Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

"and the former who has now posted his 30th tweet making the same joke about 'things bernie told people in confidence' and now the confetti at the supermarket is raining down and he has won a free turkey. hopefully this celebration will suffice and he will not longer feel compelled to dennis perrin up the site."

Looking for 31st rn, just love confetti and 🦃

The counterargument (which I'll hear from Sanders people): understanding – mastering – the system as Warren does is exactly what we don't need when we could be destroying the system.

who in the Bernie camp is adocating that gov needs shrinking or that ignorance is an asset? For all the revolutionary rhetoric Bernie is an institutionalist, he's not out there railing against the rules per se

I should've said "Sanders fans." The previous Yglesias essay reminded us how canny an institutionalist Sanders has been.

xxp - it isn’t that candidates aren’t allowed to criticize one another, it’s that this is simultaneously a relatively banal accusation, and yet one that has very probably resulted in at least one person flat-out lying, given how much their accounts diverge. meaning supporters of either are more likely to dig in their positions, and non-supporters of either now have both candidates in this state of quantum maybe-lying, i.e. looking worse.

I was objecting to fred's characterization that Sanders erred by "breaking the truce" (was there paperwork?) by drawing distinctions btwn them in volunteer material

also xp - I think the inversion in reputation is pretty obviously due to sanders in the 2016 primary

I was objecting to fred's characterization that Sanders erred by "breaking the truce" (was there paperwork?) by drawing distinctions btwn them in volunteer material

― bold caucasian eroticism (Simon H.), Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:52 AM (twenty-one seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

the timing on this may not work out (really depends on whether cnn was reporting the story before the volunteer slack thing) but if this all was an overreaction to that then that makes that random bernie volunteer the gavrilo princip of extremely pointless beef

it's so petty it's hard to see how fixating on it (like on berner on my fb timeline has w/ like a dozen posts on the topic) makes anyone look good - impossible to understand why either candidate or their supporters would want to spend a second discussing or thinking about it.

pettiness seems to be some kind of defining sin of our era maybe it's social media's fault

free faaaaaalin'

people forget that a notable segment of the people locked into the primaries treat it like college football and post about it in the same way

there are also game day chants, monday morning quarterbacks, and the entire gamut of cliches

nah just human nature, one of the more alienating and depressing parts thereof

Here's a reminder that Bernie Sanders has proposed putting 20% of every publicly traded company under worker control and that it's never come up in a debate.

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) January 15, 2020

i assume that just means everybody's cool with it

A strange facet of the 2020 primary is that it has inverted Bernie Sanders’s and Elizabeth Warren’s reputations. Today, Sanders is seen as the revolutionary willing to challenge the Democratic establishment, whereas Warren is attacked by the left as a technocrat of suspect progressive credentials. But during the Obama years, it was Warren who had a reputation for being willing to challenge, and even foil, a Democratic administration, while Sanders was known as an ideological gadfly but fundamentally a team player.

She never gets enough credit for this imo

― symsymsym, Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:32 AM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

The other day Bernie supporters were sharing a Ryan Grimm interview where he talks about how Warren used her relationships with reporters to prevent Obama/Congress from neutering the CFPB as evidence that she was "nasty."

my local peers are annoyed that women's healthcare and specifically abortion wasn't the topic of a question, especially in a state where the legislature and governor seem hell-bent on perpetually introducing legislation that seems like Roe v. Wade overturn-bait

fwiw the candidates on stage who have held national office have a solid 100 on the NARAL scorecard with the exception of Biden (75) and there's was an extremely managerially-worded statement from Buttigieg about pharmaceutical abortion

"extremely managerial" is on Pete's business cards.

in a hip new font

my comment on the statement was that you could remove 2/3rds of the words and have a coherent statement

coherent sentence, that is

Mayor Pete Buttigieg said this week that while he supports the “spirit” of expansion of medication abortion, there needs to be “more research into the pros and cons and unintended consequences of its use in the context of the United States.” https://t.co/OgUlEBvRiP

— BoldProgressives.org (@BoldProgressive) December 22, 2019

those well known pros and secret, pesky cons of medication abortion in the context of the United States! why did no one else think of those

But as Buttigieg told the New York Times in November, making such federal policy a reality “could have the unintended consequence of setting people up for a criminal investigation or even jail” since self-administered abortion care is illegal in some states.

"What is an American vagina? We simply do not know."

If the Democratic debates were just moderators goading candidates into screaming “abortion on demand without apology” directly into the camera I would watch.

abortion the health insurance company employees

jesus my brain is a mess today

ABORTING the employees

that's taken out of context twice

the first instance is that, in the nyt article, pete's "unintended consequences" quote is immediately followed by "We must first work on decriminalization efforts."

but then the second instance is that the "context of the united states" part comes after that, and it isn't really clear what it refers to

“Abortion on demand without apology” is so much easier to say

he supports the “spirit” of expansion of medication abortion

This is also my favorite Rush song

it means "i <3 the hyde amendment" imo

(if anyone has any better idea what he means by that it's taken from here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html#link-1df6121c)

thanks, katherine!

I've moved the friend who sent me the link (when he should know better) to the questionable link provider list and am retracting my most recent Buttigieg skepticism on this issue for the moment

This (from katherine) is high-quality content

the gavrilo princip of extremely pointless beef

and my favorite phrase that I have read about the entire thing, thanks, carry on

he supports the “spirit” of expansion of medication abortion

This is also my favorite Rush song

― totally unnecessary bewbz of exploitation (DJP), Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:08 PM (thirty-six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

irl lol

Pete should look into bundling over the counter abortion meds with one free month of a streaming service. That is where his talents should be directed.

and maybe get Jasmine Masters to do an "...and I OOP" promo spot.

people forget that a notable segment of the people locked into the primaries treat it like college football and post about it in the same way

I find that when out of morbid curiosity I click through to the twitter feed of a particularly annoying reply in a political thread, it is USUALLY 90% football material (or, strangely often, hockey) and 10% annoying political replies

and a lot of the football stuff is annoying replies in the same vein as the annoying political reply, like a reply to some sportscaster with 100K followers saying "lol [player under discussion] is a TOTAL PUSSY"

well he is

A good read.

heh, was about to link to that (via LGM)

wish all the sanders/warren people who think they're helping by yelling at each other on twitter would read it

I just assume the Bernie folks are furious that the field is so split vs 2016 when he had like 40% of the primary electorate. They probably see Warren's 15% as something they could just add to their totals if she wasn't in the race and its driving them fucking insane.

I just want Iowa to happen so we can see if the Bernie theory of the case (turning out people who don't usually vote) is in any way true. If he comes in third he's kinda fucked, imo.

after discussions with a handful of friends and family members, I've found out they're probably not likely to make their final pick before caucus night

it's a real thing! it blows my mind

Paying as much attention as we all do is much weirder, really.

it makes much more sense to me than waiting for the last minute during the general election.

A friend who follows politics fairly closely, or did, never heard of McKinsey when we discussed Bootyjudge a month ago.

never heard of McKinsey and that's just how McKinsey like it

I feel like the only reason most people would know McKinsey is if they were in an industry where they worked with former McKinsey people.