Nevada debate and caucus

[Kraken]

Looks like this needs a thread. If you aren't watching, you're missing quite a show.

[Holman]

It's a real debate. The gloves are off.

[YellowKing]

This is the first debate I'll probably watch in its entirety, and I picked a damn good one.

I'd be shocked if Bloomberg doesn't take a big hit coming out of this - he's been pummeled recently and hasn't been able to put together any kind of defense. He's also the only candidate on stage who has been actively BOOED so far. Cringe. Couple that with the fact that the moderators essentially forgot he was there for a good 20 minutes or so, and he just looks completely out of his element.

[Holman]

My favorite moment so far is Bloomberg saying that he doesn't tolerate sexual harrassment and supports #MeToo while asserting that all of his NDAs were "consensual."

Employees wouldn't have signed if they didn't want it.

[Jaymann]

I love it when a shit heel has to lick his own shoes, even if they are Guccis.

[Holman]

Bloomberg just got boo'd again. Other candidates were talking about income inequality, and B weighed in to assert that criticizing capitalism was communism.

He is not winning this debate.

[Isgrimnur]

B weighed in to assert that criticizing capitalism was communism.

[Combustible Lemur]

Warren is on fire, Klobuchar is getting ignored, Biden is wandering in circles, Buttigieg is homestyle vanilla, good but reaaaally? Bernie is Bernie.











FUCK BLOOMBERG.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Combustible Lemur]

Also can Larry David please stand in for Bernie and the we take a poll to see if anyone noticed?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Holman]

Tweet of the night:

[Kraken]

I hope Nevadans were watching, and that it shows in Warren's caucus results. Sure, I'm biased and proud of it, but I think she had a great night. Especially considering that she's been fighting a cold and her voice was a little scratchy.

Biden at least stayed awake and sharp til the end, which is a first.

Bernie absorbed a lot of damage, but he still has the hit points to take it.

Klobuchar got pwned more than once and her homespun armor is thin.

Buttigieg is smarmy and condescending.

Bloomberg was roasted alive. He doesn't even know how many women's silence he bought, but it was consensual and he's not going to release them.

[El Guapo]

God, Warren's exchange with Bloomberg on the NDAs was BRUTAL. I've given up on guessing how things play, but that seemed utterly devastating.

FWIW I thought Bloomberg's presence on the stage actually helped Biden most of all. Through all these debates he's been tagged with this kind of fun-house mirror image of him as some kind of crypto-Republican. With Bloomberg there in everything but a tophat and monocle Biden could come through as the center-left candidate he really is.

I also thought Sanders did pretty well.

[Kurth]

Welcome to the debates, Mayor Bloomberg! That was rough. He got destroyed. The NDA thing seemed like a devastating hit.

I thought Klobuchar actually did ok. She took a tough situation with the whole ‘forgetting the name of the President of Mexico’ thing and weathered it, for the most part. Warren certainly helped her out. But I just can’t see Klobuchar getting the nomination.

Buttigieg had a good night overall. I loved his comment about how crazy it would be to end up with a fight for the nomination between the two most polariziing candidates running, Bloomberg and Sanders. He scored with that a number of times (although maybe one or two too many). I did think he took away from his night with one major misstep: He had no business piling on Klobuchar during the ‘forgetting the name of the President of Mexico’ thing. Before he waded in and tried to pile on, Klobuchar was reeling. The Telemundo panelist had really done some damage (questionable whether that was cheap or not). Pete should have known better. He should have just STFU and let it go. He showed poor judgment there and did himself no favors.

Not a bad night for Biden, relatively speaking, but he was still too incoherent too much of the time. He’s done.

Warren had some nice moments, but she just doesn’t have a clear place any more. The distinctions between her and Sanders aren’t large enough to make her a more palatable option for more moderate voters, but those distinctions seem huge to Sander’s more liberal base and make her a poor option compared to Bernie himself.

And, as someone else already said, Bernie was Bernie. Either you feel the Bern or you don’t. I definitely don’t. But I do respect that you get what you get with Sanders. He’s genuine and sincere, and I’d vote for him over Trump in a split second, but I think his vision is wrong and dangerous. And I think he is utterly unelectable,

[Smoove_B]

Am I imagining things or did Bloomberg come off a little Trumpian a few times last night? Not a policy response or anything related to his money, but the tone / body language he used to deal with some of the questions? I don't recall him being a snarky individual that throws out zingers, but there was just something about how he carried himself that (to me) seemed like he was either intentionally or unintentionally trying to capture that Trump swagger and maybe get votes on that alone?

