Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Jack V Savage]

The NYT did not interview reliable sources before publishing the Phillips/Covington face-off story. That's a pretty fundamental violation of journalistic norms/ethics.

I guess you'll have to elaborate on this.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you libel people as having "no education"?

OK, she was educated by her nutty family and then went to a third-rate college. I think this is another bad-faith response, as you know what I meant.

Anyways, I disagree with you. I think Bernie Sanders's "pre-gov't accomplishments" are hard to identify yet I think he's one of the stronger Democratic candidates. What are Joe Biden's pre-gov't accomplishments other than law school?

Both of them have very long histories in gov't and so have no need to rely on pre-gov't accomplishments to make the case that they'd be capable of doing a passable job as president. FFS, try to respond to the real point. Gabbard doesn't have the gov't experience one would expect OR any pre-gov't experience to recommend her. Serious candidates have one or the other or both. I'm not saying anything you shouldn't already know here. I don't get how it's controversial. Her supporters should be saying, "yes, her resume is extremely thin but she's really special because XYZ." When they respond to concerns about her resume by pretending that it's normal or good or personally attacking the people who are concerned, that doesn't do anything to alleviate the concerns.

So Gabbard is running as a deliberate attempt to undermine the Democratic Party and help Trump win re-election? And you're accusing me of peddling conspiracy theories?

Gabbard herself is probably arrogant and dumb enough to think she'd be good. But why is she getting encouraged to run and supported by the right?

 

[Trotsky]

It's a highly relevant and serious rebuttal. You can't claim that the media was biased against him if he was covered more positively than anyone else. I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works. He was always a large underdog and the fact that he was covered as such is indicative of a lack of bias.

You just deflected, doubled down, and then erected a pretty shameless straw man to boot. It is undeniable that the volume of his coverage was exponentially lower than any other candidate relative to his popularity. That the media was ignoring him instead of spending that time talking about what a dick he is doesn't refute that. And the fact that Sanders' ratio of positive/negative coverage was only very marginally better than Clinton's (Clinton 3:1, Sanders 2.4:1) despite his not having even a fraction of her scandals is a feat in its own.

It's not the lone basis (frankly, the first basis is that the accusation is just ridiculous and isn't something that anyone with knowledge of how the media operates would make).

You get how punting with "well, anyone who thinks that doesn't know anything" isn't convincing, right? The blanket insinuation that a collection of corporations are somehow, unlike every other corporation, incapable of purpose and non-autocratic and without hierarchy will need some sort of evidence. Additionally, you can explain the NYT incident cited above and how that lone instance contravened the natural rule that publications can't direct their own coverage.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You just deflected, doubled down, and then erected a pretty shameless straw man to boot.

Meh. If you're just going to be an asshole and not honestly address the points, I'm not interested. Have fun imagining that real life is like a spy thriller.

 

[Trotsky]

Meh. If you're just going to be an asshole and not honestly address the points, I'm not interested.

...did I not describe what you did? You ignored the points presented (re volume of coverage and spuriousness in coverage values) and instead represented my argument as this:

I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works.
​

It's pretty hard to even cook up a better example of a straw man argument.

 

[Jack V Savage]

...did I not describe what you did?

Obviously you did not. You deflected to personal attacks because it wasn't going well for you.

You ignored the points presented (re volume of coverage and spuriousness in coverage values) and instead represented my argument as this:

I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works.
​

It's pretty hard to even cook up a better example of a straw man argument.

That isn't how it works. You thought he should have been covered more because you thought that he was a more serious candidate than he in fact was.

 

[ocean size]

That's ignorant.

Gabbard has enthusiastic support from prominent commentators much more influential than you: Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Kyle Kulinski. Joe Rogan, Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola and Michael Shure all also like her.



We could turn this into a bet easily. I'll bet she polls over 1% in the RCP average while Harris/Booker/Gillibrand/Castro/Klobuchar are still in the race.

I would have thought you stopped your betting after the midterms. If you really think so don't waste time with me turn it into cash on predictit.org

 

[Trotsky]

Obviously you did not. You deflected to personal attacks because it wasn't going well for you.

Uhh, are you being serious? Again, you ignored the points about the volume of coverage and said this:

I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works.
​

Saying that is a straw man argument is not a personal attack. It's an objective fact. There is no statement about your character contained whatsoever, and I think I have been generally deferential to your character. But I think the argument must be going well for me if you feel the need to call me an asshole, claim without any evidence that I'm attacking you personally, and then say that the fictitious attack is due to my being bested by your arugments (which is a distinctly Madmickian tactic, and I think you probably know it).

That isn't how it works. You thought he should have been covered more because you thought that he was a more serious candidate than he in fact was.

I thought that his coverage should have been commensurate with his (groundbreaking in terms of individual contributions) support.

 

[ocean size]

Lots of strawmen in this comment. Really low quality stuff from you. Your brain seems to break apart whenever the name "Glenn Greenwald" is mentioned.

When did I write that those people are "'influential' commentators among the left"?

It never happened.

I don't even use terms like "the left" and "the right", because these terms are very imprecise. You should improve on this point.

