Democratic National Convention Thread

[Winehole23]

Yep 44 used cages
Where was his wife

Frontline reported on this in 2011:https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/a-...vestigation-by

NYT ran this Op-Ed while Obama was still President: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/o...n-centers.html

[Reck]

I know it's your reflexive instinct to defend the establishment and blame progressives, but it doesn't make any sense to blame AOC for the role that she was given by the DNC/Biden Campaign. It's not her job to run a clean convention that unites the party, it's the DNC's job and the Biden Campaign's job. She didn't have the option of doing her own personal speech, it was the role they gave her and she did what she was told. It's not her responsibility to consider the political ramifications of the 90 second procedural speech she gave.

The damage has already been done, you have the same groupthink issue where you take for granted how hastily the average American draws conclusions with incomplete information. People from both sides are already pissed about this because of the confusion it created.

I dont think you have any room about who's who and which side people are in. That glass house thing.

I knew from the offset this was a non issue. It's something that has been done for years. In 2016 Tulsi did the honors for Bernie.

Trolls like Hater like to post and instigate non issues and then see people in the same party fight each other---like so. You insulting me about being establishment or whatever.

Hater's OP said AOC went rogue...I pointed otherwise, you sided with him and insulted me. lol

[baseline bum]

He called it that people would be confused by why AOC gave a speech endorsing Bernie, and the confusion would lead to contention because the average American doesn't understand the nomination process where each candidate who passed the delegate threshold receives an endorsement, even if the race is already decided.

This is especially the case when our mainstream media is re ed and wants to manufacture sensationalism with misleading headlines (see below tweet). Anyone with a political science degree and an IQ above room temperature should have seen this coming by having AOC endorse Bernie.

God I hate our TV media. All they cover is drama and procedure in politics and whether something will pass instead of why it should or shouldn't pass. I briefly turned on NBC's morning show today and the first thing I hear is that Savannah Guthrie asking Biden's wife if it was weird for him to choose Kamala Harris for VP after she attacked him in the debates. Great journalism you cunt, let's try as much as possible to make this election about highschool bull .

[Will Hunting]

I dont think you have any room about who's who and which side people are in. That glass house thing.

I knew from the offset this was a non issue. It's something that has been done for years. In 2016 Tulsi did the honors for Bernie.

Trolls like Hater like to post and instigate non issues and then see people in the same party fight each other---like so. You insulting me about being establishment or whatever.

Hater's OP said AOC went rogue...I pointed otherwise, you sided with him and insulted me. lol

I think we're talking past each other.

What (I think) hater said (in a very strange way) is that AOC's speech could be taken out of context to make it look like she went rogue in order to inflame fighting.

My point was that even though you and I know her speech was a non-issue, the average American draws hasty conclusions with incomplete information, and our mainstream media loves to feed sensationalism, case and point being NBC News' ridiculously deceptive tweet about AOC's speech.

Regarding 2016 - it wasn't a big deal because Tulsi was an unknown. There wasn't any anticipation for her speech, and no one gave a . AOC is considered by most to be the heir apparent to Bernie as the leader of the progressive left, and the big question mark heading into the convention was whether Biden could unite his moderate supporters with AOC's progressive supporters. This led to a buildup around what AOC was going to say, why she only got a minute, etc., and in reality all she would be doing was completing a formality. The DNC letting all that anticipation build up without any notice her speech would be a nothingburger was incredibly stupid and the tweets in my previous post are an example of the drama they created. There's now a lot of people who think it was an act of defiance from her.

[Will Hunting]

hater walked back from his AOC WENT ROGUE ON HER PRERECORDED AND DNC REVIEWED MESSAGE to STUPID AMERICANS WILL MAKE THE SAME STUPID MISTAKE I JUST MADE

Might be a case of a broken clock being right twice a day, but I think he has a point on the 2nd part.

[hater]

Ma niga. We are on the same wavelength

Except I dont understand how you are so easily falling in line behind Biden. DNC is doing same exact formula as 2016. I just dont see how winning like this in 2020 will help true liberals tbqh.