Regardless, I think I broadly agree with so much that has already been said. I don't know how you can look at last night's debate and not have a ton of respect for Warren. I don't really care for Bernie, but I can see why people do. He was all fired up last night and I think he made respectable outing. Biden seemed Dazed at times, just...not all there. I heard someone refer to Pete as the Alex P. Keaton of Millennials, and so much (for me) fell into place. He's definitely a public servant, but I'm not getting Presidential vibes off him. Same with Amy.

Should be quite interesting to see how the Warren/Sanders element unfolds now. Then again, it won't surprise me if Biden surges in the polls. Nothing makes sense anymore.

[malchior]

And, as someone else already said, Bernie was Bernie. Either you feel the Bern or you don’t. I definitely don’t. But I do respect that you get what you get with Sanders. He’s genuine and sincere, and I’d vote for him over Trump in a split second, but I think his vision is wrong and dangerous. And I think he is utterly unelectable,

This last bit is interesting to me. I don't think anyone can say what electable means anymore. The electorate is broken and massively divided. There is no model for this that means a damn IMO.

So when people say unelectable I always wonder what is the basis. If you look at the national polls Bernie is competitive with everyone else against Trump. And of course, they don't mean much because it'll come down to the usual 4 or 5 states. However, we had Rick Wilson, who I think usually is spot onm, saying Bernie will lose 44 states. Why? I don't know. I bet he can't put anything behind it beyond gut feeling. It can't be data based because there is not data to analyze and there is no model. To me, saying *anyone* is unelectable is like sticking a thumb in the wind and deciding whether today is a good day for flying. I think however we can judge them based on their characteristics. Biden is a bit of a naive, fuddy duddy. Klobuchar abuses her staff. Pete is inexperienced. Warren is being erased by the media. Sanders is a bit of a youthful idealist who never grew up. Is any of that determinative?

For all we know, the 2nd coming of Pol Pot could beat Trump because of his unpopularity. That's obviously a bit of exaggeration but what it comes down to is that anecdotally the Democrats are very worried about electability but don't have any reasonable framework to work with. It's going to be a wacky year if this debate showed us anything.

[Apollo]

The Democratic nominees are now officially in a circular firing squad. It's looking more and more likely that we'll get a flawed nominee that is so resented by the passionate followers of the other nominees that they'll fail to turn out this fall. In other words, get ready for four more years of Trump.

[Skinypupy]

The Democratic nominees are now officially in a circular firing squad. It's looking more and more likely that we'll get a flawed nominee that is so resented by the passionate followers of the other nominees that they'll fail to turn out this fall. In other words, get ready for four more years of Trump.

There may be some truth to that, but I also think that could be offset by the anti-Trump sentiment as well.

[El Guapo]

And, as someone else already said, Bernie was Bernie. Either you feel the Bern or you don’t. I definitely don’t. But I do respect that you get what you get with Sanders. He’s genuine and sincere, and I’d vote for him over Trump in a split second, but I think his vision is wrong and dangerous. And I think he is utterly unelectable,

This last bit is interesting to me. I don't think anyone can say what electable means anymore. The electorate is broken and massively divided. There is no model for this that means a damn IMO.

So when people say unelectable I always wonder what is the basis. If you look at the national polls Bernie is competitive with everyone else against Trump. And of course, they don't mean much because it'll come down to the usual 4 or 5 states. However, we had Rick Wilson, who I think usually is spot onm, saying Bernie will lose 44 states. Why? I don't know. I bet he can't put anything behind it beyond gut feeling. It can't be data based because there is not data to analyze and there is no model. To me, saying *anyone* is unelectable is like sticking a thumb in the wind and deciding whether today is a good day for flying. I think however we can judge them based on their characteristics. Biden is a bit of a naive, fuddy duddy. Klobuchar abuses her staff. Pete is inexperienced. Warren is being erased by the media. Sanders is a bit of a youthful idealist who never grew up. Is any of that determinative?

For all we know, the 2nd coming of Pol Pot could beat Trump because of his unpopularity. That's obviously a bit of exaggeration but what it comes down to is that anecdotally the Democrats are very worried about electability but don't have any reasonable framework to work with. It's going to be a wacky year if this debate showed us anything.

