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

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.

who

it's called 'denali' now

?

of the Big 4 and the Big 3 consulting firms i think most people would only name recognize PricewaterhouseCoopers because of award shows and maybe Ernst and Young for being involved in big audit scandals.

guess how many of these firms are currently working with my employer! it's more than one!

*groan*

people would definitely recognize bain because romney

bain is a different sort of creature in that private investment takes fiduciary control and then tells management how to pull blood from stones

mckinsey and their peers get paid by existing management to come in and do the same

big 3 consulting firms usually refers to mckinsey, boston, and bain

people would definitely recognize bain because romney

Only the same people who'd recognize McKinsey by name - most people couldn't tell you the name of the 2012 GOP nominee much less how he made his money.

yeah, if you asked me how romney made his money I would've said he married up. Or some corrupt church thing.

Real heads know McKinsey from the Enron trial since Skilling came from there and imported its culture. Bang up job.

i just realized i somewhat got Romney and Kerry confused.

yeah, if you asked me how romney made his money I would've said he married up.

That's not the American way (i.e. being born into it)!

yeah, I got him confused with Kerry. See also my Roger Sterling and Duck problem.

It’s called denasi now, not denali! xxx...xxxps

the american way is being born into enough of it to start your own gruel mill

xp glad someone got it lol

I rue the day we decided to stan presidential candidates.

All of them are imperfect. Not being honest about their growth areas hurts us all. They’re never pushed to be better for *all* of us when we treat them like gods.

(Thread).

— brittany packnett cunningham (@MsPackyetti) January 14, 2020

I enjoyed this

otm

thanks, gonna share

I disagree. They are gods.

they're gods but the greek kinds that are supposed to illuminate our weaknesses with their own flaws

they're gods but the greek kinds that are sexually incontinent idiots who meddle in human affairs to disastrous ends

yeah, they go around fucking goats and turning people into trees and shit

Green New Deal

call it pedantry, but I wish that thread also allowed for the possibility that he said something along the lines of "Trump will make this especially ugly if he's running against a woman" or something along those lines and she inferred an unintended meaning. Since candidates are imperfect and all

I call it pedantry.

But even that is part of the problem don't u see.

xp

lots of fans of both candidates are guilty of assuming their candidate couldn't have misspoken / misinterpreted / acted in error. Bernie's ppl are just more obnoxious about it on the internet.

they sure are

an old friend of mine who lives in w mass & recently got on twitter just posted snake emojis with awful hashtags, I will vote for whoever will ban twitter

otm

but will happen to Richard Nixon

I was a lot more willing to believe that Warren didn’t intend it to be a story before the debate, but my assumption at this point is that they saw polling that showed electability concerns as a drag on her numbers and needed a way to force that issue to center stage so that she could counter it at the debate. As political maneuvering goes it’s a long way from “my opponent’s dad killed JFK and his wife is busted” but I can’t say it makes me like her campaign more. My guess is they wanted the issue to be “can women beat Trump” rather than “is Bernie a sexist,” hence the vagueness about what he actually said, but they must have known how it would be reported. I wish she had just used Biden’s remarks as a springboard, though that probably wouldn’t have gotten as much attention.

DJP tweeter otm. This is what I was thinking during the sports team thing mentioned before. I don't understand being that fanatical about anyone and I had thought maybe I just was not predisposed to that mindset because I am not into sports or religion or haven't loved a band obsessively since I was in high school.

in unrelated news, I had to watch a ton of fox news again for work last night, and I realize I am about to sound like a bernie bro, but it is bizarre how much they are castigating warren (in general, for being a socialist/"socialist") and almost completely ignoring sanders, despite his polling substantially better. you'll have varney or whoever going on tirades about how "if warren gets elected she will destroy the economy and the stock market and your jobs and your children's jobs and you children's children's jobs and it will be a complete disaster! beware! oh right and probably sanders would do that too" and obviously biden is the subject of ongoing hand-waving freakoutery because of the ukraine thing, so the result is you have two out of three front-runners being made out to be satan on a regular basis and one... not.

I can think of a few reasons for this -- the trump/maga have the pocahontas thing to hammer on as well as the standard-issue misogyny; for the business/finance wing warren has explicitly, prominently, loudly worked to establish herself this year as targeting big business/big wealth, and while sanders doesn't need to establish himself in that way (being bernie sanders) it perhaps means he's not first in mind? I do also wonder if part of it is bernie being better liked among that crowd, both working-class and even some suburban wasp types for a number of reasons: economic populism, being seen as an outsider, being seen as someone who doesn't "flip-flop" (god I hate that this is a pejorative but it is) or take stances for political reasons, being the guy in 2016 who wasn't hillary clinton, being the guy who isn't the woman, one or more or all. not sure how reliable this poll is, but the numbers for sanders vs. warren among fox viewers, versus their numbers everywhere else, are striking: https://morningconsult.com/form/media-use-and-2020/

anyway, where I'm going with this is that imo sanders has a huge advantage over basically any of the other front-runners, in that the right-wing hate machine has either struggled or declined to make him into satan

imo they either still don't take him seriously or they genuinely believe ignoring him is the best way to fight him (which I think the UK proved is not the correct media villainy strategy)

(other note on the poll: it was conducted in spring 2019, before the ukraine scandal, so I suspect the biden support among fox viewers is probably lower now)

strange, since the Fox audience would probably be the most receptive to a "Bernie is a commie!" attack

Being in their 80s and all

Hey, MSNBC also spent the fall terrified of Warren too