I love the forum format, but I'm basically the only one who watches them. Seriously: sometimes there are like 200 people watching the streams of these events with major candidates like Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I mostly like the DNC rules for who gets to appear in debates. I think they should be a little stricter - I'd probably have changed the criteria for the 2nd debate to be the criteria we're using for the 3rd debate - but we're so far out from voting that I don't think it matters much.
Nobody can say that candidates didn't have a fair shot to be heard. Nobody like Williamson is going to be bumping out a Warren or a Beto, and it makes sure that long shots like Castro and Inslee have a chance to be heard - and for their pet concerns to be a part of the conversation - before they get shuttled off stage.
The biggest complaint seems to be that folks who obsessively follow elections have to suffer through a couple extra clunky debates full of professional egos like Williamson and DeBlasio.
Which, I mean. Then don't watch.
The problem is less "I don't want to watch these morons" than it is "these morons are taking up valuable time that could be used to allow candidates with a better-than-snowball's chance in hell to give an answer without the moderators cutting them off mid-sentence."
DeBlasio's answer to any question is literally irrelevant, he'd lose New York in the general, and that's time that could be used to let the adults in the room speak
This is only an actual problem if it in anyway affects who actually gets chosen as the nominee, or their chances in the general. And I have not seen a compelling argument that those things are true.
Like, I'm as annoyed as the next guy when my favorite show runs a bunch of filler episodes before it gets to the finale, but it's not really a huge deal.
Then there's literally no point to the debates at all. Just skip them.
What?
I'm not saying debates have no effect, I'm saying that having a couple extra bad debates has no effect. Debates are a useful part of the winnowing process.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The only real problem with the town hall thing is that people get in as "regular folks", fail to mention theyre a hedge fund lawyer or something and then its all "Mr Sanders why do you hate my hard working grandfather?"
I mostly like the DNC rules for who gets to appear in debates. I think they should be a little stricter - I'd probably have changed the criteria for the 2nd debate to be the criteria we're using for the 3rd debate - but we're so far out from voting that I don't think it matters much.
Nobody can say that candidates didn't have a fair shot to be heard. Nobody like Williamson is going to be bumping out a Warren or a Beto, and it makes sure that long shots like Castro and Inslee have a chance to be heard - and for their pet concerns to be a part of the conversation - before they get shuttled off stage.
The biggest complaint seems to be that folks who obsessively follow elections have to suffer through a couple extra clunky debates full of professional egos like Williamson and DeBlasio.
Which, I mean. Then don't watch.
The problem is less "I don't want to watch these morons" than it is "these morons are taking up valuable time that could be used to allow candidates with a better-than-snowball's chance in hell to give an answer without the moderators cutting them off mid-sentence."
DeBlasio's answer to any question is literally irrelevant, he'd lose New York in the general, and that's time that could be used to let the adults in the room speak
This is only an actual problem if it in anyway affects who actually gets chosen as the nominee, or their chances in the general. And I have not seen a compelling argument that those things are true.
Like, I'm as annoyed as the next guy when my favorite show runs a bunch of filler episodes before it gets to the finale, but it's not really a huge deal.
Then there's literally no point to the debates at all. Just skip them.
What?
I'm not saying debates have no effect, I'm saying that having a couple extra bad debates has no effect. Debates are a useful part of the winnowing process.
If debates matter then the amount of time getting chewed up by useless never-gonna-win candidates is a problem. It's dead air basically. And while usually the front-runners have been getting the most time, it's not by some massive margin.
If the debates matter then the joke candidates are just a waste of time.
I mostly like the DNC rules for who gets to appear in debates. I think they should be a little stricter - I'd probably have changed the criteria for the 2nd debate to be the criteria we're using for the 3rd debate - but we're so far out from voting that I don't think it matters much.
Nobody can say that candidates didn't have a fair shot to be heard. Nobody like Williamson is going to be bumping out a Warren or a Beto, and it makes sure that long shots like Castro and Inslee have a chance to be heard - and for their pet concerns to be a part of the conversation - before they get shuttled off stage.
The biggest complaint seems to be that folks who obsessively follow elections have to suffer through a couple extra clunky debates full of professional egos like Williamson and DeBlasio.
Which, I mean. Then don't watch.
The problem is less "I don't want to watch these morons" than it is "these morons are taking up valuable time that could be used to allow candidates with a better-than-snowball's chance in hell to give an answer without the moderators cutting them off mid-sentence."
DeBlasio's answer to any question is literally irrelevant, he'd lose New York in the general, and that's time that could be used to let the adults in the room speak
This is only an actual problem if it in anyway affects who actually gets chosen as the nominee, or their chances in the general. And I have not seen a compelling argument that those things are true.
