Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 271: Two Turds With One Stone

(+) Yeah! (+)

Chris Matthews has the look of someone whose eardrum is dead from the yelling

---

I just put it on like ten minutes ago so I can't comment on how rabid they were being before everything closed. But even Matthews was on right now and he's nowhere near as hysterical.

---

if someone told me i was about to lose my 5 million a year salary i would calm the fuck down too

---

As much as it grosses me out that Bernie is winning, the absolute implosion of establishment leftist media types is wonderful. If Trump curbstomps Bernie in the general (and all signs point to him doing so), this is like a double victory for us.

---

yeah Chris Matthews preaching Trump over Bernie ain't new for him

someone else (Donny Deutsch) accidentally slipped the same thing once on Morning Joe, saying that he'd vote for Trump over a socialist..... quickly backtracked after being called out (by lmao Joe Scarborough of all people), but yeah a couple months later he got a Saturday show of his own that died after a few weeks

---

Remember in NH when we got all the votes in like 2 hours after polls closed?

Those were the good times.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Every time someone complains about Bernie supporters being mean, maybe remind them of mainstream media comparing Bernie directly to Nazis?

imagine being on the left and never having had this done to you before, LOL

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1231354290360475648?s=21

https://twitter.com/alexkotch/status/1231354655747248129?s=21

Every time someone complains about Bernie supporters being mean, maybe remind them of mainstream media comparing Bernie directly to Nazis?

I dunno, this seems kind of bad.

for an extra bit of fun Chuck Todd was calling on dems to condemn AOC for calling detention centers concentration camps last year because how dare you make an analogy of America to the suffering of the holocaust...................................... until Chuck Todd this year was comparing Bernie Bros to brownshirts - albeit quoting someone else, but clearly he didn't have any of that outrage he had for AOC directed at that writer which he thought was just an interesting comparison worth sharing!

---

Todd and Matthews have had awful takes for a long time. I assume things would be going better if they had Hayes or Maddow there to sanity check them.

---

Neolibs fuck off
---

https://twitter.com/KyungLahCNN/status/1231370397490253825

....

---

Lotm I am here if you need to talk. I understand.

---

the only person they'll give us on the panel is Ari, who I like sure, but I mean he's more of a mediator type open to devils advocate and hearing out the arguments which, yes is good, but is hardly balancing out the Chris Matthews of the panel

having Hayes with him would definitely help but yeah that's why they don't put him on for these!

---

Lotm I am here if you need to talk. I understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLjTqH_ZvO4

---

Real question: why do candidates stay in when their results are awful and don't look to be getting any better? Is it a pride thing?

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Real question: why do candidates stay in when their results are awful and don't look to be getting any better? Is it a pride thing?

Angling for a token amount of delegates to have power for bargaining at the convention.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/KyungLahCNN/status/1231370397490253825

....

i mean if you were told 6 months ago that only one of these two would be in the race by Nevada: Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar and asked which one it was who would you have said!

---

I mean that's been the take of the DNC and its outlets for a long time so I don't get why this is surprising. Yes, they hate Bernie more than Trump and would rather have Trump win another 4 years. This should've been common knowledge in here by now.

---

in hindsight Kamala really did drop out way too early

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Real question: why do candidates stay in when their results are awful and don't look to be getting any better? Is it a pride thing?

I think it's a combination of: Pride/Ego, feeling they owe it to their supporters to stick around, or trying to get some delegates to have some power at the convention.

Clinton (2008) and Sanders (2016) both stayed in well after they were clearly done but both were able to get concessions and such from the party at the convention. I know those two were obviously in much, much stronger positions but the idea is similar though honestly I think it's more the first two when taking about candidates in the Klobuchar tier where they don't really get off the ground.

---

xp1337 posted...

Clinton (2008) and Sanders (2016) both stayed in well after they were clearly done but both were able to get concessions and such from the party at the convention. I know those two were obviously in much, much stronger positions but the idea is similar though honestly I think it's more the first two when taking about candidates in the Klobuchar tier where they don't really get off the ground.