I've also been interested lately in what exactly is the "unelectable" case against Bernie. I get the electability concerns about Bernie, specifically: (1) that the media tends to cover him (fairly or unfairly) through kind of a "crazy, extremist" lens; (2) that he calls himself a Socialist, which is a poorly branded term among American voters; (3) that he's actively hostile to coalition building. Is he marginally more likely to lose against Trump than some other nominees? Probably (though one can debate that, and which ones).

But I don't get the case that he's borderline certain to lose against Trump. First, partisanship these days are such that I don't think there really is such a thing as an unelectable major party nominee - the party label bakes in at least 43% - 45% of the vote, so all you really need is an opponent that's not hugely popular and a few breaks (say, the head of the FBI writing a vague letter about opening an investigation against your opponent eight days before the election, to pick a random example). Second, his polling (including head-to-head vs. Trump) seems fine. I don't take that as a lock, but I'm not sure what the data (though I'd love to read more about it) for the notion that Bernie is unelectable.

Not that he's my first choice, but just thinking in terms of beating Trump.

[El Guapo]

The Democratic nominees are now officially in a circular firing squad. It's looking more and more likely that we'll get a flawed nominee that is so resented by the passionate followers of the other nominees that they'll fail to turn out this fall. In other words, get ready for four more years of Trump.

There may be some truth to that, but I also think that could be offset by the anti-Trump sentiment as well.

Yeah, it all depends how it ends. The bitterness and infighting of the GOP nomination process in 2016 (including Ted Cruz explicitly refusing to endorse Trump at the convention!) didn't keep Trump from winning. I worry about the fallout of Sanders going into the convention with a delegate lead and not getting the nomination, and various scenarios like that, but that there are sharp attacks now doesn't concern me so much.

[Kraken]

Am I imagining things or did Bloomberg come off a little Trumpian a few times last night? Not a policy response or anything related to his money, but the tone / body language he used to deal with some of the questions? I don't recall him being a snarky individual that throws out zingers, but there was just something about how he carried himself that (to me) seemed like he was either intentionally or unintentionally trying to capture that Trump swagger and maybe get votes on that alone?

To the extent that Bloomberg has a path, it's to be the Dem Trump -- monopolize the media (Trump got it for free, Bloom has to buy it, but dominance is the point) and be the big bad disruptor, the asshole who'll upend everything. If D voters lap that up, we're in a worse place than I thought.

[Dogstar]

I've also been interested lately in what exactly is the "unelectable" case against Bernie. I get the electability concerns about Bernie, specifically: (1) that the media tends to cover him (fairly or unfairly) through kind of a "crazy, extremist" lens; (2) that he calls himself a Socialist, which is a poorly branded term among American voters; (3) that he's actively hostile to coalition building. Is he marginally more likely to lose against Trump than some other nominees? Probably (though one can debate that, and which ones).

But I don't get the case that he's borderline certain to lose against Trump. First, partisanship these days are such that I don't think there really is such a thing as an unelectable major party nominee - the party label bakes in at least 43% - 45% of the vote, so all you really need is an opponent that's not hugely popular and a few breaks (say, the head of the FBI writing a vague letter about opening an investigation against your opponent eight days before the election, to pick a random example). Second, his polling (including head-to-head vs. Trump) seems fine. I don't take that as a lock, but I'm not sure what the data (though I'd love to read more about it) for the notion that Bernie is unelectable.

Not that he's my first choice, but just thinking in terms of beating Trump.

I think it's less a question of Bernie polling poorly against Trump (although Rick Wilson would certainly dispute that) and more about that Bernie potentially could poll poorly in battleground states. I know he didn't help himself last night by telling the fracking industry workers in Pennsylvania to get bent (because who doesn't want to vote their own job out of existence on the vague promise that this Green New Deal will instantly allow them to provide for their family). In a state where the difference in the last election was roughly 45k votes, that doesn't seem... politically savvy, and that's before you try to sell them on voting on someone who identifies as "socialist." Maybe he picks up the difference in Michigan and Wisconsin?

[Smoove_B]

I had a little drive time this morning and was listening to my NYC-based communist radio program regarding the debates.Clearly, it's an unscientific sample and it's also likely from an audience that has some familiarity with Bloomberg, but there were at least half a dozen callers I'd heard calling in saying they liked his performance and that he's the candidate to beat Trump. I doubt it's a popular sentiment but the fact that people would even call in to say those words is...concerning.

