2020 Democratic presidential primary

the Intercept is a joke, conveys about the same amount of reliable/useful info as a shitty Dennis Perrin tweet

xps

I should probably stay out of this but just the idea of painting Hallinan as this tireless incorruptible paragon of virtue and Harris as a "she MUST be corrupt" cop is such ahistorical horseshit.

armchair lawyers litigating arcane legal maneuvering, what could go wrong

I mean the Intercept and Redstate are both running that "story", what does that tell you

what a coincidence that rightwing sources fed this to the AP to offset her debate performance, irrespective of any discussion of the actual legal issues involved

I abandoned ILX politics threads cuz I was getting p tired of the same old arguments and readily identifiable bullshit showing up constantly, evidence of our community's media-sifting not actually being better than any other fishbowl, it was just depressing

anyway...

based on MomTalk(tm) it seems like Harris provided a large percentage of the electorate the catharsis of seeing a woman tell an old white guy they were full of shit
dunno how lasting that gain will be

if she keeps doing it every time around I don't see it getting old

xp We'll have to see if old white guys continue spouting off shit going forward, I guess.

i guess i'm just suggesting that for the MomTalk(tm) demographic, any woman telling an old white guy he's full of shit will do

and, tbf, that's really Warren's jam

Pure horse race bullshit of the kind I profess to dislike but my take is: Harris is different enough to Biden to make people feel like they are voting for change while also feeling like a warm fuzzy continuation of Obama in both a policy and demographic sense.

next debate has a tougher threshold for admittance, right? no more of this two-night bullshit

I abandoned ILX politics threads cuz I was getting p tired of the same old arguments and readily identifiable bullshit showing up constantly, evidence of our community's media-sifting not actually being better than any other fishbowl, it was just depressing

hey if the story is total trash then fine but what I haven't spotted yet (here or in the wild) is an actual substantive refutation

The argument is predicated on the assumption that her declining to release those records was wrong, which the vast majority of the public is not qualified to judge. No refutation is required. The projection of suspect rationales onto Harris is what should carry the burdenof proof.

She was not required by law to releae those records. There could be all kinds of legal reasons for not doing so. Hallinan was a sloppy lawyer who was subsequently (for reasons not related to this issue tbc) disciplined by the Bar and is no longer allowed to practice law in CA.

The story makes arguments in bad faith and obscures them by highlighting abused victims. What is the argument being made? That she’s afraid of the Catholic Church? Hardcore catholucs were pillorying her for anti-Catholic bias just last year. That she doesnt actually prosecute abusers? This is demonstrably false based on her prosecutorial record. It’s abs hitjob from start to finish and u carried water for rightwing agent provocateurs, good job.

I’ve said my piece, I’m out

preciate u fam

same! I figured there had to be holes since the story was about a month old and I'd only just heard of it now

shakey pretty much otm

This poll from @IndivisibleTeam is astonishing. Remember: Indivisible members helped Dems flip the House-- they're local organizers in all 50 states, including red/purple districts.

Now 42% say they're NOT considering Biden and 45% said they're NOT considering Bernie pic.twitter.com/sN6AURdmBt

— Charlotte Alter (@CharlotteAlter) July 2, 2019

Sharing mostly because Klobuchar can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to her.

well, she sucks

who the fuck is wayne messam?!

xp they only seem to pay nominal attention to her in the local papers just by sheer local-angle reflex

san antonio paper covers julian castro with more gusto, too.

is that a poll of the public or of people working for indivisible?

nice to see so many of you brainfuct by polls

it's a thread about elections morb and the elections are a year away. if you want a thread about the issues then start one.

xp they only seem to pay nominal attention to her in the local papers just by sheer local-angle reflex

considering how provincial MN is and our usual obsession with the local angle, it's pretty muted

"Alan Greenspan, our national economic leader, stood up for the last four years and told Americans 'Borrow against your house.'"—Warren in 2004. pic.twitter.com/HHd2HORYye

— Ninja Economics (@NinjaEconomics) July 2, 2019

xxp, no, he's not saying she's the same person as she was then, just that it's somehow more useful to show-trial her for who she was then than discuss who she is now.

DP attacks male pols on the same grounds. all. the. time.

more useful to show-trial her

is there a 'shouting Stalin' equiv to Godwin's Law btw?

i'm out til you nudniks get less... this way

see you tomorrow morbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_u3YRZb74w

lmao -- truly booming post

Elizabeth Warren should have spent the 90s collecting paychecks from Bill fucking Maher like Dennis Perrin did

Whoever is the candidate will lose to trump

But especially biden

thanks for your words of encouragement, very helpful.

lol I tried to Google Dennis Perrin and he's not even the most famous Dennis Perrin

http://www.dennisperrinfineart.com/about

did y'all know that kamala harris was literally never a cop

that sounds like something a cop would say

just ask her directly during the debate - police are legally required to identify themselves if you ask them, is what i heard, many people are saying

p sure the idea of the "cop" tag is to make a point about the role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system, and/or skepticism of harris's likelihood to seek meaningful or systematic reform of said system. people do not think that she leaves the debate stage and dons a blue uniform and a badge.

by the way, someone upthread was asking about whether or not there'd be 20 candidates in the next debate as well. i thought no way, no way. but yes way, that is what DNC is doing. the next debate will have 20 people again, spread out over 2 nights again. apparently swalwell (who sucks) might be out and bullock might be in.

on one hand, having this many candidates is just ridiculous and bad. BUT, i do think that in some ways it could be good for there to be a ton of democrats on stage, generally expressing reasonable opinions, for at least a little while, during this early stage of the primary season. if nothing else, it helps to establish some sort of identify for democrats for voters, the things that they have in common. a person who doesn't follow politics can tune in for a little bit and get a general sense of where the democratic party stands on various issues. that might come in handy later on during the election, when people are trying to decide which lever to pull for no-name candidates that just have a R or a D by their name (i know, polarization, most people have already picked their team)

compare that to 2016 version, which was basically just clinton vs sanders with guest appearances by o'malley and fucking jim webb. that had the effect of diminishing the democratic party as a whole, in some ways - it was less about the ideas that democrats support, and more just a battle of two personalities representing opposing wings of the party

isn't it possible there will be more people in the debate this time? or has the fundraising window already closed?

it's possible that more people will qualify, but i think they have a hard limit of 20. they use polling averages to make the last cuts to 20, i think.

the threshold for the September debate is higher - 538's current estimate is that only 8 candidates would meet it

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18679029/2020-democratic-second-debate-july-cnn

also surely some of these jamokes are gonna run out of money sometime