefully I am wrong but it appears to me that Sanders has become a Trojan horse and his ego prevents him from seeing it. 

[iNow]

Sanders showed up extremely formidable. Over $6M raised within 24 hours of announcing (and massive number of donations, too, hitting that number even with a seemingly small average donation of only $27). 

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Sanders showed up extremely formidable. Over $6M raised within 24 hours of announcing (and massive number of donations, too, hitting that number even with a seemingly small average donation of only $27). 

Cesar Sayoc targeted (mailing bombs) numerous potential Democratic candidates. Yesterday another person,  Christopher Paul Hasson, was arrested for plotting to murder many potential Democratic candidates as well. Between Sayoc and Hasson the following Democratic candidates and potential candidates have been targeted: Booker, Harris, Biden, O'Rouke, Gilibrand, and Warren. Neither targeted Bernie Sanders. 

As previously discussed conservative media treats Bernie Sanders favorably. It has positioned him as a non-divisive figure. One can openly support Sanders without drawing ire. It is a very strange situation considering the right is hysterical about AOC who policy for policy supports all the same stuff as Bernie Sanders. It is like we are in the social of a large scale social media/political experiment. I hope it ends wells. 

[Ten oz]

Propaganda machines are still out in force. Democrats need to figure out a way to combat this. 

Quote

 

This is the same core group of accounts the company first identified last year in a study as anchoring a wide-scale influence campaign in the 2018 elections.

Since the beginning of the year, those accounts began specifically directing their output at Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren, and were amplified by an even wider grouping of accounts. Over a recent 30-day period, between 2 percent and 15 percent of all Twitter mentions of the four candidates emanated in some way from within that cluster of accounts, according to the Guardians.ai findings. In that time frame, all four candidates collectively had 6.8 million mentions on Twitter. Link

 

 

[MigL]

Have C Booker and K Harris suffered in polling due to their rush to support J Smollett's fabricated assault story ?

[iNow]

It's been less than 5 days since we found out the story was false. Any changes to polling would only be seen in those conducted this week relative to trend since announcement.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Have C Booker and K Harris suffered in polling due to their rush to support J Smollett's fabricated assault story ?

I don't see why it should. Such crimes do happen and have been on the rise. It is still a worth while issue to address and in Smollett's case he primarily only hurt himself. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

It won't hurt them with Democrats. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It won't hurt them with Democrats. 

He was arrested and will be thoroughly investigated and stand trial. No one is objecting to his arrest. No one is defending his actions. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Ten oz

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It won't hurt them with Democrats. 

That's because democrats deal with it and move on. Unlike republicans who double down and conflate it into something it's not.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That's because democrats deal with it and move on. Unlike republicans who double down and conflate it into something it's not.

Right, none of the Democratic candidates are running around claiming the charges against Smollett are a fake news conservative hoax and that the judge in the case can't be trusted because he's a white male Trump appointee. Warren and Booker didn't tweet their condolences to Smollett and claim the system is rigged against him. Smollett will face a judge for his actions. What should happen is happening and no one is complaining, making excuses, or otherwise defending Smollett's actions. 

 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

That's because democrats deal with it and move on. Unlike republicans who double down and conflate it into something it's not.

I'll keep this statement in mind the next time someone claims the Republicans never bother to look at their own actions. 

On 2/19/2019 at 11:33 AM, iNow said:

The bigger challenge he will face now is that he's not the only one advocating progressive policies.

Are the other candidates really advocating policies as progressive as his though?

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Are the other candidates really advocating policies as progressive as his though?

Yes, in various flavors and forms, but there are 15 candidates so also obvious exceptions and is inappropriate to paint all with one single broad brush. 

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Are the other candidates really advocating policies as progressive as his though?

In my opinion Sanders is only progressive on key economic issues. Sanders leans to the right of the rest of the Democratic Primary field on issues like Gun Control, Abortion, Trade, immigration, and foriegn conflict. Taxation and social welfare programs are the only issues where he is solidly to the left. 

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, in various flavors and forms, but there are 15 candidates so also obvious exceptions and is inappropriate to paint all with one single broad brush. 

During the midterm Sanders endorsed a pro-life candidate and argued Democrats should be more accepting of pro-life positions. When Sanders speaks on immigration and trade he uses a lot of the same America first sort of rhetoric conflating the issues with rural working class citizens losing jobs. Of course that is more a matter of technology that it is immigrantion or trade.