The 2020-2024 presidence is already ed regardless who wins. And most likely the losing party will take 2024 in a landslide because our economy will be completely ed.

Falling in line behind neocon DNC is suicide for true lefties

Still waiting on your thoughts on this nig

[ChumpDumper]

Might be a case of a broken clock being right twice a day, but I think he has a point on the 2nd part.

I completely believe many Americans could make the same stupid mistake hater made.

[ChumpDumper]

I had to explain the whole nominating/roll call process to someone who had never watched a convention before. The only downside to not having network types talking in between every portion of the convention is these kinds of explanations.

I thought the travelogue roll call was actually pretty cool and should be adopted going forward. Let the home state of the nominee do it in person to put the nominee over the top after a taped travelogue deferral.

[Will Hunting]

Except I dont understand how you are so easily falling in line behind Biden. DNC is doing same exact formula as 2016. I just dont see how winning like this in 2020 will help true liberals tbqh.

The 2020-2024 presidence is already ed regardless who wins. And most likely the losing party will take 2024 in a landslide because our economy will be completely ed.

Falling in line behind neocon DNC is suicide for true lefties

If the Dems can take the senate, then Trump winning this election won't bother me too much, however I'm not confident that Schumer has the for ude to stonewall everything the way Cocaine Mitch did with Obama (I could see him being stupid and letting a judge nomination go to the floor thinking it didn't have the votes, only for Sinema and Manchin to break from the Dems). I'm concerned for the scenario where Trump wins and keeps the senate. If that happens then RBG gets replaced with another Scalia clone (not to mention how much the lower courts get stacked with more Heritage Foundation judges). Any meaningful reform on healthcare, income inequality, climate change, etc. would get ruled uncons utional in a scenario where Neil Gorsuch is the swing vote.

You're also too quick to assume Biden losing means Dem primary voters wake up and accept they need to change their strategy in 2024. I could easily see Biden losing, the country devolving into an even bigger pile, and in 2024 the DNC says "Well, we need to try even harder to win the middle this time! We should run John Kasich as a Democrat!" and all the braindead primary voters would fall in line after CNN/MSNBC crammed Kasich down their throat as the candidate most "electable." Somehow after 2016 when Hillary lost due to lackluster turnout from the base, the DNC, MSM and most primary voters thought the solution to that would be nominating a Delaware Dixiecrat who graduated law school near the bottom of his class and has no signature achievements as a senator. There's no reason to think that same insanity wouldn't permeate into 2024 if Biden loses.

[hater]

If the Dems can take the senate, then Trump winning this election won't bother me too much, however I'm not confident that Schumer has the for ude to stonewall everything the way Cocaine Mitch did with Obama (I could see him being stupid and letting a judge nomination go to the floor thinking it didn't have the votes, only for Sinema and Manchin to break from the Dems). I'm concerned for the scenario where Trump wins and keeps the senate. If that happens then RBG gets replaced with another Scalia clone (not to mention how much the lower courts get stacked with more Heritage Foundation judges). Any meaningful reform on healthcare, income inequality, climate change, etc. would get ruled uncons utional in a scenario where Neil Gorsuch is the swing vote.

You're also too quick to assume Biden losing means Dem primary voters wake up and accept they need to change their strategy in 2024. I could easily see Biden losing, the country devolving into an even bigger pile, and in 2024 the DNC says "Well, we need to try even harder to win the middle this time! We should run John Kasich as a Democrat!" and all the braindead primary voters would fall in line after CNN/MSNBC crammed Kasich down their throat as the candidate most "electable." Somehow after 2016 when Hillary lost due to lackluster turnout from the base, the DNC, MSM and most primary voters thought the solution to that would be nominating a Delaware Dixiecrat who graduated law school near the bottom of his class and has no signature achievements as a senator. There's no reason to think that same insanity wouldn't permeate into 2024 if Biden loses.