Like, I'm as annoyed as the next guy when my favorite show runs a bunch of filler episodes before it gets to the finale, but it's not really a huge deal.
Then there's literally no point to the debates at all. Just skip them.
What?
I'm not saying debates have no effect, I'm saying that having a couple extra bad debates has no effect. Debates are a useful part of the winnowing process.
If debates matter then the amount of time getting chewed up by useless never-gonna-win candidates is a problem. It's dead air basically. And while usually the front-runners have been getting the most time, it's not by some massive margin.
If the debates matter then the joke candidates are just a waste of time.
I agree that it's dead air, but I disagree that the dead air has any substantial effect on anything beyond being kinda annoying for everyone involved. And if the worst thing you can say about it is that it's kinda annoying, it's kind of hard for me to get worked up about it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
By sheer volume most of the people who would be jettisoned by moving even to a 3% threshold are moderates and I suspect that would help make these debates more constructive, since the voice of moderation would be one of the frontrunners and not, like John Delaney.
The low-pollers aren’t just huckstering for themselves, they’re taking shots at the candidates who do have a chance—like Gabbard pulling a Gish Gallop on Harris or De Blasio attacking Beto from the left, or Swalwell asking Biden to pass the torch (which sort of interfered with Pete’s more subtle framing of the same argument).
I worry less that Williamson will somehow start to climb and more that her nonsense about how we need crystals not plans will get through to her 1% of supporters and give them pause in the general
Likewise the difference between Yang and Inslee is that Inslee is raising an issue and Yang is building a cult of personality—where will his very online crypto-libertarian gang go when he drops out? Into DNC conspiracy theories and urging third party runs?
This is an impossibly important election and every time the country tunes into crazies and also-rans under the D banner my 2020 hives get a little worse
I mostly like the DNC rules for who gets to appear in debates. I think they should be a little stricter - I'd probably have changed the criteria for the 2nd debate to be the criteria we're using for the 3rd debate - but we're so far out from voting that I don't think it matters much.
Nobody can say that candidates didn't have a fair shot to be heard. Nobody like Williamson is going to be bumping out a Warren or a Beto, and it makes sure that long shots like Castro and Inslee have a chance to be heard - and for their pet concerns to be a part of the conversation - before they get shuttled off stage.
The biggest complaint seems to be that folks who obsessively follow elections have to suffer through a couple extra clunky debates full of professional egos like Williamson and DeBlasio.
Which, I mean. Then don't watch.
The problem is less "I don't want to watch these morons" than it is "these morons are taking up valuable time that could be used to allow candidates with a better-than-snowball's chance in hell to give an answer without the moderators cutting them off mid-sentence."
DeBlasio's answer to any question is literally irrelevant, he'd lose New York in the general, and that's time that could be used to let the adults in the room speak
This is only an actual problem if it in anyway affects who actually gets chosen as the nominee, or their chances in the general. And I have not seen a compelling argument that those things are true.
Like, I'm as annoyed as the next guy when my favorite show runs a bunch of filler episodes before it gets to the finale, but it's not really a huge deal.
Then there's literally no point to the debates at all. Just skip them.
What?
I'm not saying debates have no effect, I'm saying that having a couple extra bad debates has no effect. Debates are a useful part of the winnowing process.
If debates matter then the amount of time getting chewed up by useless never-gonna-win candidates is a problem. It's dead air basically. And while usually the front-runners have been getting the most time, it's not by some massive margin.
If the debates matter then the joke candidates are just a waste of time.
I agree that it's dead air, but I disagree that the dead air has any substantial effect on anything beyond being kinda annoying for everyone involved. And if the worst thing you can say about it is that it's kinda annoying, it's kind of hard for me to get worked up about it.
I think the extent to which they used that dead air in the last debate to, say, have complete nobody Delaney go after the frontrunners is a good example of the whole problem. Which is, obviously and as always, also with the moderation.
Or, like, they are grifters and including them is just enabling their parasitism.
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
3 years of a troll does change people and wake up them up to the fact politics is currently a tire fire of change but they also may be aware to be part of the future and not mired in the past
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
It looks like the roster is going to run between 9 and 12 people or so, down from 20.
That's pretty winnowy.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Is there anything of substance to Dooley being a "national surrogate" or is she just another sideshow biting off chicken heads?
I doubt it. And I don't even know what she's trying to say with the tweet since it starts off by saying she doesn't agree with Trump supporters. But sure let's take a vague, years-old tweet from a random Bernie campaign person and use it to drag Bernie through the mud
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
It looks like the roster is going to run between 9 and 12 people or so, down from 20.
That's pretty winnowy.
Also it's literally August, the year before the election is to be held.
By this time in the 2016 debates, the GOP field (used for similar levels of "WHY ARE ALL OF YOU HERE") was 10 prime time candidates, and the following September debates was eleven candidates.