Being for Universal Healthcare doesn't make one ultra progressive. Hillary Clinton fought for universal healthcare as first lady take it straight to the house floor before Congress. Today people seem to treat green policies as an emerging left wing issue but Hillary Clinton spent decades fighting for things like the Kyoto protocol. Yet Hillary Clinton was painted as a center right elitists who was a puppet for big banks. 

Sanders isn't uniquely liberal and the current progressive platform isn't new. Both notions are just narratives pushed to minimize progress policies. Universal Healthcare isn't a radical leftist idea Sanders, AOC, and whomever just invented. 

I am know you are aware of this. Just a conversational post. Not any sort of rebuttal. 

 

[iNow]

Quite right. A better reply from me would’ve been, “depends on what you mean by progressive.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

He was arrested and will be thoroughly investigated and stand trial. No one is objecting to his arrest. No one is defending his actions. 

Which is in part why it won't hurt them with Democrats, and, again in part, rightfully so. But only in part.

Their rush to judgement however, isn't absolved by not making further mistakes.

Did it hurt them with you?

7 hours ago, rangerx said:

Unlike republicans who double down and conflate it into something it's not.

No doubt they will overplay it, or try to make it to be more than it is. Republicans are far from unique in doing that type of thing for political gain.

If it was was an isolated case of believing the victim to the fullest extent (Both Harris and Booker called it a "modern day lynching") due to the nature of the narrative (which it almost certainly turns out that it is) it would be relatively minor on it's own.

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It won't hurt them with Democrats. 

Beyond that it is less clear. How will they react next time something comparable comes up?

What will they have learned from it?

Will they still speak up immediately? Almost certainly...and they should...but hopefully not rush to judgement on the specific case.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Their rush to judgement however, isn't absolved by not making further mistakes.

Who did they rush to judge? My understanding is that the guy had himself attacked. The crime is that he wasted the time of the police. No one was unjustly accused of the crime. This isn't some type of situation where people had taken his side against someone else. 

If someone shows up with a black eye and says they were punched in face and you feel bad for that person and offer condolences but later it turns out they lied it wouldn't look bad on you. 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it was was an isolated case of believing the victim to the fullest extent (Both Harris and Booker called it a "modern day lynching") due to the nature of the narrative (which it almost certainly turns out that it is) it would be relatively minor on it's own.

Violence, to include murder, against members of the LGBT community are on the rise. That is a fact. I have already cited links in this thread and the dangerous climate thread. Smollett's lie doesn't change that fact. 

Yes they believed the victim. Who was hurt or made a victim by that? Who's good name was put through the mud as a result of them believing the victim?

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Beyond that it is less clear. How will they react next time something comparable comes up?

In the future real victims of crimes shouldn't be denied support just because Smollett's is a liar. 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What will they have learned from it?

Will they still speak up immediately? Almost certainly...and they should...but hopefully not rush to judgement on the specific case.

What judgement was rushed to? I have only loosely read about this situation. So perhaps I am missing something. Other than speaking out that the going violence about members of the LGBT community is like modern day lynching (which we all agree it is) what did any of the primary candidates do? 

No one was be unduly accused of a crime they didn't commit. If any Democrat running in the primary were to accuse innocent persons of crimes just for political gain that would be deplorable. 

 

[iNow]

I thought this was a thread about democratic presidential candidates, not moronic actors paying exercise trainers to fake a hate crime.

Either way, ask the candidates how they feel about it and move on (unless you feel this type of mistake is disqualifying... it is clearly worse than grabbing them by the pu$$y or ones campaign team coordinating with a foreign power to win an election)... perspective, please. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/kamala-harris-disappointed-jussie-smollett/index.html

Quote

California Sen. Kamala Harris said Thursday that she is disappointed by Smollett's alleged actions, and said hate crimes are on the rise in the US and false claims make it harder for victims to come forward. 

"Like most of you, I've seen the reports about Jussie Smollett, and I'm sad, frustrated, and disappointed," the Democratic presidential hopeful posted Thursday on Twitter. "When anyone makes false claims to police, it not only diverts resources away from serious investigations but it makes it more difficult for other victims of crime to come forward."

...

In a statement released Thursday after Smollett's arrest, the senator wrote that "hate crimes are on the rise in America," and said, "Part of the tragedy of this situation is that it distracts from that truth, and has been seized by some who would like to dismiss and downplay the very real problems that we must address. We should not allow that."

"I will always condemn racism and homophobia. We must always confront hate directly, and we must always seek justice," Harris continued. "That is what I will keep fighting for."