To repeat: my claim is that, among people who will vote in the Democratic primary, all those men I listed are more influential than @ocean size . The only way that could be false is if @ocean size is someone with a huge political platform outside of Sherdog. I doubt that's the case.

If you doubt that those people have significant influence, then you ought to examine the numbers they pull in on Youtube, Twitter and other platforms. I wonder if you can handle the fact that they are very influential.

They aren't that influential in the big picture. I'm a liberal hack that YouTubes a lot and I might see a Cenk or Dore clip once a month if that. Measuring their influence against mine is about the most vapid argument you can make when we are talking political figures.

 

[Sketch]

Oh man this is good, @Jack V Savage and@Trotsky going at it over finite talking points. All because @Trotsky made a couple good points and @Jack V Savage has gone the usual route of deflecting.

 

[Lead]

I'm a big supporter of AOC, Bernie, and progressives in general but this "Green New Deal" lacks proper planning and foresight. I'd even go as far as to agree with Mayor Profiler that it does indeed feel like a wishlist.

My biggest question mark is how we go 100% renewable without nuclear power. I mean we should strive for renewable energy adoption(I even like the ambitious 12 year plan- it would mean rapid mobilization of a work force and a massive boost to the ailing middle class) but that is impossible to do without nuclear energy.

Still the GND rhetoric is in the right place

Yea, France is pretty much a nuclear / renewable energy country and they are even struggling on easing off the nuclear side. For the US to be able to in a much worse starting position isn’t likely without some painful consequences.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Uhh, are you being serious? Again, you ignored the points about the volume of coverage and said this:

I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works.
​

Saying that is a straw man argument is not a personal attack. It's an objective fact.

No, because it wasn't a strawman. Rather than defend your point, you're transitioning to personal attacks.

There is no statement about your character contained whatsoever, and I think I have been generally deferential to your character. But I think the argument must be going well for me if you feel the need to call me an asshole, claim without any evidence that I'm attacking you personally, and then say that the fictitious attack is due to my being bested by your arugments (which is a distinctly Madmickian tactic, and I think you probably know it).

Except you actually did transition to personal attacks.

Look, your CT here is just ridiculous. There's no mechanism by which it could be true and no evidence that it is true, and there is evidence that flatly contradicts it that you don't address. What else do you want me to say? It seems that your only argument is that disagreeing with you means I'm pulling some kind of dirty trick.

I thought that his coverage should have been commensurate with his (groundbreaking in terms of individual contributions) support.

So basically what I said. Remember that he lost the popular vote by 12 points (and a large chunk of his support was just people who didn't like the choice registering their opinion). He lost the shadow primary by even worse. It's not really possible for the last rival standing to do much worse than he did. He was always an extreme underdog. No unbiased observer seriously thought he was going to win. He was covered very positively, but rightly wasn't regarded as a serious threat. I don't see reason to suspect bias, there's no reason that the MSM would be biased against him, no way that rogue reporters who had a vendetta against him could get it past their editors, etc.

 

[Trotsky]

No, because it wasn't a strawman. Rather than defend your point, you're transitioning to personal attacks.

Where is my personal attack? Calling your straw man argument a straw man argument is not a personal attack. I'm not calling you an asshole. I'm calling your argument bad. If I say your shoes are brown, I'm not calling you a turd.

"I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works" in response to a point about coverage volume that had nothing to do with my subjective preferences is a straw man. You ignored the point (and are still ignoring it) in favor of representing my point as being "I think the coverage should have represented by own subjective desires" rather than objective reflections of broad interest.

Except you actually did transition to personal attacks.

Again, point to a single personal attack. You said I was being an asshole because I pointed out - pretty objectively - that your argument was blatantly flawed. I have still yet to return fire.

Look, your CT here is just ridiculous. There's no mechanism by which it could be true and no evidence that it is true, and there is evidence that flatly contradicts it that you don't address. What else do you want me to say? It seems that your only argument is that disagreeing with you means I'm pulling some kind of dirty trick.

The evidence is provided: the inexplicably low volume of coverage. That you keep ignoring it does not make it cease to exist.

As far as your bald assertion that "there is no mechanism" for publications or corporations generally to regulate their own product, it's on you to substantiate such a silly claim. If you know something about mass media that I don't, such that publications like NYT, CNN, Fox News, and WashPo don't have the ability to influence their products, then feel free to share it.

 

[VivaRevolution]

So, I'm starting to think that Biden might not actually run.

If that is the case, and knowing that most Biden people polled, had Bernie as their second, what kind of odds you guys giving Bernie to win the nomination?

I got Bernie as a 60% favorite without Biden, and I think that is conservative.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Where is my personal attack? Calling your straw man argument a straw man argument is not a personal attack. I'm not calling you an asshole. I'm calling your argument bad. If I say your shoes are brown, I'm not calling you a turd.

"You just deflected, doubled down, and then erected a pretty shameless straw man to boot."

After I had done no such thing. Why would any normal person even bother with that kind of thing?

"I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works" in response to a point about coverage volume that had nothing to do with my subjective preferences is a straw man. You ignored the point (and are still ignoring it) in favor of representing my point as being "I think the coverage should have represented by own subjective desires" rather than objective reflections of broad interest.