If liberals dont wake up after another trump win then they deserve eternal slavery. If th3y blame the usual suspects, russia, green party, minorities, etc then they deserve to be losers for life

[Will Hunting]

If liberals dont wake up after another trump win then they deserve eternal slavery. If th3y blame the usual suspects, russia, green party, minorities, etc then they deserve to be losers for life

I'd argue that even if Biden wins, they should wake up to how flawed the election strategy of running a milquetoast establishment dixiecrat is and relying on "Hey, at least he's not the other guy!" as your best stump speech, but we both know that if Biden wins, the moderate neocon Dems are going to say "Haha Bernie supporters, this proves winning the center is what works! Hope you enjoy getting raped by Blue Cross Blue Shield, because M4A ain't happening now!"

The fact they can't crack an 8-10% lead against someone who's run the country into the ground as swiftly and deliberately as Trump is an indictment of the effectiveness of Biden's campaign. A good candidate would be up 12-15% on Trump right now, and a generational candidate would have 1932 landslide potential running against Trump. We're through 2 days of the convention, and I have yet to hear a coherent and specific plan of action as to how Biden will manage the pandemic beyond "facemask mandate!" (something I'm not even sure is cons utional at the federal level). All I've heard is that Trump has managed it poorly.

[Spurminator]

A good candidate would be up 12-15% on Trump right now, and a generational candidate would have 1932 landslide potential running against Trump.

A candidate would have to be even more conservative than Biden to be up 15 points on Trump. I just don't buy that Biden's lead has anything to do with a lack of voter enthusiasm. Trump is going to be at 40ish% because of Republicans as long as his opponent is a Democrat.

[Reck]

I'd argue that even if Biden wins, they should wake up to how flawed the election strategy of running a milquetoast establishment dixiecrat is and relying on "Hey, at least he's not the other guy!" as your best stump speech, but we both know that if Biden wins, the moderate neocon Dems are going to say "Haha Bernie supporters, this proves winning the center is what works!"

The fact they can't crack an 8-10% lead against someone who's run the country into the ground as swiftly and deliberately as Trump is an indictment of the effectiveness of Biden's campaign. A good candidate would be up 12-15% on Trump right now, and a generational candidate would have 1932 landslide potential running against Trump. We're through 2 days of the convention, and I have yet to hear a coherent and specific plan of action as to how Biden will manage the pandemic beyond "facemask mandate!" (something I'm not even sure is cons utional at the federal level). All I've heard is that Trump has managed it poorly.

This country is more devided than ever before. I've seen the argument that some other candidate would be up 10-15 points on Trump and I just laugh. It is utterly ridiculous to think anyone, Bernie or otherwise would be up 10+ points on average on Trump in this divided and ed up country.

You're saying anyone else would have the support of 60-65 or even 70% support of the country. What world do you live in to think like that?

In the end, that doesn't even matter because we dont elect presidents that way anyways. You can have a 15 point lead nationally and still lose through the EC.

[Will Hunting]

This country is more devided than ever before. I've seen the argument that some other candidate would be up 10-15 points on Trump and I just laugh. It is utterly ridiculous to think anyone, Bernie or otherwise would be up 10+ points on average on Trump in this divided and ed up country.

You're saying anyone else would have the support of 60-65 or even 70% support of the country. What world do you live in to think like that?

In the end, that doesn't even matter because we dont elect presidents that way anyways. You can have a 15 point lead nationally and still lose through the EC.

I don't understand your math. A 12-15% lead isn't mutually exclusive with the trailing candidate having 40% of the vote, and it definitely doesn't require having 65-70% of the vote. Major party candidates have always gotten at least 40% of the vote, even in landslide years, this isn't some new phenomenon (Hoover got 39.7% of the popular vote, and Mondale got 40.6%). I'd love to see how a 12-15% lead requires having 60-70% of the vote, must be some interesting arithmetic to get to that conclusion.

Trump being in the low 40% isn't the part that I find unbelievable, Biden being stuck between 48-51% is what's pathetic. If he were at 55%, he'd have the 12-15% lead I'm talking about, and that wouldn't require him winning over any Trump s. All it would require is him winning the undecided voters + some of the voters who plan to vote 3rd party.