Presidential hopeful Sen. Kristen Gillibrand said she hopes this incident doesn't diminish the voices of survivors of hate crimes. 

"I don't know what happened. We will all soon know," the New York Democrat told reporters at an event in Texas on Thursday when asked about the case. "I'm hoping that this incident does not diminish the real crisis that people face when they are discriminated against for being gay or for communities of color that are, that are discriminated against for racism." 

"It's really important that survivors do feel they can come forward and that this doesn't diminish their voices," Gillibrand said.

How despicable!! Clearly disqualifying!!!

Someone get the tar and feathers, or maybe this has entered noose territory? Hashtag witch-hunt 

[Sicarii]

On 2/25/2019 at 4:01 AM, Ten oz said:

Propaganda machines are still out in force. Democrats need to figure out a way to combat this. 

 

It is scary, to me, that they are allowed to get away with such deception. Look at this person, for example, and how much lies and defamation he has spread yet he is still free.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/26/jacob-wohl-spread-twitter-lies-mueller-rbg-2020-election/2917226002/

• Kamala Harris ineligible to run for president because her parents were born outside USA
• Fabricated sexual misconduct allegation against Mueller
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in vegetative state
• After flying to Minnesota to investigate "allegations" (read: malicious lies) that Rep. Ilhan Omar married her brother, he began a series of bizarre tweets alleging Minneapolis has been overrun by Somali jihadists, requiring him to wear a bullet proof vest and travel with a team of security professionals.

All patently false, but that doesn't phase him (nor is he concerned):

Quote

Wohl stressed that the accuracy of the information he spreads is “not the important part.” All that matters is how far those claims travel, and how many people believe them.

Wohl said he yearns for the days – before he was born – when conservatives would join in outrage over a scene in a sitcom and funnel that unity into other pursuits, like support for unchecked military actions. “You think about these incredibly large-scale wars that were just launched without congressional approval, and they were pretty damn good at carrying out the conservative torch, whatever it happened to be at the time,” Wohl said.

In the spread of information, he said, truth is an obsolete concept. “It’s something that can’t be thought about in a linear, binary true-false, facts-non-facts – you can’t do that anymore,” Wohl said. “It’s just not the way it works.”

Excuse my language, but WTF!

And he plans to use that philosophy to target 2020 Democratic candidates:

Quote

Wohl disclosed a raft of schemes he says are in the works that he hopes will resonate in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.  

He says he plans to create “enormous left-wing online properties” – such as deceptive Facebook and Twitter accounts – "and use those to steer the left-wing votes in the primaries to what we feel are weaker candidates compared with Trump.” It’s a plot similar to what Mueller has charged in indictments that the Russians crafted in an effort to boost the 2016 campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and hobble Hillary Clinton.  

Another stated scheme: seeking to collect damaging information on left-leaning non-profits including Media Matters for America, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Right Wing Watch by offering their insiders “moral reconciliation,” and if that doesn’t work, “things of worth” – such as money.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Sicarii
Fixed formatting.

[Ten oz]

@Sicarii I started a thread a year ago in speculation addressing the amount of disinformation available on the internet. From Flat Earth to political propaganda like you described the propagation of false information online seems to be a serious issue. 

 

[MigL]

So why isn't this J Wohl guy getting buried under a pile of libel lawsuits ?
Surely these lies aren't protected by 'free speech'.

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

So why isn't this J Wohl guy getting buried under a pile of libel lawsuits ?
Surely these lies aren't protected by 'free speech'.

I think the defamation laws in the US require the demonstration of harm and actual malice (as they are public figures). I think  demonstrating harm is a bit difficult in that regard.

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Who did they rush to judge?

 

They rushed to judge the two white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters in Smollett's almost certain narrative.. They were not aware the two did not actually exist.

 

 

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They rushed to judge the two white MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters in Smollett's almost certain narrative.. They were not aware the two did not actually exist.

 

 

....so no one? 

 

Sanders campaign seems to have already hit a snag. I wonder if this is just normal growing pains or a sign that Sanders will have a tougher time shoring up support this time. 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — In a major shake-up to Bernie Sanders' just-launched presidential bid, some of his top strategists have left the campaign.

Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh and Julian Mulvey, partners in a political consulting firm who all played leading roles in Sanders' 2016 campaign for the White House, are parting ways with the senator, citing creative differences.

"The entire firm has stepped away. We're leaving the campaign," Longabaugh told NBC News on Tuesday. "We just didn't have a meeting of the minds." Link