Wasn't Clinton/Obama extremely close?

---

xp1337 posted...

I think it's a combination of: Pride/Ego, feeling they owe it to their supporters to stick around, or trying to get some delegates to have some power at the convention.

Clinton (2008) and Sanders (2016) both stayed in well after they were clearly done but both were able to get concessions and such from the party at the convention. I know those two were obviously in much, much stronger positions but the idea is similar though honestly I think it's more the first two when taking about candidates in the Klobuchar tier where they don't really get off the ground.

Unfortunately, Klobuchar did much better than expected in NH. That kept her in until Nevada. And now Super Tuesday is just around the corner and she is polling ahead in her home state of MN. I think if MN was later or she did worse in NH, she would've dropped out. But now it doesn't make sense for her to personally because why would she?

Also there is like a 5% chance she'd stay in anyway to steal away as many of Pete's delegates as she can and make sure he isn't viable going forward.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wasn't Clinton/Obama extremely close?

Yes and no. It was closer than Clinton/Sanders but it became pretty clear that Obama had a pledged delegate lead that couldn't realistically be overcome around March (and arguably by mid-February.) By May Obama even led her in superdelegates but the concession never came until June when Obama rolled out a bunch more superdelegates and got over the magic number and a few days after that, at that.

Now mind you, I was someone who thought Sanders was never mathematically in it in 2016 and the talk otherwise was crazy. Clinton jumped out to a pledged delegate lead bigger than Obama ever had on her by March and while Sanders could and did chip away at it it just wasn't realistic and you had people pointing out that the "Sanders can still win it!" argument basically relied on him winning California by 30, then 40, then 50 points. But because CA was one of the last states to go it wasn't a true mathematical impossibility it was just "yeah ok lol"

Both stayed in to June when both races were basically over in March, if not earlier.

---

my Obama/Clinton coverage all comes from Royal Canadian Air Farce... that's a nostalgia blast

... not that I ever really liked that show

though I can recall some bit of a bitter Clinton grasping to remain in it when it was already clear

---

https://twitter.com/aaronzitner/status/1230870575968636928

Only one poll (and I think a sample size of 300 or so), but the gender breakdown here is really interesting.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://twitter.com/aaronzitner/status/1230870575968636928

Only one poll (and I think a sample size of 300 or so), but the gender breakdown here is really interesting.

Wait why do the Trump v Biden numbers for black women add up to 102%

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Wait why do the Trump v Biden numbers for black women add up to 102%

I couldn't access the article to confirm, but the bar for Biden (at 6%) is lower than Sanders (at 5%). So I think they misreported the Trump number accidentally for Biden at it really is 4 or 3%.

---

or to put this in gamefaqs contest terms:

2008: Obama won the board vote and went even in the power hour. He barely lost the night vote but all the stats people scored it as a win there because the thinking was he was going to get buried there. Then he surged to a lead with the ASV and the trends showed there just weren't the votes there for Clinton even if she made a cut here and there.

2016: Sanders won the board vote and B8 went nuts. Then Clinton crushed the Night Vote hard and while Sanders was winning the ASV it wasn't by nearly enough but casuals saw the %'s closing and some even noticed the cuts but the stats people rightly saw it just wasn't enough and that the SNV was still there for Clinton.

---

Yeah, she wanted him to drop because it was clear he wouldn't win, Bernie still has a chance was a meme, even.

But he was in it for a message more than a win. And it's thanks to him that we got info she'd have loved to keep secret, like how she's the one who really ran the DNC budget, how the DNC and mass media were directly connected and would give her things they weren't supposed, etc. His campaign ultimately was what exposed her connections in the party and in media and she can't forgive that because it helped the idea that she was impossibly corrupt.

For the cherry on top, it made this campaign as successful as it is as he now had the experience and infrastructure to build on.

---

xp1337 posted...