You've done nothing to dissuade me from the view that your view that Sanders was not covered enough (and note that there is no real dispute that the coverage he did get was overwhelmingly positive) is driven by your own view of the proper baseline, and you haven't addressed the points I've made suggesting that that baseline is flawed. You've used metrics that no responsible newsroom would use to make that kind of decision, and I think you wouldn't use them yourself if not for their utility in this particular argument. As a general matter, how do you decide how to cover a candidate? I'm saying that if the candidate has no realistic chance of winning and the race is not particularly close, they're the "other" candidate.

The evidence is provided: the inexplicably low volume of coverage. That you keep ignoring it does not make it cease to exist.

The volume of coverage was totally explicable. Any similarly situated candidate would receive a similar volume. It's only a mystery (to be solved with wild and grossly implausible speculation) if you *want* to be mystified because you reject conventional and rational explanations.

As far as your bald assertion that "there is no mechanism" for publications or corporations generally to regulate their own product, it's on you to substantiate such a silly claim. If you know something about mass media that I don't, such that publications like NYT, CNN, Fox News, and WashPo don't have the ability to influence their products, then feel free to share it.

Now, *this* is a strawman. There's no mechanism for there to be a MSM-wide conspiracy to try to bury a candidate. No one would have any motivation to do it, no one would be able to get away with it, there's no coordinating body that could direct it, etc. The risk (any journalist caught doing something like that would basically kill his career) is way out of line with the potential benefit. It's loopy.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Tulsi Gabbard is clearly being falsely attacked by the MSM, that's undeniable at this pt

not sure how that can even be debated

 

[Jack V Savage]

Tulsi Gabbard is clearly being falsely attacked by the MSM, that's undeniable at this pt

not sure how that can even be debated

To CT morons, nothing can be debated. It's just "you're part of the conspiracy if you don't agree that there's a conspiracy." That's how this idiocy persists.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

To CT morons, nothing can be debated. It's just "you're part of the conspiracy if you don't agree that there's a conspiracy." That's how this idiocy persists.

no, not at all
a NY times writer literally smeared her on JRE, called her a name "Assad Toadie' and then literally asked what that term meant, and then could provide no evidence whatsoever for why she thought she was a horrible candidate, she just did

It was plain as day

also since no one here works for the MSM (afaik), then no, it's not being a part of it and persisting it. It's a lack of trust in the media

 

[kpt018]

Where is my personal attack? Calling your straw man argument a straw man argument is not a personal attack. I'm not calling you an asshole. I'm calling your argument bad. If I say your shoes are brown, I'm not calling you a turd.

"I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works" in response to a point about coverage volume that had nothing to do with my subjective preferences is a straw man. You ignored the point (and are still ignoring it) in favor of representing my point as being "I think the coverage should have represented by own subjective desires" rather than objective reflections of broad interest.

Again, point to a single personal attack. You said I was being an asshole because I pointed out - pretty objectively - that your argument was blatantly flawed. I have still yet to return fire.



The evidence is provided: the inexplicably low volume of coverage. That you keep ignoring it does not make it cease to exist.

As far as your bald assertion that "there is no mechanism" for publications or corporations generally to regulate their own product, it's on you to substantiate such a silly claim. If you know something about mass media that I don't, such that publications like NYT, CNN, Fox News, and WashPo don't have the ability to influence their products, then feel free to share it.

I'll stay out of your duel with Jack here (entertaining to read btw) but I'm not sure the metric you're using here is the best one. I *think* that chart is measuring media hits relative to Google searches using the premise that google searches indicate popularity. If that's the case it's a bad one since google searches are obviously not indicative of support.

Do you know if the folks differentiated between google searches that would indicate support or something else?

I don't think this undermines your assertion that Bernie had a lot less coverage (that doesn't seem to be in dispute here anyway) but I was curious. It looks to me that Clinton had about 3x more media mentions which isn't nearly as skewed as the chart suggests.

 

[Jack V Savage]

no, not at all
a NY times writer literally smeared her on JRE, called her a name "Assad Toadie' and then literally asked what that term meant, and then could provide no evidence whatsoever for why she thought she was a horrible candidate, she just did

It was plain as day

also since no one here works for the MSM (afaik), then no, it's not being a part of it and persisting it. It's a lack of trust in the media

I don't know what JRE is, but it all feeds on itself. People hear these ridiculous CTs about the media and then distrust it, and then interpret anything they don't like through those lenses, etc. IMO, this is really the biggest meta problem facing the country. It's hard to even think about fixing problems when people just assume that any info they don't want to hear is fake.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I don't know what JRE is, but it all feeds on itself. People hear these ridiculous CTs about the media and then distrust it, and then interpret anything they don't like through those lenses, etc. IMO, this is really the biggest meta problem facing the country. It's hard to even think about fixing problems when people just assume that any info they don't want to hear is fake.

The reporter was on Joe Rogan Experience, there's video. There's no other possible way to interpret it IMO
She got schooled by Joe Rogan, probably while high, ffs. I mean cmon