Planet Rugby Forum

paddyor wrote:

Bowens wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Bowens wrote:So Buttigieg showing a similar trajectory over the last six weeks (though still failing to crack 10%) is a momentum shift in your words but Bernie drawing closer to Biden than any time since he entered the race isn’t. Ok bud.

Not a momentum shift:

I don't know what that graph is, it's no labelled. Looking at the RCP average here. Buttigeg has gone from 5.5-10.5, Sanders from 17.8 to 17.8 with a high of 19.3 along the way.

Early states poll as mentioned above. You keep ignoring the polling average trend over the last six weeks (Bernie +5 - identical to Buttigieg’s) because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

And as mentioned he outperforms polls due to the number of first time voters he attracts. I’d say his team are feeling better about the race than they have at any point right now.

This is what you said

No. He has gone up 5 points in the polling average since October and overtaken Warren for second.

I've linked back to what I'm talking about twice.

eldanielfire wrote:

paddyor wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

paddyor wrote: There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows

the programs aren't all the same though.

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.

No one is saying Biden is the Establishment's glowing boy favourite. We know they didn't want him to run as the favoured Harris as Biden lacks the woke points. He isn't loved but he's their guy. However these stats clearly show that they are trying to freeze out Sanders with considerably smaller coverage and when they do giving him a higher rate of negative coverage.

paddyor wrote:I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).

He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.

He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.

Bokkom wrote:

kiwinoz wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

Akkerman wrote:officially announced, bloomberg in

Jumping into the race almost a year after Senator Elizabeth Warren announced she was exploring a candidacy, Bloomberg is pursuing an unorthodox strategy in which he will skip the first four states in the primary season calendar – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – to make a play for the so-called Super Tuesday states in early March.

He has announced that his campaign will be entirely self-funded, meaning he cannot qualify for the Democratic presidential debates under current rules, which require candidates to receive at least 10,000 individual donations.

“He has never taken a political contribution in his life,” chief adviser Howard Wolfson told the Associated Press. “He is not about to start. He cannot be bought.”

Bloomberg, 77, has a net worth estimated at more than $50bn. His entry to the race was not welcomed by the current field.

“I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy elections,” Vermont senator Bernie Sanders tweeted Saturday.

“If you can’t build grassroots support for your candidacy, you have no business running for president.”

Thanks Tulsi and Bernie for this shit show.

Blame anybody else - DT is HRC and I claim my soggy cigar

And I thought it was a democratic process?
Apparently only if you back the establishment candidates.

Bowens wrote:

paddyor wrote:I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).

I really can’t phrase it any better than I did when I initially replied to you, before you went on to make the same point five more times:

He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.

Saying you don’t pay attention to state polls is laughable. No one ignores them during the primaries, in fact they’re more important because there isn’t a single national primary.

He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.

What does this mean? Obviously we are talking about historic results since we have nothing to go on yet in this cycle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5224.html

paddyor wrote:

Bowens wrote:

paddyor wrote:I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).

I really can’t phrase it any better than I did when I initially replied to you, before you went on to make the same point five more times:

He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.

No, he's at 17.8% which goes back to August(18.25). His support has oscillated around 17% +/- 3%. I've no idea what that poll is but I had a look and I'm not convinced. RCP state averages below.

Saying you don’t pay attention to state polls is laughable. No one ignores them during the primaries, in fact they’re more important because there isn’t a single national primary.

Iowa Sanders bold, Biden Undelined
RCP Average 11/6 - 11/19 24.0 18.3 17.7 16.3 5.3 3.3 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.7 0.7
NH
RCP Average 11/13 - 11/26 20.0 17.0 14.3 13.7 5.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.3
Nevada
RCP Average 10/28 - 11/13 29.0 20.0 19.8 7.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
SC
RCP Average 10/15 - 11/17 35.3 16.3 12.8 6.5 6.3 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.3

He has a clear lead over Biden in one of the early states, peachy! If Gabbard doesn't steal his lunch with independents in NH he might come in first.

It's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.

He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.

What does this mean? Obviously we are talking about historic results since we have nothing to go on yet in this cycle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5224.html

So I had a look at the results. Clinton out performed the polls a dozen or more times(+3%) and Sanders about 6 and seem mostly open primaries. I'll believe him consistently outperforming the polls when it happens, until then it's all hope.

