OT: Democratic Primary Thread

[Pointgod]

Then ask yourself what YOU’RE doing to change that. Instead of **** on Biden every chance you they, posting misleading audio recordings and lying about his mental health, posters should be enthusiastically calling up friends and family in swing states and purple states to make sure they’re registered and prepared to go vote for Biden. Not singling you out Wingo but anyone who doesn’t want Trump to win should be posting on their social media and creating enthusiasm for Biden. 92000 dead Americans and counting this is literally a life and death situation.

I'll stick to pointing out that Trump is a PoS that's setting the country back in ways most people don't even fully grasp instead of lying about my enthusiasm for Biden or pretending his mental state hasn't faded for anyone who watched his debate performances

So you’d rather act smug and self satisfied if Trump wins than do anything to prevent it. Gotcha.

[j4remi]

So you’d rather act smug and self satisfied if Trump wins than do anything to prevent it. Gotcha.

Nope, I just won't lie or gaslight people who ask me for my honest opinions. I can both enthusiastically hate Trump and not lie to people about Biden. It's not that hard and Biden still comes out looking like the better choice without me asking people to ignore their eyes and ears. You can play "the emperor's new clothes" with your friends, I won't.

[DOT]

So you’d rather act smug and self satisfied if Trump wins than do anything to prevent it. Gotcha.

Nope, I just won't lie or gaslight people who ask me for my honest opinions. I can both enthusiastically hate Trump and not lie to people about Biden. It's not that hard and Biden still comes out looking like the better choice without me asking people to ignore their eyes and ears. You can play "the emperor's new clothes" with your friends, I won't.

Think what people don't get is, there's a difference between unity and tribalism

I'll vote for Biden every day of the week, but I'm not gonna pretend he's what I wanted. That's basically asking us to be the Republicans but for the left, and I think we're better than that

I'll give Biden credit, he's at least giving a token effort to move left and unify the party, which is good but I want more, but the entitlement of the moderates who support him saying he shouldn't have to make any concessions to the progressives just cause he won is ridiculous

It's the same mindset Republicans have of, "I won so I get everything, and you get nothing," when if the moderates actually made an effort to appeal to progressives and got them in the fold, they'd be guaranteed wins every time

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[HarthorneWingo]

I don’t know, definitely not this poll though.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498779-poll-biden-holds-11-point-lead-over-trump

That’s a national poll.Im talking about individual battleground states. I posted a CNN poll earlier here which set forth the numbers. YOU GUYS AREN’T READING MY POSTS CAREFULLY ENOUGH!!!! (You know who you are. GONYK, next time enlarge the part where I write ”IN MICHIGAN” ) And Pointgod, I’ll set you off easy this time. Just be more careful when reading posts from that sneaky Pete, GONYK, ok? Now I expect an And1 from each of you.

Read on Twitter

Spoiler:

Wingo, mi amigo, do you even read what you post?

What you just posted doesn't say Biden is behind in Michigan. That's a polling aggregate of all those states. In theory, Biden could be winning 15 of them, but be losing GA by 35 points, and the average would turn out the same.

If you read the actual polling methodology that CNN used for that, they don't even break out the results by state. They just asked 1100 random people from all those states and compiled the results.

In fact, here is a healthy sampling of recent polls published out of Michigan

Esai, at least my aggregate polling focused on the battleground states as opposed to yours which was nationwide. At least give me that. I checked on your favorite 538 site and the aggregate of the recent Michigan polling has Biden up by an average of only 5%, which would be close to the margin of error.

By the way, here is your 2016 Michigan polling according to 538 which had Clinton up on Trump across the board.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

I'll wait ...

[GONYK]

That’s a national poll.Im talking about individual battleground states. I posted a CNN poll earlier here which set forth the numbers. YOU GUYS AREN’T READING MY POSTS CAREFULLY ENOUGH!!!! (You know who you are. GONYK, next time enlarge the part where I write ”IN MICHIGAN” ) And Pointgod, I’ll set you off easy this time. Just be more careful when reading posts from that sneaky Pete, GONYK, ok? Now I expect an And1 from each of you.