Is there anything of substance to Dooley being a "national surrogate" or is she just another sideshow biting off chicken heads?
I doubt it. And I don't even know what she's trying to say with the tweet since it starts off by saying she doesn't agree with Trump supporters. But sure let's take a vague, years-old tweet from a random Bernie campaign person and use it to drag Bernie through the mud
The implication is that she agrees with them about throwing Hillary in prison, and it's wasn't the only Trump memes she was making during that election or encouraging the anti-establishment sentiment in this one.
Dr. Dooley is a random person, except she's not out of step with the higher profile hirings in this election or the last withs those thoughts. This is from his new Press Secretary.
Is there anything of substance to Dooley being a "national surrogate" or is she just another sideshow biting off chicken heads?
I doubt it. And I don't even know what she's trying to say with the tweet since it starts off by saying she doesn't agree with Trump supporters. But sure let's take a vague, years-old tweet from a random Bernie campaign person and use it to drag Bernie through the mud
Bernie hiring assholes who say unacceptable shit is as relevant as Biden saying stuff that makes him look like he'd do a bad job as President. Being able to hire good and capable people is one of the tests that shows whether a candidate would be a good office holder.
More directly to the argument presented in the video, the racial health gap exists regardless of whether you have insurance or not (or what kind of insurance). Indeed even when healthcare is fully socialized there are racial health gaps. Its an attempt to argue universal programs will address racial disparities when the evidence does not exist.
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
It looks like the roster is going to run between 9 and 12 people or so, down from 20.
That's pretty winnowy.
That's still more than or equal to any Presidential primary in my lifetime maxed out at if I'm not mistaken.
I mean if you want to drag up something embarrassing Briahna Joy Gray said in 2016 I'd go with "I voted for Jill Stein" myself. It's also not new information about her, as people dug through her entire post history the second she was announced as part of his team back in March. It's kind of a weird look to go after her in order to justify going after a random "celebrity" surrogate whose primary claim to fame, according to her website, seems to be going on the local news once a week at noon.
I also would be the suspicious of the sources that first brought this to your attention as I'm wary of criticism that just happens to be about digging up old tweets from black women. I generally distrust the internet communities that just happen to only provide those.
I dunno, I feel that if Harris can't handle some bullshit from Gabbard, she's going to get reamed in the general. Effectively dealing with stupid bullshit is like half the job description.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
It looks like the roster is going to run between 9 and 12 people or so, down from 20.
That's pretty winnowy.
That's still more than or equal to any Presidential primary in my lifetime maxed out at if I'm not mistaken.
I don't doubt it. It's a historically large field, so it makes sense that it'll take longer to weed out the riffraff.
10 candidates for the next debate is definitely suboptimal, but it means we get all the candidates on one stage (which is an improvement) or we have two nights, but only 5 or 6 candidates per night (which is an improvement).
I'm not saying I like having this many candidates. But! If I'm going to choose between letting in too many, and having to deal with Delaney and Williamson et al, or letting in too few and losing the contributions of Inslee and Castro, I'll go with the former.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The September debates will have enough people for two nights
The October debates have the same qualifications and are actually likely to have more participants because they have more time to qualify
I can’t find any source on the qualification requirements for the November or December debates
I hope they move to three or four percent (the donors measurement is too easy to game apparently)
If you can't insult your leaders, you are not a democracy.
I can say Trump is a fucktard (for now) but the Chinese can't compare Xi to a cuddly cartoon bear without getting censored.
Sooooooooo, time for some irony. We're trying to stamp out people using "retard" as an insult on these boards, and have been largely successful. However, descendants of "retard", which are a large and plentiful family of swearwords shunted forwards and attached to "tard" are still out there, gambolling across the meadows without due care and attention. Fucktard and words like it derive a reasonable proportion of their insult power from the "tard" part of the word, which is kinda gross. So let's not use it.
So, turns out, you can't call Trump a fucktard. It's us. We're the unelected undemocratic overlords they warned you about. Sorry.
Please use these handy alternative insults when illustrating your freedom of speech instead:
Posts
Fuck yeah, I love seeing candidates squirm in front of real people
This probably wouldn't work but a town hall solely of people who support another (randomly chosen) candidate could be interesting.
What?
I'm not saying debates have no effect, I'm saying that having a couple extra bad debates has no effect. Debates are a useful part of the winnowing process.
You'd probably just get bad questions with bad premises like now, tbh.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
And shitty internet memes that worship stupid assholes.
Fuck you, Ken Bone, wherever you are.
If debates matter then the amount of time getting chewed up by useless never-gonna-win candidates is a problem. It's dead air basically. And while usually the front-runners have been getting the most time, it's not by some massive margin.