Regarding the EC - not sure if you meant to, but if you're implying the notion that Biden isn't winning the popular vote by more because he's focused on winning the EC. He's wasting money and resources trying to make Texas blue instead of focusing on middle American swing states, and he's parading around GOP endorsements from people in NY, NJ and CA. His campaign seems more focused on running up the score in coastal states than winning middle America.

[FrostKing]

Saw clips of Mic e. She morphed into a racist during lockdown.

Wise move. Carving out a well paid niche for her next career.

[hater]

I'd argue that even if Biden wins, they should wake up to how flawed the election strategy of running a milquetoast establishment dixiecrat is and relying on "Hey, at least he's not the other guy!" as your best stump speech, but we both know that if Biden wins, the moderate neocon Dems are going to say "Haha Bernie supporters, this proves winning the center is what works! Hope you enjoy getting raped by Blue Cross Blue Shield, because M4A ain't happening now!"

The fact they can't crack an 8-10% lead against someone who's run the country into the ground as swiftly and deliberately as Trump is an indictment of the effectiveness of Biden's campaign. A good candidate would be up 12-15% on Trump right now, and a generational candidate would have 1932 landslide potential running against Trump. We're through 2 days of the convention, and I have yet to hear a coherent and specific plan of action as to how Biden will manage the pandemic beyond "facemask mandate!" (something I'm not even sure is cons utional at the federal level). All I've heard is that Trump has managed it poorly.

You dont wake up if your team wins

See spurs after championships and still trotting out same old tired lineup

[hater]

"It’s not normal for a civilization to be dominated by plutocrats and secretive government agencies and to only get offered the choice between two authoritarian corporate warmongers in a pretend election to a position of leadership that is almost entirely fake."

[Will Hunting]

A candidate would have to be even more conservative than Biden to be up 15 points on Trump. I just don't buy that Biden's lead has anything to do with a lack of voter enthusiasm. Trump is going to be at 40ish% because of Republicans as long as his opponent is a Democrat.

Do people not understand how percentages work? Trump being at 40% doesn't preclude Biden from having a 15 point lead.

Trump's net approval is currently around -12% (that's where the fivethirtyeight aggregate currently is). If Biden could simply get the votes of everyone who disapproved of Trump, he'd have the 12-15% lead I'm talking about. Don't you think a capable candidate running against an in bent should be able to capture the vote of people who disapprove of the in bent? I really don't think I'm the crazy one for suggesting Trump's deficit against his opponent should match his approval deficit.

Furthermore, the polls show that Trump still has an edge over Biden as to who would best manage the economy, which means that roughly 5% of all voters are people who disapprove of Trump overall but still think Trump is better on the economy than Biden. You can't reasonably attribute this to anything other than ty campaigning and messaging - the last Republican before Trump left office with double digit unemployment and a tumbling economy, and it's where Trump currently has the economy. Meanwhile, the last two Democrats left office with unemployment below 5% and a growing economy. People think Republicans are better at handling the economy because they're better at talking about the economy than Dems are.

[Reck]

I don't understand your math. A 12-15% lead isn't mutually exclusive with the trailing candidate having 40% of the vote, and it definitely doesn't require having 65-70% of the vote. Major party candidates have always gotten at least 40% of the vote, even in landslide years, this isn't some new phenomenon (Hoover got 39.7% of the popular vote, and Mondale got 40.6%). I'd love to see how a 12-15% lead requires having 60-70% of the vote, must be some interesting arithmetic to get to that conclusion.

Trump being in the low 40% isn't the part that I find unbelievable, Biden being stuck between 48-51% is what's pathetic. If he were at 55%, he'd have the 12-15% lead I'm talking about, and that wouldn't require him winning over any Trump s. All it would require is him winning the undecided voters + some of the voters who plan to vote 3rd party.