Here's Jeremy Corbyn on new registered voters

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status ... 9783623683

Here's the tories on course to pick up 67 seats

https://twitter.com/britainelects/statu ... 2262211584

t's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.

[Clinton] slipped badly in the key battleground states that really mattered. In Florida, the Democratic margin of victory for the youth vote from 2012 to 2016 dropped 16 points. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the drop was 19 points.

Bowens wrote:

t's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.

Anyone who follows this stuff closely will tell you that state polls are more important in the primaries. You don’t have to take my word for it, ask around. Buttigieg is still narrowly ahead on average in NH but most of the polls in November have Bernie in the lead (while Tulsi and Yang are also rising and Biden is cratering - down like 10 points in a month). Biden also way down in Iowa. Iowa is interesting because Biden allegedly has strength with the white working class and in the midwest but Iowa has the third highest percentage of non-college whites in the country after WV and Kentucky. This demographic played a big role in swinging the Rust Belt and former Dem areas to Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/po ... e-degrees/

I looked around to see if any polls include that specific demographic and Quinnipiac does. Their most recent Iowa poll has Bernie #1 with that group in Iowa with Biden and Warren tied for second. Buttigieg way behind. When we talk about flipping Trump voters in the Rust Belt, these are the voters. They don’t seem too hot on Joe.

Bernie also very strong with Latinos who are important in western states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/b ... oters.html

Biden will win SC and most of the southern states (that will all vote Republican in November) but elsewhere it’s up for grabs. Bernie is basically holding steady or rising everywhere and unlike Buttigieg his numbers don’t fluctuate wildly from single digits to low 20s depending on the pollster.

In the end if Biden’s Boomer base is enough to carry him to the general I think youth turnout for Democrats will be way down, they overwhelmingly support Bernie. Same thing happened in 2016. I honestly think Hillary might have had slightly more youth support than he does too.

[Clinton] slipped badly in the key battleground states that really mattered. In Florida, the Democratic margin of victory for the youth vote from 2012 to 2016 dropped 16 points. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the drop was 19 points.

flaggETERNAL wrote:Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.

paddyor wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

paddyor wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

paddyor wrote: There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows

the programs aren't all the same though.

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.

No one is saying Biden is the Establishment's glowing boy favourite. We know they didn't want him to run as the favoured Harris as Biden lacks the woke points. He isn't loved but he's their guy. However these stats clearly show that they are trying to freeze out Sanders with considerably smaller coverage and when they do giving him a higher rate of negative coverage.

I think what the stats show is that it doesn’t make much of a difference at all. Warren gets great positive coverage and tanks in the polls......


I also think it’s really subjective as to what is positive /negative. Half the Biden neutral mentions are without doubt Trump/Ukraine related.

I also kind of suspect it’s mostly driven by catering to their audience. If you go on Twitter you’d think the US is chock full of Bernie Bros, they’re really active there(it’s not close)..,...not watching tv which is kind of an older audience. I don’t even have satellite anymore neither do my friends. If Sanders wants more TV coverage he needs his surrogates less online and more on screen

flaggETERNAL wrote:Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.

goeagles wrote:

flaggETERNAL wrote:Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.

Weird/bad assumption.

The former MLB player Aubrey Huff is taking Bernie Sanders’ run for White House very seriously, teaching his sons to shoot in case the Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and introduces socialism to the United States.

“Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020,” he wrote on Twitter earlier this week. “In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must.” Huff also provided a warning for anyone attempting to introduce universal free healthcare to the US: “By the way most the head shots were theirs,” he wrote alongside a picture of a shooting range target with bullet holes.


AUBREY HUFF
✔
@aubrey_huff
Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way most the head shots were theirs. @NRA @WatchChad #2ndAmendment

View image on Twitter
7,156
5:39 AM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
36.5K people are talking about this
Patricia Arquette was one of the celebrities to respond to Huff’s post. “Are you warning your kids to never call the fire department or police because that’s too socialist too? Or that they should never to go to Europe because they have health care for all people? Because the US is far more dangerous,” she wrote in reply to his tweet.

Sanders is not the only subject Huff gave his opinion on recently. On Sunday he tweeted a story about former NFL star Michael Strahan’s divorce settlement, commenting that: “Divorce rates amongst athletes will continue to rise until the justice system is rightfully fixed. No way women who have never threw a touchdown pass, hit a game winning 3, or hit a 2-0 slider deserve half of a mans hard earned money just for having his babies”.