Read on Twitter

Spoiler:

Wingo, mi amigo, do you even read what you post?

What you just posted doesn't say Biden is behind in Michigan. That's a polling aggregate of all those states. In theory, Biden could be winning 15 of them, but be losing GA by 35 points, and the average would turn out the same.

If you read the actual polling methodology that CNN used for that, they don't even break out the results by state. They just asked 1100 random people from all those states and compiled the results.

In fact, here is a healthy sampling of recent polls published out of Michigan

Esai, at least my aggregate polling focused on the battleground states as opposed to yours which was nationwide. At least give me that. I checked on your favorite 538 site and the aggregate of the recent Michigan polling has Biden up by an average of only 5%, which would be close to the margin of error.

By the way, here is your 2016 Michigan polling according to 538 which had Clinton up on Trump across the board.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

I'll wait ...

I NEVER posted a nationwide poll in this exchange. Everything I posted was Michigan specific.

All of those polls above are Michigan only. Your CNN "battleground states" aggregation is closer to a national poll than anything I posted.

And Biden being up 5% in the aggregate of all Michigan polling is not "losing" or "behind" in Michigan, which is what you stated.

For the record, Biden is also polling ahead in AZ, CO, WI, VA, NV, FL, and ME

You can just say you were wrong. It's ok. I'll even let you off the hook with a "misspoke"

[HarthorneWingo]

Wingo, mi amigo, do you even read what you post?

What you just posted doesn't say Biden is behind in Michigan. That's a polling aggregate of all those states. In theory, Biden could be winning 15 of them, but be losing GA by 35 points, and the average would turn out the same.

If you read the actual polling methodology that CNN used for that, they don't even break out the results by state. They just asked 1100 random people from all those states and compiled the results.

In fact, here is a healthy sampling of recent polls published out of Michigan

Esai, at least my aggregate polling focused on the battleground states as opposed to yours which was nationwide. At least give me that. I checked on your favorite 538 site and the aggregate of the recent Michigan polling has Biden up by an average of only 5%, which would be close to the margin of error.

By the way, here is your 2016 Michigan polling according to 538 which had Clinton up on Trump across the board.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

I'll wait ...

I NEVER posted a nationwide poll in this exchange. Everything I posted was Michigan specific.

All of those polls above are Michigan only. Your CNN "battleground states" aggregation is closer to a national poll than anything I posted.

And Biden being up 5% in the aggregate of all Michigan polling is not "losing" or "behind" in Michigan, which is what you stated.

You can just say you were wrong. It's ok. I'll even let you off the hook with a "misspoke"

Oy. NO FCKING WAY. Wingo doesn't give up that easy.

Yeah, but you only posted your polls AFTER I posted my aggregate battleground CNN poll. Your OP was only this ...

Read on Twitter

Anyhow ... the whole point of this discussion is whether we need a VP who will help save a battleground state. So, gun to your head, are you saying that Michigan is battlegournd state which requires Biden selecting Whittmer to win it or not?

Spoiler:

I know secretly you want to be a lawyer.

[GONYK]

Esai, at least my aggregate polling focused on the battleground states as opposed to yours which was nationwide. At least give me that. I checked on your favorite 538 site and the aggregate of the recent Michigan polling has Biden up by an average of only 5%, which would be close to the margin of error.

By the way, here is your 2016 Michigan polling according to 538 which had Clinton up on Trump across the board.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/

I'll wait ...

I NEVER posted a nationwide poll in this exchange. Everything I posted was Michigan specific.

All of those polls above are Michigan only. Your CNN "battleground states" aggregation is closer to a national poll than anything I posted.

And Biden being up 5% in the aggregate of all Michigan polling is not "losing" or "behind" in Michigan, which is what you stated.

You can just say you were wrong. It's ok. I'll even let you off the hook with a "misspoke"

Oy. NO FCKING WAY. Wingo doesn't give up that easy.

Yeah, but you only posted your polls AFTER I posted my aggregate battleground CNN poll. Your OP was only this ...

