2020 Democratic presidential primary

Journalist Horace White described Lincoln as having “a thin tenor, or rather falsetto, voice, almost as high-pitched as a boatswain’s whistle.” Others described it as “shrill” and “sharp,” which the New York Herald noted in February 1860 had “a frequent tendency to dwindle into a shrill and unpleasant sound.”

I was just making a joke about our shitty electorate, not sure if anything I posted was taken as a "misogynistic talking point"

xp

trump does not have the most appealing vocal timbre even if he didn't suck

Lincoln talked exactly like this iirc
https://youtu.be/vT0zJaH69Go

voters in this country are misogynistic btw

Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton got the most votes of any Presidential candidate ever.

Donald Trump is not popular. Donald Trump has never been popular. He won the presidency through an Electoral College fluke that he is very, very unlikely to repeat. Yes, incumbency has advantages, when the candidate is sane. I refuse to believe - I refuse to believe - that Donald Trump's words and actions, which are the words and actions of an insane and possibly senile racist, have drawn more voters to his side in the last three years.

xp really don't want to watch that whole clip to find out what you mean

considering anyone's vocals as a detriment because it has inherently "feminine" qualities, because having feminine qualities is the absolute worst, is still bad.

although, I know we are playing what will turn on the shitty voter game.

How would Trump "eat Warren alive"? Apart from her own considerable rhetorical skills, we vastly overstate what Trump can do on the stage in 2020.

warren is p much always in pissed off and hopeful mode

(thats good btw)

i read lincoln speeches in the wizard people dear reader voice

I think she's too reasonable. he's stupid but he always sucks the oxygen out of every room he's in

xp I loved that Emo Philips video you posted Οὖτις, I can't remember which thread it was, but I had never heard of him and it was so great

Apart from her own considerable rhetorical skills, we vastly overstate what Trump can do on the stage in 2020.

Trump was essentially incoherent - as far as debate goes - on the stage in 2016, but coddled by the moderators. His brain is plainly melting week by week. Fourteen months from now, snorting speed might not be enough to focus him on forming words and shutting up (sometimes) between his allotted spots.

Even if he's verbally functional, "Pocahontas" is all he's got against her. "Lock her up" only worked because of Comey, and because millions of people had hated Clinton for decades.

"incumbency has advantages only when the incumbent is sane" <--- this hypothesis, like so many itt, is untested AFAIK

xp I don't want to underestimate him

Anyway here's one for the "Bernie gets nothing done" files

BIG NEWS: Medicare for All is now the official Democratic Party position in the U.S. House, as the legislation now has 118 sponsors -- an official majority of the House Democratic Caucus. This is a huge landmark for @BernieSanders & @PramilaJayapal. https://t.co/XFDogZQM1z

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) August 1, 2019

Trump was essentially incoherent - as far as debate goes - on the stage in 2016, but coddled by the moderators.

sad prediction - he will still be coddled by moderators. even if he isn't, he will talk over them and/or distract by making some bogus loud statement that makes everyone forget what the question is.

Jayapal is my rep and I’m gonna give her a lot more credit than Bernie for getting the house caucus on board over the course of this year, considering she has been in the house and he is running for President.

Fair enough.

related news, this is pretty much exactly the line I'd been hoping he'd make during this campaign as it's his clearest point of differentiation. Whether it's actually persuasive or not remains to be seen of course but I like it way more than the "corporate socialism" rhetoric

I'm not only going to be Commander in Chief. I am going to be Organizer in Chief. pic.twitter.com/bBWYvN4iyj

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 1, 2019

sad prediction - he will still be coddled by moderators. even if he isn't, he will talk over them and/or distract by making some bogus loud statement that makes everyone forget what the question is.

If he makes it to the stage, I agree these are all almost certain to happen. None of them have anything to do with whether it is Warren or someone less dope than Warren alongside him, though.

sad prediction - he will still be coddled by moderators.

The kind of prediction that may look foolish--2016 scared me straight on most predictions--but, unless it's Fox, I just can't see that. The contempt for Trump at CNN, at least, is deep. Maybe for the wrong reasons, deep down--maybe they just hate the lack of access--but it's there. I don't know about what we used to call the big three networks...

to be clear, i do think it is "coddling" when moderators and journalists in general allow him to just lie constantly without challenging him on anything. it's tough NOT to coddle him, by those standards. he lies all the fucking time, on matters of the both the most and least importance, equally. but he should be called out far more than he is.

CNN spends three hours a night doing that. But it is tougher in a debate, in the same way NBA referees let a lot of contact go--if they called everything, every game would be five hours long. Ultimately that's up to the other person up there, no?