If the debates matter then the joke candidates are just a waste of time.
They have been doing this starting in February. I am pretty sure MSNBC has done one with almost everyone of the top candidates at this point.
Very little breaks through the noise because it isn't "competitive" enough.
I agree that it's dead air, but I disagree that the dead air has any substantial effect on anything beyond being kinda annoying for everyone involved. And if the worst thing you can say about it is that it's kinda annoying, it's kind of hard for me to get worked up about it.
The low-pollers aren’t just huckstering for themselves, they’re taking shots at the candidates who do have a chance—like Gabbard pulling a Gish Gallop on Harris or De Blasio attacking Beto from the left, or Swalwell asking Biden to pass the torch (which sort of interfered with Pete’s more subtle framing of the same argument).
I worry less that Williamson will somehow start to climb and more that her nonsense about how we need crystals not plans will get through to her 1% of supporters and give them pause in the general
Likewise the difference between Yang and Inslee is that Inslee is raising an issue and Yang is building a cult of personality—where will his very online crypto-libertarian gang go when he drops out? Into DNC conspiracy theories and urging third party runs?
This is an impossibly important election and every time the country tunes into crazies and also-rans under the D banner my 2020 hives get a little worse
I think the extent to which they used that dead air in the last debate to, say, have complete nobody Delaney go after the frontrunners is a good example of the whole problem. Which is, obviously and as always, also with the moderation.
Or, like, they are grifters and including them is just enabling their parasitism.
I'm similarly unconcerned about the threat of the mighty Yang. This is still the point where not everyone is really paying attention, and there are going to be like 327 debates and campaign events after the field gets winnowed down to 7 or 8 people.
I mean, we thought that about this upcoming debate. And now it seems like, no, it's not gonna get winnowed down after all.
I wasn't trying to say I had any kinda problem with the process so far.
It's just that the back-to-back night, three-hour, 10-candidate format seems, like, tailor-made to remind me of my own mortality.
Hi!
Dr.Victoria Dooley is a national surrogate for Bernie Sanders
They have those and like 10% of the audience watches. They've had multiple ones this cycle.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It looks like the roster is going to run between 9 and 12 people or so, down from 20.
That's pretty winnowy.
Also it's literally August, the year before the election is to be held.
By this time in the 2016 debates, the GOP field (used for similar levels of "WHY ARE ALL OF YOU HERE") was 10 prime time candidates, and the following September debates was eleven candidates.
The implication is that she agrees with them about throwing Hillary in prison, and it's wasn't the only Trump memes she was making during that election or encouraging the anti-establishment sentiment in this one.
https://postimg.cc/0bGkWTRY
Dr. Dooley is a random person, except she's not out of step with the higher profile hirings in this election or the last withs those thoughts. This is from his new Press Secretary.
Bernie hiring assholes who say unacceptable shit is as relevant as Biden saying stuff that makes him look like he'd do a bad job as President. Being able to hire good and capable people is one of the tests that shows whether a candidate would be a good office holder.
More directly to the argument presented in the video, the racial health gap exists regardless of whether you have insurance or not (or what kind of insurance). Indeed even when healthcare is fully socialized there are racial health gaps. Its an attempt to argue universal programs will address racial disparities when the evidence does not exist.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That's still more than or equal to any Presidential primary in my lifetime maxed out at if I'm not mistaken.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't doubt it. It's a historically large field, so it makes sense that it'll take longer to weed out the riffraff.
10 candidates for the next debate is definitely suboptimal, but it means we get all the candidates on one stage (which is an improvement) or we have two nights, but only 5 or 6 candidates per night (which is an improvement).
I'm not saying I like having this many candidates. But! If I'm going to choose between letting in too many, and having to deal with Delaney and Williamson et al, or letting in too few and losing the contributions of Inslee and Castro, I'll go with the former.
The October debates have the same qualifications and are actually likely to have more participants because they have more time to qualify
I can’t find any source on the qualification requirements for the November or December debates
I hope they move to three or four percent (the donors measurement is too easy to game apparently)
Sooooooooo, time for some irony. We're trying to stamp out people using "retard" as an insult on these boards, and have been largely successful. However, descendants of "retard", which are a large and plentiful family of swearwords shunted forwards and attached to "tard" are still out there, gambolling across the meadows without due care and attention. Fucktard and words like it derive a reasonable proportion of their insult power from the "tard" part of the word, which is kinda gross. So let's not use it.
So, turns out, you can't call Trump a fucktard. It's us. We're the unelected undemocratic overlords they warned you about. Sorry.
Please use these handy alternative insults when illustrating your freedom of speech instead:
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's Bill Weld
And yeah you can do better than dumpster diving
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Bogart are you sure?
I mean, that's clearly Jimmy Durante.