Huff has worked as a color commentator since his retirement from baseball in 2012. He won two World Series titles in 2010 and 2012 with the San Francisco Giants. He has also spoken of his struggles with anxiety and depression during his playing career.

fatcat wrote:

Creepier Joe https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/ ... 0926555137

eldanielfire wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Creepier Joe https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/ ... 0926555137

I've been watching the SNL skits about the Primaries, and Woody Harrelson does a good job on Biden, but the script writers just can't even come close to the near the edge uncomfortableness of Biden's talking

Bowens wrote:They would rather lose to Trump again and be #TheResistance for four more years than risk Bernie winning. That’s what it comes down to.

WASHINGTON — In early November, a few days after Senator Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign announced widespread layoffs and an intensified focus on Iowa, her senior aides gathered for a staff meeting at their Baltimore headquarters and pelted the campaign manager, Juan Rodriguez, with questions.

What exactly was Ms. Harris’s new strategy? How much money and manpower could they put into Iowa? What would their presence be like in other early voting states?

Mr. Rodriguez offered general, tentative answers that didn’t satisfy the room, according to two campaign officials directly familiar with the conversation. Some Harris aides sitting at the table could barely suppress their fury about what they saw as the undoing of a once-promising campaign. Their feelings were reflected days later by Kelly Mehlenbacher, the state operations director, in a blistering resignation letter obtained by The Times.

“This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly,” Ms. Mehlenbacher wrote, assailing Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Harris’s sister, Maya, the campaign chairwoman, for laying off aides with no notice. “With less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win.”

The 2020 Democratic field has been defined by its turbulence, with some contenders rising, others dropping out and two more jumping in just this month. Yet there is only one candidate who rocketed to the top tier and then plummeted in early state polls to the low single digits: Ms. Harris.

From those polling results to Ms. Harris’s campaign operation, fund-raising and debate performances, it has been a remarkable comedown for a senator from the country’s largest state, a politician with star power who was compared to President Obama even before Californians elected her to the Senate in 2016.

Yet, even to some Harris allies, her decline is more predictable than surprising. In one instance after another, Ms. Harris and her closest advisers made flawed decisions about which states to focus on, issues to emphasize and opponents to target, all the while refusing to make difficult personnel choices to impose order on an unwieldy campaign, according to more than 50 current and former campaign staff members and allies, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations and assessments involving the candidate.

Many of her own advisers are now pointing a finger directly at Ms. Harris. In interviews several of them criticized her for going on the offensive against rivals, only to retreat, and for not firmly choosing a side in the party’s ideological feud between liberals and moderates. She also created an organization with a campaign chairwoman, Maya Harris, who goes unchallenged in part because she is Ms. Harris’s sister, and a manager, Mr. Rodriguez, who could not be replaced without likely triggering the resignations of the candidate’s consulting team. Even at this late date, aides said it’s unclear who’s in charge of the campaign.

Yet it has come to this: After beginning her candidacy with a speech before 20,000 people in Oakland, some of Ms. Harris’s longtime supporters believe she should consider dropping out in late December — the deadline for taking her name off the California primary ballot — if she does not show political momentum. Some advisers are already bracing for a primary challenge, potentially from the billionaire Tom Steyer, should she run for re-election to the Senate in 2022. Her senior aides plan to assess next month whether she’s made sufficient progress to remain in the race.

“For her to lose California would be really hard and it’s not looking good,” said Susie Buell, a longtime Harris donor from the Bay Area.

From the start, the campaign structure seemed ripe for conflict. Ms. Harris divided her campaign between two coasts, basing her operation in Baltimore but retaining some key advisers in the Bay Area. She bifurcated the leadership between two decidedly different loyalists: her sister, the chair, and Mr. Rodriguez, a trusted lieutenant who had managed her 2016 Senate campaign. Mr. Rodriguez was a central figure at the San Francisco-based consulting firm, SCRB, that had helped direct Ms. Harris’s rise for a decade; all of the firm’s partners were lined up to advise the presidential race.

The two camps were soon competing, each stocked with people who shared a tight bond with Ms. Harris but who regarded each other with suspicion or worse. The setup cost Ms. Harris opportunities to recruit some of her party’s most sought-after outside strategists and left her reliant on a team less experienced in national politics than in California, an overwhelmingly blue state where campaigns often turn on factional infighting within the Democratic Party.

Dan Sena, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met early with Ms. Harris’s team and came away concerned that they were overly reliant on political thinking shaped in California’s idiosyncratic political system.