Regarding the EC - not sure if you meant to, but if you're implying the notion that Biden isn't winning the popular vote by more because he's focused on winning the EC. He's wasting money and resources trying to make Texas blue instead of focusing on middle American swing states, and he's parading around GOP endorsements from people in NY, NJ and CA. His campaign seems more focused on running up the score in coastal states than winning middle America.

You're kind of forgetting the part where this country is massively divided and the kind of support you're talking about only comes if you have willingly and bipartisan voters who dont just vote for their idols no matter what.

I just find it peculiar you're having a fit about Biden already having a majority of support. 50-51 is already good enough when the other guy is meddling in the low to mid 40s.

I'd be estatic over that. It could be worse.

Regarding the electoral college, I'm merely pointing out that that's how you win here. Irrespective of where either of these candidates are campaigning.

[Spurminator]

Do people not understand how percentages work? Trump being at 40% doesn't preclude Biden from having a 15 point lead.

You also understand that there is almost always "undecided" voters and 3rd party? I'd have to look at a lot of prior polls but I'd be surprised if there's ever been a poll where the top two candidates poll at a sum of much greater than 90% of respondents.

Trump's net approval is currently around -12% (that's where the fivethirtyeight aggregate currently is). If Biden could simply get the votes of everyone who disapproved of Trump, he'd have the 12-15% lead I'm talking about. Don't you think a capable candidate running against an in bent should be able to capture the vote of people who disapprove of the in bent? I really don't think I'm the crazy one for suggesting Trump's deficit against his opponent should match his approval deficit.

Think about the difficulty of what you're suggesting. Even with Trump's ridiculously high approval among Republicans, there are still 10-20% of Republicans who don't approve. Do you really expect 100% of those Republicans to vote for the Democrat candidate? You have to factor in a likelihood that people who express disapproval will still vote for him. You also have to factor in people who are Republican but don't identify themselves as such. They may be embarrassed by Trump and embarrassed to call themselves Republican, but they're still going to vote for Trump because they hate Democrats.

Furthermore, the polls show that Trump still has an edge over Biden as to who would best manage the economy, which means that roughly 5% of all voters are people who disapprove of Trump overall but still think Trump is better on the economy than Biden. You can't reasonably attribute this to anything other than ty campaigning and messaging - the last Republican before Trump left office with double digit unemployment and a tumbling economy, and it's where Trump currently has the economy. Meanwhile, the last two Democrats left office with unemployment below 5% and a growing economy. People think Republicans are better at handling the economy because they're better at talking about the economy than Dems are.

That's a historical problem for Democrats. It's a problem of perception that can't be corrected overnight, and probably the only way it gets corrected that quickly is if we had nominated someone like Mike Bloomberg, which obviously hurts in a lot of other areas. You can nominate someone to the left of Biden who's good at talking about the economy, but as long as they have that socialism stigma, It's going to be hard to overcome. But Democrats definitely need to do more to correct that perception in the long run.

[Will Hunting]

You're kind of forgetting the part where this country is massively divided and the kind of support you're talking about only comes if you have willingly and bipartisan voters who dont just vote for their idols no matter what.

I just find it peculiar you're having a fit about Biden already having a majority of support. 50-51 is already good enough when the other guy is meddling in the low to mid 40s.

I'd be estatic over that. It could be worse.

Regarding the electoral college, I'm merely pointing out that that's how you win here. Irrespective of where either of these candidates are campaigning.

You can keep parroting "massively divided" all you want, it doesn't address the numbers. Trump's net approval rating is currently -12%. What is it about this country's massive divide that renders Biden incapable of simply capturing all of the voters who current disapprove of Trump's job performance? I have a hard time believing the 52-55% of voters who disapprove Trump are people who vote for Trump because he's their idol, seems more likely they're people looking for a reason to vote Trump out.

My point regarding Biden is that him winning doesn't mean he was a great or even good candidate, since I know if he wins we're going to hear about it in 2024 about how the recipe for success is milquetoast centrists. Since the end of June, Trump has gained in the polls on Biden, meaning there have been people who have gone from undecided to Trump or from Biden to Trump. That's not a symptom of people blindly supporting Trump, it's a symptom of Biden making a historically low amount of public appearances as a major party candidate and leaving a vacuum that's been filled by negative ads about Biden.