]I was just making a joke about our shitty electorate, not sure if anything I posted was taken as a "misogynistic talking point"

Since those were my words: I don't know if it was you Shakey (I can't even scroll back that far now), but there's this thing I try to watch out for (in myself as much as anyone), which is that there's a fine line between noting how some voters might view certain candidates through the prism of misogyny (e.g., Clinton, Warren), and actually helping to disseminate if not downright cosign that view.

I've seen that slippage happen quite easily when conversations about "which candidate do you like" slide imperceptibly into "who's most electable?" [often assumed to mean some version of "middle America"]. This is not abstract. I'm talking about for example going to a friend's dinner filled with Democratic voters, most of whom would self-identify as progressive, and when Warren's name comes up, one of them (a woman) says, "I just think she's too shrill for most people." The comment almost went unchallenged.

My feeling is that such comments are more self-fulfilling than we think. If we don't watch how we say things, it's possible that by "predicting" non-electability based on the negative perceptions we ascribe to others, we may end up strengthening those very perceptions (regardless of intent!).

I see the same thing happening with policy positions btw. I see that, even though the Overton window has shifted left somewhat (thanks to Occupy, BLM, Bernie, the finance crisis, etc.) Dems, including progressive Dems, have been so thoroughly tenderized by thirty odd years of neoliberal hegemony and Dem triangulation that we cripple our own momentum from the go. Thus you get a stage of candidates half of whom are more invested in finding something palatable for the reactionary white male voter than in laying out a compelling vision of why they're running.

This is tricky stuff, and I absolutely don't mean that we should bury our heads in the sand and pretend we live in a land filled with woke voters. But what we say and how we say it has an effect on others, who weigh 'electability' in a wide variety of ways when stepping into the voting booth.

I'm talking about for example going to a friend's dinner filled with Democratic voters, most of whom would self-identify as progressive, and when Warren's name comes up, one of them (a woman) says, "I just think she's too shrill for most people." The comment almost went unchallenged.

This sounds to me like the common tendency among "self-identifying progressives" to think of Those People as knuckle-walking idiots, unlike their enlightened selves.

I think there’s a distinct possibility Trump refuses to debate on any of the networks that have treated him totally unfairly. So then it’d be up to his opponent to decide whether to debate him on Fox of not at all.

*or* not at all

I could see that. Jesus, even Fox has occasionally gotten under his skin. Is Trump TV still around, with Kayleigh McEnany? That's where the debates--debate--will be.

nah they'll be at Mar-A-Lago

with an audience of undocumented workers

"Hillary Clinton got the most votes of any Presidential candidate ever."

Obama got more than her both times, but she is second

Some entertaining Yang ideas from his site were getting rid of the penny, paying student-athletes, unionizing MMA fighters, and mandating free marriage counselling for every couple. he seems to have gotten rid of his anti-circumcision stance for some reason.

cowardice

the "most votes of any presidential candidate ever" argument is symbolic but mostly meaningless -- the country's population is going up, which also means the population of voters

Do you ever think about death? pic.twitter.com/uFR0uhtvsY

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) August 1, 2019

he's winning the debates

citation needed

aw and I often like Michelle Goldberg.

getting rid of the penny, ... free marriage counselling for every couple... his anti-circumcision stance

These all sound correct to me (wrt the latter, at least that parents should be more informed of their choice and what the 'benefits' might actually be, which is what I think his stance was). I might be able to get behind paying student-athletes if it meant that they would also not be registered as students or given a break on tuition unless they meet the same academic standards for admission or scholarship as any other students.

I love Warren and I think her ability to debate Trump is 34th on the long list of why she rocks. First priority for primaries should be 'Can the nominee win the electoral college' anything else is cosmetic.

I don't know how to accurately predict that, though.

the "most votes of any presidential candidate ever" argument is symbolic but mostly meaningless -- the country's population is going up, which also means the population of voters

Thank you! This drives me nuts.

I don't know how to accurately predict that, though.

― All along there is the sound of feedback (Sund4r), Friday, August 2, 2019 9:09 AM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

it's a shame you'd be very rich

paying student athletes and unionizing MMA are absolutely righteous stances and a lot of so called progressives from the "I am smart because I said sportsball" crowd really show their ass when they parrot "they get paid millions to play a child's game" talking points. the athletes add all the value to the sport and deserve their fair share of these *huge industries* which is exactly what college football and basketball are

First priority for primaries should be 'Can the nominee win the electoral college' anything else is cosmetic.

VHS, are you familiar w/ Pareene's article about the fog of "electability" from a few months ago? Why should civilians they can play mindreading/Family Feud with elections?

ums otm

the athletes add all the value to the sport and deserve their fair share of these *huge industries* which is exactly what college football and basketball are

Totally agree; I just don't really get what these huge industries have to do with the purpose of academic institutions.

xpost

Morbs, nope. Do you mind sharing it please?

Totally agree; I just don't really get what these huge industries have to do with the purpose of academic institutions.

A lot of them fund the academic institutions.

Well okay, that's overstatement.