Read on Twitter

Anyhow ... the whole point of this discussion is whether we need a VP who will help save a battleground state. So, gun to your head, are you saying that Michigan is battlegournd state which requires Biden selecting Whittmer to win it or not?

When I posted my polls matters less than that CNN poll being kinda nonsense for parsing out standing in individual states

Anyway, I don't think Whitmer is a requirement for Biden to win the state. She's popular there though, so I'm sure she helps.

I would have preferred a VP candidate that could drive turnout everywhere, but short of that, Whitmer is fine.

Spoiler:

Too bad I wasn't. WE would be running the Knicks today if I was there the day you ran into Rose

[j4remi]

When I posted my polls matters less than that CNN poll being kinda nonsense for parsing out standing in individual states

Anyway, I don't think Whitmer is a requirement for Biden to win the state. She's popular there though, so I'm sure she helps.

I would have preferred a VP candidate that could drive turnout everywhere, but short of that, Whitmer is fine.

Spoiler:

Too bad I wasn't. WE would be running the Knicks today if I was there the day you ran into Rose

Just curious here, I agree with your logic but come away looking at the list and I just don't think anyone fits that bill. I'm wondering if you consider anyone capable of hitting the mark for increasing turnout more broadly than a targeted area or demo...Basically, I can't really name one, definitely not a realistic choice anyway (Michelle Obama rumors are nuts). Only one I see with any leg to stand on is Warren from the realistic choices.

Edit two seconds later:...well...

Read on Twitter

I guess nevermind

[GONYK]

When I posted my polls matters less than that CNN poll being kinda nonsense for parsing out standing in individual states

Anyway, I don't think Whitmer is a requirement for Biden to win the state. She's popular there though, so I'm sure she helps.

I would have preferred a VP candidate that could drive turnout everywhere, but short of that, Whitmer is fine.

Spoiler:

Too bad I wasn't. WE would be running the Knicks today if I was there the day you ran into Rose

Just curious here, I agree with your logic but come away looking at the list and I just don't think anyone fits that bill. I'm wondering if you consider anyone capable of hitting the mark for increasing turnout more broadly than a targeted area or demo...Basically, I can't really name one, definitely not a realistic choice anyway (Michelle Obama rumors are nuts). Only one I see with any leg to stand on is Warren from the realistic choices.

Edit two seconds later:...well...

Read on Twitter

I guess nevermind

I agree with you. I was thinking Warren (which was unlikely) or maybe Harris, though I don't see her as a real needle mover.

As far as the Kloby news, I don't think this means he made a choice. I think multiple women will be vetted.

If he chooses her though, I won't be super enthused.

[HarthorneWingo]

I NEVER posted a nationwide poll in this exchange. Everything I posted was Michigan specific.

All of those polls above are Michigan only. Your CNN "battleground states" aggregation is closer to a national poll than anything I posted.

And Biden being up 5% in the aggregate of all Michigan polling is not "losing" or "behind" in Michigan, which is what you stated.

You can just say you were wrong. It's ok. I'll even let you off the hook with a "misspoke"

Oy. NO FCKING WAY. Wingo doesn't give up that easy.

Yeah, but you only posted your polls AFTER I posted my aggregate battleground CNN poll. Your OP was only this ...

Read on Twitter

Anyhow ... the whole point of this discussion is whether we need a VP who will help save a battleground state. So, gun to your head, are you saying that Michigan is battlegournd state which requires Biden selecting Whittmer to win it or not?

When I posted my polls matters less than that CNN poll being kinda nonsense for parsing out standing in individual states

Anyway, I don't think Whitmer is a requirement for Biden to win the state. She's popular there though, so I'm sure she helps.

I would have preferred a VP candidate that could drive turnout everywhere, but short of that, Whitmer is fine.

Spoiler:

Too bad I wasn't. WE would be running the Knicks today if I was there the day you ran into Rose

Agreed ... Whitmer is fine.

Spoiler:

I have no doubt whatsoever you'd be an excellent one! Have Spencer make it happen!

