Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

[chunksmediocrites]

LA Times has donor maps showing support for a number of the top tier candidates;
https://www.latimes.com/projects/202...n-donors-maps/
NYT has a similar map but metered paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ndraising.html

Bernie Sander's campaign: 746,000 individual donors
Elizabeth Warren's campaign: 421,000 individual donors
Pete Buttigieg's campaign: 390,000 individual donors
Kamala Harris' campaign: 277,000 individual donors
Joe Biden's campaign: 256,000 individual donors
Beto O'Rourke's campaign: 188,000 individual donors

Here's an article summarizing some of the data:
Bernie Sanders Dominates as Analyses of Fundraising Data Show Vermont Senator With Widespread Support Across Nation | Common Dreams News

Sanders' donor advantage was so overwhelming in the Times data that the paper "had to make two maps—one excluding Bernie Sanders—because Bernie had too many donors to show other candidates donation patterns," as Greenpeace International's Matt Browner Hamlin pointed out on Twitter.

The breadth of Sanders' appeal, especially through the middle of the country, spurred the senator's Iowa communications director to challenge the conventional wisdom that "the Midwest doesn't want or support progressive policies."

The report also showed strength for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) across the country, though not as robust as that for Sanders.

Of other Democrats, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a relative political unknown before this year's breakout presidential run, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) all dominated the country's wealthier hotspots. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke dominated Texas and Sen. Amy Klobuchar her native Minnesota.

Sanders' strength may be even greater than the maps show, however, as the Times admitted that "information about donors giving $200 or less directly to a campaign is not available."

The senator is raking it in from a plurality of Democrats contributing to campaigns, according to a study by The Center for Public Integrity and FiveThirtyEight:

Anyway, maps are fun.

[chunksmediocrites]

Also, there are more candidates making it to the next debate stage than I predicted:
Amy Klobuchar Qualifies For September Democratic Debate With Donor Uptick : NPR

Eight candidates have now qualified for September's next Democratic primary debate, with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar announcing Friday she had met the donor threshold to make the stage.

She will join former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, California Sen. Kamala Harris, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker.

The Democratic National Committee set more stringent requirements for the third debate than for the first two. The September debate will be held in Houston and hosted by ABC News and Univision.

Previously, candidates had to reach one of two benchmarks — either 1% in at least three national or early state polls recognized by the DNC, or hit 65,000 unique donors in 20 states. That has led to 20 candidates qualifying in both June and July, resulting in a crowded two-night affair.

But for the next gathering, the criteria doubled. Now candidates have to hit both 2% in four polls and reach 130,000 unique donors — and meeting just one of those benchmarks is no longer sufficient.

Gabbard and Yang are both claiming they have a shot at getting there as well; with Yang more likely, mostly needing one more qualifying Poll above 2%. So maybe 10 candidates instead of the 20 who qualified last time.

[The Man]

Sanders' strength may be even greater than the maps show, however, as the Times admitted that "information about donors giving $200 or less directly to a campaign is not available."

…wait, then do those figures about the number of donors above exclude donors giving $200 or fewer? It seems rather unlikely that this many people have already donated more than $200. (And does the FTFNYT even employ copy editors any longer? Less/fewer is pretty basic stuff. I will admit to not having opened the FTFNYT article; I don’t want to give them clicks.)

Anyway, the fact that Gabbard and Yang are polling better than Inslee shows that even Democrats aren’t always sensible. (And this is coming from someone who agrees with Yang’s points on automation and Universal Basic Income.) I’ll place part of the blame for this on the media – the fact that a popular governor of a fairly large West Coast state has been largely ignored speaks to what I’m going to assume is an East Coast bias on the part of the media, since the other interpretation is that they just don’t want to cover someone who’s giving climate change the attention it deserves.

[erimir]

Castro has met the donation threshold and also only needs one more poll, so he will probably make it too.

Gabbard will have a harder time as she only has one qualifying poll and needs three more, but more than half of the qualification period has already passed. And the only two post-debate polls don't show any bump for her (they wouldn't count for the debates anyway, but you'd hope to see a bump in them if you were going to get a bump in the qualifying polls).

In a way, I might prefer that 11 or 12 candidates make the next debate than 9 or 10... they might feel ok having a single debate with 10 candidates, whereas two debates of 5 or 6 might feel less cramped. I'm conflicted. Just as long as it doesn't end up more than 12 though, ugh.

Either way, they need to ensure that Warren and Biden are on the same stage for the next one, since they're the only upper tier candidates who haven't been on the same stage yet.