“Winning in California requires a different road map, between a top-two candidate system and the expensive TV markets,” Mr. Sena said. “When it comes to winning there is a right way, the wrong way and the California way.”

There are also generational fissures. One adviser said the fixation that some younger staffers have with liberals on Twitter distorted their view of what issues and moments truly mattered, joking that it was not President Trump’s account that should be taken offline, as Ms. Harris has urged, but rather those of their own trigger-happy communications team.

eldanielfire wrote:Sometimes you forget how nuts and stupid some Americans are:

The former MLB player Aubrey Huff is taking Bernie Sanders’ run for White House very seriously, teaching his sons to shoot in case the Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and introduces socialism to the United States.

“Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020,” he wrote on Twitter earlier this week. “In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must.” Huff also provided a warning for anyone attempting to introduce universal free healthcare to the US: “By the way most the head shots were theirs,” he wrote alongside a picture of a shooting range target with bullet holes.


AUBREY HUFF
✔
@aubrey_huff
Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way most the head shots were theirs. @NRA @WatchChad #2ndAmendment

View image on Twitter
7,156
5:39 AM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
36.5K people are talking about this
Patricia Arquette was one of the celebrities to respond to Huff’s post. “Are you warning your kids to never call the fire department or police because that’s too socialist too? Or that they should never to go to Europe because they have health care for all people? Because the US is far more dangerous,” she wrote in reply to his tweet.

Sanders is not the only subject Huff gave his opinion on recently. On Sunday he tweeted a story about former NFL star Michael Strahan’s divorce settlement, commenting that: “Divorce rates amongst athletes will continue to rise until the justice system is rightfully fixed. No way women who have never threw a touchdown pass, hit a game winning 3, or hit a 2-0 slider deserve half of a mans hard earned money just for having his babies”.

Huff has worked as a color commentator since his retirement from baseball in 2012. He won two World Series titles in 2010 and 2012 with the San Francisco Giants. He has also spoken of his struggles with anxiety and depression during his playing career.

sturginho wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Sometimes you forget how nuts and stupid some Americans are:

The former MLB player Aubrey Huff is taking Bernie Sanders’ run for White House very seriously, teaching his sons to shoot in case the Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and introduces socialism to the United States.

“Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020,” he wrote on Twitter earlier this week. “In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must.” Huff also provided a warning for anyone attempting to introduce universal free healthcare to the US: “By the way most the head shots were theirs,” he wrote alongside a picture of a shooting range target with bullet holes.


AUBREY HUFF
✔
@aubrey_huff
Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way most the head shots were theirs. @NRA @WatchChad #2ndAmendment

View image on Twitter
7,156
5:39 AM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
36.5K people are talking about this
Patricia Arquette was one of the celebrities to respond to Huff’s post. “Are you warning your kids to never call the fire department or police because that’s too socialist too? Or that they should never to go to Europe because they have health care for all people? Because the US is far more dangerous,” she wrote in reply to his tweet.

Sanders is not the only subject Huff gave his opinion on recently. On Sunday he tweeted a story about former NFL star Michael Strahan’s divorce settlement, commenting that: “Divorce rates amongst athletes will continue to rise until the justice system is rightfully fixed. No way women who have never threw a touchdown pass, hit a game winning 3, or hit a 2-0 slider deserve half of a mans hard earned money just for having his babies”.

Huff has worked as a color commentator since his retirement from baseball in 2012. He won two World Series titles in 2010 and 2012 with the San Francisco Giants. He has also spoken of his struggles with anxiety and depression during his playing career.

He sounds like a lovely guy

Flyin Ryan wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/p ... -2020.html

WASHINGTON — In early November, a few days after Senator Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign announced widespread layoffs and an intensified focus on Iowa, her senior aides gathered for a staff meeting at their Baltimore headquarters and pelted the campaign manager, Juan Rodriguez, with questions.

What exactly was Ms. Harris’s new strategy? How much money and manpower could they put into Iowa? What would their presence be like in other early voting states?

Mr. Rodriguez offered general, tentative answers that didn’t satisfy the room, according to two campaign officials directly familiar with the conversation. Some Harris aides sitting at the table could barely suppress their fury about what they saw as the undoing of a once-promising campaign. Their feelings were reflected days later by Kelly Mehlenbacher, the state operations director, in a blistering resignation letter obtained by The Times.