[Phish Tank]

I would take the Klobuchar news with a grain of salt. She was going to be vetted anyways and this seems like a leak from her camp

[HarthorneWingo]

I would take the Klobuchar news with a grain of salt. She was going to be vetted anyways and this seems like a leak from her camp

[HarthorneWingo]

I’d love to see the transcript of this conversation

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-fundraising-wall-street_n_5ec72dd2c5b66686597a4421

[j4remi]

I would take the Klobuchar news with a grain of salt. She was going to be vetted anyways and this seems like a leak from her camp

I see two ways to it:
1. Klobuchar leaked it to be the first name directly attached, but I haven't seen any actual indication this is what happened.

2. The Biden Campaign is continuing to use the VP search to keep his name in the news without him actually being in front of cameras much. They played Stacey Abrams out last week, got Warren walking pivoting on single payer healthcare and then let the Klobuchar story leak (Kamala Harris probably rates a leak next).

If 2 is true, I think it's seriously troublesome.

[Phish Tank]

I would take the Klobuchar news with a grain of salt. She was going to be vetted anyways and this seems like a leak from her camp

I see two ways to it:
1. Klobuchar leaked it to be the first name directly attached, but I haven't seen any actual indication this is what happened.

2. The Biden Campaign is continuing to use the VP search to keep his name in the news without him actually being in front of cameras much. They played Stacey Abrams out last week, got Warren walking pivoting on single payer healthcare and then let the Klobuchar story leak (Kamala Harris probably rates a leak next).

If 2 is true, I think it's seriously troublesome.

Idk about 2). He’s really on camera a bunch and I honestly think he’s on too much. It’s just become an unnecessary horse race to me, fueled by national media desperate for views


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HarthorneWingo]

I would take the Klobuchar news with a grain of salt. She was going to be vetted anyways and this seems like a leak from her camp

I see two ways to it:
1. Klobuchar leaked it to be the first name directly attached, but I haven't seen any actual indication this is what happened.

2. The Biden Campaign is continuing to use the VP search to keep his name in the news without him actually being in front of cameras much. They played Stacey Abrams out last week, got Warren walking pivoting on single payer healthcare and then let the Klobuchar story leak (Kamala Harris probably rates a leak next).

If 2 is true, I think it's seriously troublesome.

Idk about 2). He’s really on camera a bunch and I honestly think he’s on too much. It’s just become an unnecessary horse race to me, fueled by national media desperate for views


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. Klobuchar will be a problem for young (under 45) voters. Biden already has an enthusiasm problem. Is a Biden/Klobuchar ticket better than Trump/Pence, sure. So is the dump and pee I just took.

[GONYK]

Watch on YouTube

I think that was a pretty strong interview from Biden, especially since Charlemagne came prepared.

[Phish Tank]

I see two ways to it:
1. Klobuchar leaked it to be the first name directly attached, but I haven't seen any actual indication this is what happened.

2. The Biden Campaign is continuing to use the VP search to keep his name in the news without him actually being in front of cameras much. They played Stacey Abrams out last week, got Warren walking pivoting on single payer healthcare and then let the Klobuchar story leak (Kamala Harris probably rates a leak next).

If 2 is true, I think it's seriously troublesome.

Idk about 2). He’s really on camera a bunch and I honestly think he’s on too much. It’s just become an unnecessary horse race to me, fueled by national media desperate for views


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. Klobuchar will be a problem for young (under 45) voters. Biden already has an enthusiasm problem. Is a Biden/Klobuchar ticket better than Trump/Pence, sure. So is the dump and pee I just took.

my view is I don't think she's going to be the VP

[robillionaire]

Watch on YouTube

I think that was a pretty strong interview from Biden, especially since Charlemagne came prepared.

the man simply cannot help himself

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[GONYK]

Watch on YouTube

I think that was a pretty strong interview from Biden, especially since Charlemagne came prepared.

the man simply cannot help himself

Read on Twitter

?s=20

If you watch the interview, it wasn't in the context that Politico framed that comment in. It wasn't said contentiously at all.