2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Narz
keeping it real
Cool, thanks. I think I was mixing up info. Maybe it was in a particular state that her turnout was super low.
Yeah, I really didn't like the video because it implies that the DNC chose the polls to help the candidates they wanted. But the list of pollsters approved by the DNC was published months ago, way before any qualifying poll came out. So either it's a grand conspiracy where the DNC and the few pollsters that count made a deal to rig the primaries (unlikely, and would need FAR more proof) or it's just bad luck for Castro and Gabbard that the polls that they're getting their best poll numbers from other pollsters than those chosen by the DNC
So you trust that the number difference was down to "bad luck"?
The economist is the only pollster with Gabbard above 1% (except one emerson poll from early july at 2%). It's statistically more likely that they're slightly off in their estimate than that ALL the other pollsters are wrong. And I don't see why the economist of all organisations would be the one beacon of light fighting against corrupt pollsters...
Edit : also, every candidate polling around 1% is in statistical noise territory. Any of them might have an actual following from 0.5% to 3% and the polls would be perfectly right.
Edit : also, every candidate polling around 1% is in statistical noise territory. Any of them might have an actual following from 0.5% to 3% and the polls would be perfectly right.
First of all that can't be true, given a candidate needs 4 polls with 2% or more, and apparently Tulsi has that, just three of the polls aren't DNC approved.
Secondly, I am really not seeing how anyone who is "statistical noise" would have so many donors and get as much airtime as well.
Maybe, but I think that even if (which is, obviously, very likely or almost certain) the petition against the DNC re Tulsi fails, she will return to the debates after the next one, and will only be more brutal against the DNC ^_^
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
I really like Tulsi but she's in a niche that has two of the top three candidates in it coupled with an endless barrage of smears from all types of media. In polls that ask "who's your top candidate" it's hard to imagine she gets a ton since so many of her supporters would say Bernie or Liz first. Even Kyle admits Bernie is his guy when he goes to bat for Tulsi.
I wish she stayed in the debates because she's brave enough to really call people out on bullfeathers. I'm hoping she's gained enough political capital to stay relevant and maybe score a cabinet spot. She'd make a great SoS or UN ambassador.
I wish she stayed in the debates because she's brave enough to really call people out on bullfeathers. I'm hoping she's gained enough political capital to stay relevant and maybe score a cabinet spot. She'd make a great SoS or UN ambassador.
Lexicus
Deity
Given what has happened in Kashmir over the past couple of weeks my opposition to Tulsi in any position involving responsibility for foreign affairs has only grown.
I am still rather mystified that her continued public support for a man who is worse than Donald Trump is not a deal-breaker for you.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
"working with Mr. Modi and other members of the Indian government toward our mutual goals of peace, stability, and economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region.
"A partnership between the world's two largest and greatest democracies is necessary for us to successfully address the many global challenges we face, including economic growth, bilateral trade, the environment, terrorism, and security."
That's her position. It's not support of his more negative positions. It's about peace and stability. Not undermining the governments of other countries. In essence she is doing with Modi what other world leaders are doing with Donny Tiny-hands. You're needling into one thing and pulling out what you want to pull out.
She'll cross a line when she starts supporting the grosser aspects of his governance. I'm not buying into a smear just because "reasons." I need more, like how itd impact policy, governance, etc. This Modi stuff is just silly considering how few other American politicians are even talking about him let alone speaking against him. Its akin to the Assad toady BS.
Lexicus
Deity
Oh, cut the crap, you're smarter than that and can read between the lines of the PR-speak.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Yeah...and when I asked you how this affects the US all you gave me was "i dont trust her judgement."
I want more than that.
Lexicus
Deity
I think it is a deal-breaker in terms of judgement but it's more a matter of principle, I don't want a President or Secretary of State who supports would-be ethnonationalist dictators, period.
Yet Modi, as has been said, is virtually unknown to voters. Compare with the support so many dems and gopists have for Saudi and Israel.
I am not seeing how her non-interventionism alone shouldn't make her a far better choice for a foreign affairs or UN role than most other dems.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
I swear I am screaming into the void with her on this site. She SUPPORTS TORTURE. She SUPPORTS ASSAD. She supports Russian airstrikes in Syria. She has always been gung-ho aboout militant responses to terrorism. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
There are at least two candidates running on a more anti-war stance than her. She might not have US invasions running around but she'd drone and bomb the **** out of tons of middle east countries in a heartbeat.
There are at least two candidates running on a more anti-war stance than her. She might not have US invasions running around but she'd drone and bomb the **** out of tons of middle east countries in a heartbeat.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
When you say "support" it's as if you mean she supports him over other Indian leaders but I don't see that anywhere. This is an allied democracy and she's not undermining the elected leader. That's what I see. What you're doing is similar to the Assad criticism, "she wont denounce him therefore she must be for him." I just wont do that.
When I look at politicians I pay less attention to what they say than I do their actions. That's why I don't like Biden, Beto, Harris, Booker, etc. Her voting record is pretty strong (although her anti BDS vote bugged me, unfortunately she's not the only progressive that failed there) so itll take a lot more than saying nice things about Modi to actually tip me against her.
Why fight so hard against someone who's generally an ally? I haven't said she's my top choice, it's not like she's stealing a vote from Bernie or Liz.
Socrates99
Bottoms up!
Simply not true. Sorry.
- Status