I wouldn't be ecstatic over Biden winning in the low 50s. This is the problem I have with your mentality, it's completely focused on just being able to win the White House, not on being able to actually get stuff done. Just having a Dem in the oval office isn't the finish line. If Biden wins and the GOP keeps the senate, you can write off the next 4 years, and Biden never gets to pick RBG's replacement. Even if Biden wins and the Dems only have a 51-49 majority, it's slightly better, but Sinema and Manchin have already said they're not going nuclear on the filibuster, so they don't have a real majority on most legislation. Biden being a middling chode who gets the bare minimum vs. being a guy who wins by 12-15% and creates a downballot effect is what puts the Georgia, Montana, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina senate races in play.

[TSA]

[hater]

Sure but Trump speaks so score tied

[ChumpDumper]

Don't forget they taught you what a miserable failure your president is.

[Will Hunting]

You also understand that there is almost always "undecided" voters and 3rd party? I'd have to look at a lot of prior polls but I'd be surprised if there's ever been a poll where the top two candidates poll at a sum of much greater than 90% of respondents.

I'd argue that a high volume of undecided voters are a symptom of the party that's supposed to be advocating for the working class (most voters) having no clear iden y beyond saying REPUBLICANS BAD! If you're an undecided low information voter who just watched the convention for the last two days, you've been given nothing to go off in terms of what Biden stands for. All you've been told is that (1) Biden is a decent man and (2) ORANGE MAN BAD! There's no effort by Dems to win undecided voters. They might get away with it this time since Trump can't use the "Try me out, what have you got to lose?" line again.

Lets also not ignore that people who don't vote are the biggest block of adults out there. There's nothing about Joe Biden that's going to inspire a disaffected millennial who's never voted before, lives at home and hates life, to register to vote.

Think about the difficulty of what you're suggesting. Even with Trump's ridiculously high approval among Republicans, there are still 10-20% of Republicans who don't approve. Do you really expect 100% of those Republicans to vote for the Democrat candidate? You have to factor in a likelihood that people who express disapproval will still vote for him. You also have to factor in people who are Republican but don't identify themselves as such. They may be embarrassed by Trump and embarrassed to call themselves Republican, but they're still going to vote for Trump because they hate Democrats.

Right, and there's some Democrats who tell pollsters they approve of Trump, and there's plenty of independents who don't feel strongly either way. Point being, a 12% lead on DJT really isn't that unrealistic.

That's a historical problem for Democrats. It's a problem of perception that can't be corrected overnight, and probably the only way it gets corrected that quickly is if we had nominated someone like Mike Bloomberg, which obviously hurts in a lot of other areas. You can nominate someone to the left of Biden who's good at talking about the economy, but as long as they have that socialism stigma, It's going to be hard to overcome. But Democrats definitely need to do more to correct that perception in the long run.

My issue is that I think they know how to address it but don't want to because they don't the train to run too far off the track in terms of Dem voters wanting like a 70% tax rate or M4A. The DNC appears to make a concerted effort to keep its base as far to the right as possible on economic issues.

One other easy way to lessen it would be to stop talking about gay marriage, giving illegals free , and trannies. When Elizabeth Warren goes on a rant about how we need to pay for transgender prison inmates to have sex changes (that actually happened if you don't remember), she doesn't come off as someone who's particularly keen at making sure Joe Sixpack can feed his family. The two have nothing to do with each other, but a lot of people (including me) think it's really weird how much disproportionate time Democrats spend talking about gay marriage and trannies getting government-financed sex changes while they spend as little time as possible talking about the economy.

10 years ago I thought Republicans were weird for constantly fear mongering about how legalizing gay marriage will lead to people ing their dog, now I think Democrats are equally weird for constantly bringing up something that Republicans don't even talk about anymore.