ETA: I think the map data is based on larger donations, since those donations are large enough that the individual donors have to be reported. From that, they're estimating the geographic pattern of support, I assume. But the total numbers are based on all donations. It's just that you can't tell where smaller donations are coming from. It's possible the geographic patterns would be different if you had the full information. Ideally they are using the patterns differentiating $200-$300 donors from $500, $1000, etc. to try to infer how sub-$200 donors would be distributed, but it's not guaranteed to be accurate.

[But]

Shoutout: Bernie Is The Only Candidate Willing To Put Pressure On Israel (TMBS 100) - YouTube

Shoutout: Bernie Is The Only Candidate Willing To...

[chunksmediocrites]

Relating not only to the previous post but to the "Cagefight" discussion of this thread: Bernie's National Press Secretary (and host of Hear the Bern) Briahna Joy Gray, and Obama White House Director of Speechwriting (and cohost of Pod Save America) Jon Favreau sit down and talk frankly about the center-left division, and get down to it.
SoundCloud - Hear the Bern: Bridging the Center-Left Divide with Jon Favreau

[chunksmediocrites]

Bernie on Joe Rogan's podcast/ YouTube channel went well:

Joe Rogan became a top-trending Twitter topic Wednesday after Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders appeared on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, the night before. They discussed everything from universal health care to gun laws—and even aliens.
...>snip<...
In a day and a half, the episode garnered nearly 2.5 million views on YouTube.

The interview is here:

Joe Rogan Experience #1330 - Bernie Sanders -...

Edited to add: Andrew Yang is the 9th candidate to qualify for the next debates.

[Stephen Maturin]

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

~ Joe Biden

Oofa. Someone needs to take ol' Joe out back and have him look at the rabbits.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Not the Onion?

[ChuckF]

Credit where credit is due: Beto has handled this week like a fucking pro. He could have very easily fumbled, like moronic narcissist Trump, but he did not, and navigated with finesse. He engaged with the places he knows, and it showed. And yeah, he is kinda hot when he successfully conveys sincerity, which he seems to struggle with on the national stage.

Elizabeth Warren is kicking ass every day and I is probably my top preference now. Not because of any Harris weakness, just because of sheer Warren kickass.

And Biden. Damn, dude. I will walk through fire to support you if you are the candidate, but please dial down the senescence? I get it, nobody would even notice if Trump said it. That is because Trump is an idiot toddler and you have to do better.

[specious_reasons]

Catching up on my news backlog, and I like this from Rebecca Watson about Marianne Williamson:

We Live in a Society: Why Marianne Williamson Needs to Go Away Forever – Skepchick

This is the typical bullshit we see happen whenever an anti-vaxxer gets recognized for what they are. Suddenly they’re not anti-vax, they’re a vaccine “skeptic,” just like a 9/11 skeptic or a global warming skeptic only worse because they are making children sick. It’s the normal quack rebranding. Don’t fall for it. Marianne Williamson is a dangerous, garbage human who doesn’t even deserve to be on the same stage as any of the other 36 Democratic nominee hopefuls. Not even Joe Biden. NOT EVEN JOE BIDEN deserves to have to “debate” Marianne Williamson. That’s how bad she is.

For the most part, there are only a few unacceptable Democratic candidates, but Williamson is kind of my #1 most unacceptable.

[erimir]

My bottom three were Williamson, Gabbard and Gravel (who wasn't even a real candidate, let's be honest, but either way he was a senile 9/11 Truther). But now that Gravel is out, I guess that last slot goes to... Moulton, maybe Delaney, or possibly Sestak or Messam, if I actually knew anything about them, I guess. But given what I know, I'll go with Moulton.

[chunksmediocrites]

This is worth watching all the way through, but I'm pretty sure the first minute will pull you in. What questions do media figures and journalists never ask politicians? How are they framing the debate, and from what perspective? This is the fight that is still going on in a biased corporate media, that has not gone away and needs to be addressed so we can actually talk about what people in the working class can have- right now your neighbors in the world standing next to you, struggling. The discussion regarding The Hoarse Whisperer's anonymous tweet getting used on MSNBC- an unchallenged lie about Bernie Sanders that Rachel Maddow's own reporting on Bernie's full, complete support for Hillary in 2016 after she got the candidacy shows how the factual information shows that this is an oft repeated lie within the media at MSNBC. Full stop. Maddow's reporting in 2016 starts about eight minutes in.

MSNBC Smears Bernie Sanders With Anonymous Tweet...

Oh and hey Joe Rogan interviewing Bernie Sanders on YouTube is up to 8.6 million views.

This is why the centrist Democrats are going to lose the candidacy this time around, for a change. Though the collapsing economy and no one giving a fuck anymore might not hurt either.