“This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly,” Ms. Mehlenbacher wrote, assailing Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Harris’s sister, Maya, the campaign chairwoman, for laying off aides with no notice. “With less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win.”

The 2020 Democratic field has been defined by its turbulence, with some contenders rising, others dropping out and two more jumping in just this month. Yet there is only one candidate who rocketed to the top tier and then plummeted in early state polls to the low single digits: Ms. Harris.

From those polling results to Ms. Harris’s campaign operation, fund-raising and debate performances, it has been a remarkable comedown for a senator from the country’s largest state, a politician with star power who was compared to President Obama even before Californians elected her to the Senate in 2016.

Yet, even to some Harris allies, her decline is more predictable than surprising. In one instance after another, Ms. Harris and her closest advisers made flawed decisions about which states to focus on, issues to emphasize and opponents to target, all the while refusing to make difficult personnel choices to impose order on an unwieldy campaign, according to more than 50 current and former campaign staff members and allies, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations and assessments involving the candidate.

Many of her own advisers are now pointing a finger directly at Ms. Harris. In interviews several of them criticized her for going on the offensive against rivals, only to retreat, and for not firmly choosing a side in the party’s ideological feud between liberals and moderates. She also created an organization with a campaign chairwoman, Maya Harris, who goes unchallenged in part because she is Ms. Harris’s sister, and a manager, Mr. Rodriguez, who could not be replaced without likely triggering the resignations of the candidate’s consulting team. Even at this late date, aides said it’s unclear who’s in charge of the campaign.

An article with FIFTY sources. That's a lot of people to piss off.

Yet it has come to this: After beginning her candidacy with a speech before 20,000 people in Oakland, some of Ms. Harris’s longtime supporters believe she should consider dropping out in late December — the deadline for taking her name off the California primary ballot — if she does not show political momentum. Some advisers are already bracing for a primary challenge, potentially from the billionaire Tom Steyer, should she run for re-election to the Senate in 2022. Her senior aides plan to assess next month whether she’s made sufficient progress to remain in the race.

“For her to lose California would be really hard and it’s not looking good,” said Susie Buell, a longtime Harris donor from the Bay Area.

From the start, the campaign structure seemed ripe for conflict. Ms. Harris divided her campaign between two coasts, basing her operation in Baltimore but retaining some key advisers in the Bay Area. She bifurcated the leadership between two decidedly different loyalists: her sister, the chair, and Mr. Rodriguez, a trusted lieutenant who had managed her 2016 Senate campaign. Mr. Rodriguez was a central figure at the San Francisco-based consulting firm, SCRB, that had helped direct Ms. Harris’s rise for a decade; all of the firm’s partners were lined up to advise the presidential race.

The two camps were soon competing, each stocked with people who shared a tight bond with Ms. Harris but who regarded each other with suspicion or worse. The setup cost Ms. Harris opportunities to recruit some of her party’s most sought-after outside strategists and left her reliant on a team less experienced in national politics than in California, an overwhelmingly blue state where campaigns often turn on factional infighting within the Democratic Party.

Dan Sena, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met early with Ms. Harris’s team and came away concerned that they were overly reliant on political thinking shaped in California’s idiosyncratic political system.

“Winning in California requires a different road map, between a top-two candidate system and the expensive TV markets,” Mr. Sena said. “When it comes to winning there is a right way, the wrong way and the California way.”

There are also generational fissures. One adviser said the fixation that some younger staffers have with liberals on Twitter distorted their view of what issues and moments truly mattered, joking that it was not President Trump’s account that should be taken offline, as Ms. Harris has urged, but rather those of their own trigger-happy communications team.

Read the rest at the link. They have a copy of the resignation letter you can read.

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

63 days until the Iowa caucuses.

71 days until the New Hampshire primary.

82 days until the Nevada caucuses.

89 days until the South Carolina primary.

92 days until Super Tuesday.

Flyin Ryan wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

63 days until the Iowa caucuses.

71 days until the New Hampshire primary.

82 days until the Nevada caucuses.

89 days until the South Carolina primary.

92 days until Super Tuesday.

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

Flyin Ryan wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

63 days until the Iowa caucuses.

71 days until the New Hampshire primary.

82 days until the Nevada caucuses.

89 days until the South Carolina primary.

92 days until Super Tuesday.

eldanielfire wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

Biden, Bernie and Warren aren't front runners?

Tulsi isn't treated like the hero/villian candidate depending where you stand?

Bernie sin't the anti-establishment candidate?