Yes and no. It was closer than Clinton/Sanders but it became pretty clear that Obama had a pledged delegate lead that couldn't realistically be overcome around March (and arguably by mid-February.) By May Obama even led her in superdelegates but the concession never came until June when Obama rolled out a bunch more superdelegates and got over the magic number and a few days after that, at that.

Now mind you, I was someone who thought Sanders was never mathematically in it in 2016 and the talk otherwise was crazy. Clinton jumped out to a pledged delegate lead bigger than Obama ever had on her by March and while Sanders could and did chip away at it it just wasn't realistic and you had people pointing out that the "Sanders can still win it!" argument basically relied on him winning California by 30, then 40, then 50 points. But because CA was one of the last states to go it wasn't a true mathematical impossibility it was just "yeah ok lol"

Both stayed in to June when both races were basically over in March, if not earlier.

Hmm okay looking at the numbers it looks like the race was, as I remembered, extremely close in popular vote (Obama won 48.1 to 48), but he led by about 300 delegates. Furthermore the popular vote info was missing a few caucus states that didn't release official numbers and michigan which I guess was a clusterfuck where Obama withdrew his name from the ballot but Clinton didn't, which if added would have given Clinton the popular vote edge.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Furthermore the popular vote info was missing a few caucus states that didn't release official numbers or michigan which I guess was a clusterfuck where Obama withdrew his name from the ballot but Clinton didn't, which if added would have given Clinton the popular vote edge.

2008 was a trip. people whose first primary was 2016 have no idea.

Florida and Michigan both moved their primary dates up to leapfrog the first four which was against the rules the DNC had laid out in 2006. In response they stripped them of their delegates. They also encouraged the candidates to withdraw from the ballot which Obama (and others it was still like an 6 person race) did. Clinton (and others) did not. No one campaigned in either.

Much later (but before Obama reached the magic number or Clinton conceded!) both states had half their delegate counts restored.

Meanwhile, the caucuses don't give us hard numbers so we had estimates for real voter counts there but nothing official.

If you include Michigan in the vote totals than Clinton won the popular vote (because she basically ran unopposed so it's a free 300k votes for her.) Otherwise it was Obama. (The caucus estimates would increase Obama's lead if applied but not enough to overcome Michigan if it were included. Though if you gave Obama both the caucuses and all the "Uncommitted" votes in Michigan he would come out on top.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6AZkikZFk

bernard givin' a victory speech

---

apparently this is the first time in US history that a candidate from either party won the popular vote in the first 3 primaries.

---

So Bernie vs Trump it is.

---

pxlated posted...

apparently this is the first time in US history that a candidate from either party won the popular vote in the first 3 primaries.

Didn't he lose in Iowa?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Didn't he lose in Iowa?

no. he won the popular vote by 6000 votes. and in reality, he won the delegate count too and that will become clear once the recount is finished.

---

https://i.redd.it/q84zrp5rmji41.png

---

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/

mmm, maybe not 6000. i think that number was from the first vote, not the final alignment. still won it though

---

Pete was initially given the extra delegate because of his SDE lead, but that SDE lead has shrunk to less than 1, and there are still precincts with errors in Bernies favor.

What is not debatable is Bernies popular vote lead in Iowa, which is by thousands

---

yep. And bernie is petitioning for a recount which ought to fix all that. not that it really matters at this point.

---

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1231392649384472576

---

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1231392649384472576

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd2HoTfT7N0&t=11799s

---

Corrik7 posted...

So Bernie vs Trump it is.

Counting out Bloomberg before he even enters the race!
---

pxlated posted...

apparently this is the first time in US history that a candidate from either party won the popular vote in the first 3 primaries.

You're joking right? I would be so shocked if that had never happened before.

---

red sox 777 posted...

You're joking right? I would be so shocked if that had never happened before.

well, i haven't looked into it myself but it's been reported by a number of different sources. seems to be the case!

i'm sure there's a caveat that omits years without challengers and whatnot

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU001M6tsks

press F to pay respects to pete's current and future political prospects

---