[erimir]

I'm just thinking how "The media is viciously out to get Hillary, they showed a critical tweet from a Twitter person" would've gone over as a complaint in 2015-2016

Can you imagine? The whining I see from some quarters compared to the dismissiveness of media bias against most Democrats and especially Clinton, Russian hacking and trolling, etc. is something to see.

Also while you're free to disagree with HoarseWhisperer, I don't see how that tweet is just an objective "lie". There was reporting like this:

Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in the Homestretch

Maybe you disagree that Bernie should've dropped out and that him staying in and continuing to attack her was "torpedoing" Hillary. But it is true that he stayed in long after he was effectively eliminated from contention (which was in March - either on Super Tuesday or on March 15, it's debatable). And it is true that he attacked her quite a bit in that period - probably more than he did before that, actually! And it is true that he took a month off to write his book. BUT he also endorsed Hillary (technically) and made a fair number of campaign appearances for her (including in Wisconsin), and polls suggest his primary voters voted for the nominee at a high rate relative to other primary losers' voters.

I'd say it's open to disagreement given those sets of facts.

[chunksmediocrites]

Bernie x Cardi B - YouTube

[But]

Top scientist denounces smears of Tulsi Gabbard...

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has been smeared as an Assad apologist for her efforts to end the US-backed proxy war and her skepticism of US military strikes in Syria. MIT professor emeritus Ted Postol, a leading missile expert and informal Gabbard advisor, defends Gabbard's stance and criticizes the OPCW's continued silence on a leaked document that suggests the April 2018 gas attack in Douma was staged.

[specious_reasons]

What? No one cares about Hickenlooper?

[ChuckF]

Nope.

[erimir]

If people did, perhaps he wouldn't be dropping out.

[Stephen Maturin]

Some of us loloradans care, seeing as how there's a reasonable possibility that come 2021 we'll be able to say "Our U.S. Senators are Democrats Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper" instead of "Our U.S. Senators are Democrat Michael Bennet and Republican shitstain/Trump inner circle wannabe Cory Gardner."

Dickendongler hasn't decided to enter the Senate race yet, but if he does it'll go something like this. I will donate money to Andrew Romanoff, a true progressive and former majority leader in the state house of representatives who'd make a superb U.S. Senator. I will also vote for Romanoff in the primary, which Hickenlooper will win by 25-40 points because the progressive competitors, Romanoff included, suck ass at winning elections. Hick will also beat the incumbent Gardner in the general election because Gardner's tenure has been a shitshow and Hickenlooper is pretty good at winning statewide elections.

Hickenlooper is not a progressive, and will vote to favor the interests of the oil and gas industry every chance he gets. However, he will not vote to give any more Article III judgeships to rapey alcoholic manbabies. In 2019 America, that's about the best we can do.

[But]

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "Banning Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib from entering Israel and Palestine is a sign of enormous disrespect to these elected leaders, to the United States Congress, and to the principles of democracy. The Israeli government should reverse this decision and allow them in."

Yeah, I'll leave out the link to the Shitter thread.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Relating not only to the previous post but to the "Cagefight" discussion of this thread:

Discussed the cagefight aspect with a friend the other day. We were in agreement that democrats are unlikely to undo one another badly by their very nature. We just don't have that win at all cost ethos. Look at the only chant worthy thing we've got going. Moscow Mitch. Invented by a disenchanted republican, Joe Scarborough! Republicans know how to go for the jugular and grab the audience by the amygdala.

When they go low, we go high? Weak!

Dems have to learn how to be persuasive the way republicans are. Repetition and short, sharp phrases. Gauche as it may be, we need to get with the propaganda program. Long winded explanations? Boring!

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by SR71

Discussed the cagefight aspect with a friend the other day. We were in agreement that democrats are unlikely to undo one another badly by their very nature. We just don't have that win at all cost ethos.

I get careful whenever the nature of a thing is brought up as the elbow of the argument. Galt-type Libertarians and Fascists, for example, love to talk about human nature as much as any other economic or political ideology.
Rather let's talk measurable tendencies, and if this is hair-splitty so be it. The tendency is that US voters, when their preferred candidate does not win the party nomination for president, do not then vote in lockstep with their party.
The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist

Moreover, defections from a primary to general election are common. More voters went from Hillary Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than went from Sanders to Trump in 2016; about 13 percent of Trump’s 2016 voters also voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

How the numbers are extrapolated can be debated, but the trend remains.