The establishemnt hasn't warmed to Warren?

Biden isn't in the lead in the polls despite luke-warm supported from either establishments or lefties?

Yang hasn't said he'll refuse to go on MSNBC because of their coverage of him?

Harris hasn't sunk like a stone after a establishment supported early rise?

There hasn't been much discussion on the neo-liberal establishment candidates and the more radical anti-establishment candidates?


Please DT, tell me what part isn't true?

Deadtigers wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

Biden, Bernie and Warren aren't front runners?

Tulsi isn't treated like the hero/villian candidate depending where you stand?

Bernie sin't the anti-establishment candidate?

The establishemnt hasn't warmed to Warren?

Biden isn't in the lead in the polls despite luke-warm supported from either establishments or lefties?

Yang hasn't said he'll refuse to go on MSNBC because of their coverage of him?

Harris hasn't sunk like a stone after a establishment supported early rise?

There hasn't been much discussion on the neo-liberal establishment candidates and the more radical anti-establishment candidates?


Please DT, tell me what part isn't true?

Second time was the charm.

eldanielfire wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

3 way between Biden, Bernie and Warren.

Biden seems to have started with all that Obama related goodness and while declining due to being a a stale pale with doge neo-liberal past no one likes anymore. He is still stubbornly in front. Warren became the Democratic establishment darling because they can't bare stale, pale males and had a good surge up the polls. However she has lost momentum due to her tendency to lie a lit and that republican edge to her not wanting to raise taxes shows up on the issue of health care. Then there is the outsiders favourite Bernie, massive ground game, zilch media support but fighting hard with his flagship healthcare plan.

Of the rest, Harris was supposed to be the chosen one but is useless and has a unpopular past, Tulsi Gabbard is the anti-Establishment hero/villian depending if you and pro/anti the establishment and is killing ass either way. Mayor Pete is loved by the rich but not much else. Andrew Yang has the fee money giveaway for the economy of the future and the maths that is supposed to back it up and has told MSNBC to go f#ck themselves for their pro-Establishment bias.

Everyone else is irrelevant except Michael Bloomberg who just put in his quarters and announced 'Here is a new challenger' because someone has to look after the poor Billionaires if the Democratic Party get too left wing.

The general theme of the primaries is the idea of the party establishment seemingly wanting/claiming an establishment candidate to beat Trump vs the non-establishments with more radical reforms or criticisms of how the establishment has failed to beat Trump and are failing the working class/average american by being either pro-corporate or corporate-lite because the neo-liberal consensus has failed. Perfectly shown by the top players; Biden the Establishment candidate even the party doesn't want as he doesn't fulfill their woke quota, Warren the vocally anti-establishment candidate but kinda establishment who the establishment warmed up to as the bets they might get and Sanders the life-long anti-establishment candidate.

eldanielfire wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

Biden, Bernie and Warren aren't front runners?

Tulsi isn't treated like the hero/villian candidate depending where you stand?

Bernie sin't the anti-establishment candidate?

The establishemnt hasn't warmed to Warren?

Biden isn't in the lead in the polls despite luke-warm supported from either establishments or lefties?

Yang hasn't said he'll refuse to go on MSNBC because of their coverage of him?

Harris hasn't sunk like a stone after a establishment supported early rise?

There hasn't been much discussion on the neo-liberal establishment candidates and the more radical anti-establishment candidates?


Please DT, tell me what part isn't true?

Second time was the charm.

It's the same information without the tongue in cheek element you obviously had trouble with.

Deadtigers wrote:

TheFrog wrote:I have lost track of the Dem's primary.

Have the votes started, and how is the trend looking right now?

Skipped over anything EDF wrote as it is not just wrong but filled with his insane view on things. For a fair update bookmark this

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/68998050 ... till-might

NPR stands for national public radio and is the most unbiased rundown available.

Deadtigers wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

It's the same information without the tongue in cheek element you obviously had trouble with.

Well your Harris attack is still opinion. I updated my post to point out your typical hypocrisy. Her fall is consistent with ever other front runner in previous elections but no, she is some establishment backed this and that. It's the same for her and Joe Lieberman, who you really should learn about since you insist you want to talk American politics but don't know a pivotal figure, as Howatd Dean, and Herman Cain plus the list goes on.

Neo-liberal vs Anti-establishment? That has not been used because only f**king loons talk like that. But you cited right wing podcasters and fringe left guys so of course you talk like that.