On top of that:
The Health Insurance Industry is billions of dollars each quarter, and that's put at 100% risk by ending privatized insurance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/top-...n-dollars.html
Big 8 health insurers rake in more than $7B in Q3, setting up strong finish to 2018

Investment banks don't want to be regulated.
The fossil fuel industry does not want to be regulated.
The military-industrial complex does not want to be regulated or questioned.
The pharmaceutical industry makes obscene profits in the US and does not want to be regulated.
Google, Apple, every tech giant does not want to be regulated or broken up.
Payday lenders, tax-filing companies, robocallers, direct mailers, companies opposed to Net Neutrality do not want to be regulated.
Numerous foreign governments have vested interests on the outcome of the election, especially Israel, which lobbies extensively.
Billionaires generally don't want to be taxed.
Many of these interests are powerful beyond scope- Tech and Industrial giants with larger economies than many medium-sized countries. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the results.

These industries have a massive stake in which Democrat gets the nomination, with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line in profits.

Centrist Democrats also don't see Bernie or AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar as Democrats- they are considered trouble-making outsiders. So many "Liberal" Democrats don't think of them as being in the same tribe, justifying their attacks on them.

Take a look at this poll from April that shows MSNBC viewers to have a lower opinion of Bernie than Fox viewers. Certainly this was after Bernie appeared on a FOX town hall, and certainly Bernie is a demographic match for FOX viewers. But there's a reason why MSNBC is being called out:

Every other 2020 Democratic included in the poll had more support among MSNBC viewers than those who tend to watch Fox.

They are all Democrats over there at MSNBC, self-identified Liberals. With a less favorable view of Bernie than Conservatives, who think he is a socialist devil. This is not by accident.

Here’s the Evidence Corporate Media Say Is Missing of WaPo Bias Against Sanders

The Post‘s executive editor, Martin Baron, immediately retorted (CNN, 8/12/19) that Sanders was spouting a “conspiracy theory,” insisting that “Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest.”

Many others in corporate media were incensed as well. NPR‘s All Things Considered (8/13/19) accused Sanders of “echoing the president’s language,” and CNN (8/13/19) ran a segment that likewise accused him of using Trump’s “playbook”; CNN‘s Poppy Harlow warned ominously, “This seems like a dangerous line, continuous accusations against the media with no basis in fact or evidence provided.”

FAIR has been following this issue for quite some time, so we’re happy to offer the evidence CNN and the Post protest is lacking.

We could start with the 16 negative stories the Post ran in 16 hours (FAIR.org, 3/8/16), and follow that up with the four different Sanders-bashing pieces the paper put out in seven hours based on a single think tank study (FAIR.org, 5/11/16).

Or you could take the many occasions on which the Post‘s factchecking team performed impressive contortions to interpret Sander’s fact-based statements as meriting multiple “Pinocchios” (e.g., FAIR.org, 1/25/17, 3/20/17). In particular, we might observe the time the Post “factchecked” Sanders’ claim that the world’s six wealthiest people are worth as much as half the global population (FAIR.org, 10/3/17). It just so happens that one of those six multi-billionaires is Bezos, which would make an ethical journalist extra careful not to show favoritism.

Instead, after acknowledging that Sanders was, in fact, correct, the paper’s Nicole Lewis awarded him “three Pinocchios”—a rating that indicates “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.” This is because, the paper explained, even though the number comes from a reputable nonpartisan source, Oxfam, which got its data from Credit Suisse, “It’s hard to make heads or tails of what wealth actually means, with respect to people’s daily lives around the globe.”

Bernie knew this going in, and this will not stop his candidacy. But I think when it comes to politics and billions of dollars in profits and the media- yeah Democrats can and will eat each other, this is national politics in the richest nation in the world.

[But]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

They are all Democrats over there at MSNBC, self-identified Liberals. With a less favorable view of Bernie than Conservatives, who think he is a socialist devil. This is not by accident.

MSNBC are frothing at the mouth corporate Democrat fucksticks, pretending to be the left end of the spectrum by being loud and obnoxious and pumping out conspiracy crap. The Democrat version of Fox News.

[erimir]

Something that just occurred to me is how many of the same people who will blame Democratic voters (generally) and specific voters/politicians/etc. for supporting Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries...

Yet many of the same folks turn around and say "How dare you blame 3rd-party voters/people who didn't vote for Clinton!" and even come up with idiotic terms like "voteshaming"* for why that's bad to do.

If Clinton doesn't get your vote, it's entirely her fault. But if Sanders doesn't get your vote, it's your fault, certainly not his in any way. In other words, heads I win, tails you lose.

And before someone sets up that straw man, no, I'm not at all implying the opposite, that Clinton is blameless and Sanders, Stein and co. are solely responsible for the outcomes of the primary/general.

*An idiot using this term to complain about people criticizing Susan Sarandon and Nina Turner for being Stein supporters is what precipitated this thought.