[malchior]

I had a little drive time this morning and was listening to my NYC-based communist radio program regarding the debates.Clearly, it's an unscientific sample and it's also likely from an audience that has some familiarity with Bloomberg, but there were at least half a dozen callers I'd heard calling in saying they liked his performance and that he's the candidate to beat Trump. I doubt it's a popular sentiment but the fact that people would even call in to say those words is...concerning.

I hate to be this cynical but they are screening callers and this was the message they want out there. He is a money tree.

[Smoove_B]

They said they were trying to get callers with opinions on all the candidates (and they were absolutely featuring feedback on everyone there last night), but the idea that they could find anyone willing to compliment Bloomberg's performance was disconcerting.

[LawBeefaroni]

They said they were trying to get callers with opinions on all the candidates (and they were absolutely featuring feedback on everyone there last night), but the idea that they could find anyone willing to compliment Bloomberg's performance was disconcerting.

It shouldn't be surprising though. Setting aside anyone simply paid to call in, and no doubt there were some, there are a ton of white suburban moms all over the country in his astroturfed cults. They'll call in for free.

[El Guapo]

They said they were trying to get callers with opinions on all the candidates (and they were absolutely featuring feedback on everyone there last night), but the idea that they could find anyone willing to compliment Bloomberg's performance was disconcerting.

It shouldn't be surprising though. Setting aside anyone simply paid to call in, and no doubt there were some, there are a ton of white suburban moms all over the country in his astroturfed cults. They'll call in for free.

Also this was a NYC-based ratio show. I don't know how popular Bloomberg was when he left office, but I would tend to assume that, to the extent that Bloomberg has a real committed base, it would be in NYC.

[malchior]

Shit like this makes me wonder if he won't be worse than Trump.

Deeply, deeply, deeply dishonest edited bullshit from a deeply cynical campaign. This is a disgrace.

[Kurth]

Shit like this makes me wonder if he won't be worse than Trump.

Deeply, deeply, deeply dishonest edited bullshit from a deeply cynical campaign. This is a disgrace.

That's totally innocuous. Getting worked up over that is almost analogous to Trump screaming bloody murder about Adam Schiff's obvious paraphrasing of the Trump/Zelensky phone call. It's clear as day what's happening there - Bloomberg isn't trying to fool anyone. It's not a deep fake. No one would ever view that and think that it's not "deeply" edited by Bloomberg's campaign to amplify his point that he's the only one with any real business experience.

[malchior]

Shit like this makes me wonder if he won't be worse than Trump.

Deeply, deeply, deeply dishonest edited bullshit from a deeply cynical campaign. This is a disgrace.

That's totally innocuous. Getting worked up over that is almost analogous to Trump screaming bloody murder about Adam Schiff's obvious paraphrasing of the Trump/Zelensky phone call. It's clear as day what's happening there - Bloomberg isn't trying to fool anyone. It's not a deep fake.

There are literally discussions right now wondering if it was edited or a deep fake. Not everyone watched the debate. Not everyone gets that it is satire. People are deeply confused all the time, overwhelmed with information, and this is an attempt to try to turn the page on a terrible performance. It's partly standard exaggeration but done in a way that is deeply misleading to the unaware.

No one would ever view that and think that it's not "deeply" edited by Bloomberg's campaign to amplify his point that he's the only one with any real business experience.

Maybe an unfair recommendation but try to look at it from outside your point of view. I think you are missing part of the intent here.

[Kurth]

And, as someone else already said, Bernie was Bernie. Either you feel the Bern or you don’t. I definitely don’t. But I do respect that you get what you get with Sanders. He’s genuine and sincere, and I’d vote for him over Trump in a split second, but I think his vision is wrong and dangerous. And I think he is utterly unelectable,

This last bit is interesting to me. I don't think anyone can say what electable means anymore. The electorate is broken and massively divided. There is no model for this that means a damn IMO.

So when people say unelectable I always wonder what is the basis. If you look at the national polls Bernie is competitive with everyone else against Trump. And of course, they don't mean much because it'll come down to the usual 4 or 5 states. However, we had Rick Wilson, who I think usually is spot onm, saying Bernie will lose 44 states. Why? I don't know. I bet he can't put anything behind it beyond gut feeling. It can't be data based because there is not data to analyze and there is no model. To me, saying *anyone* is unelectable is like sticking a thumb in the wind and deciding whether today is a good day for flying. I think however we can judge them based on their characteristics. Biden is a bit of a naive, fuddy duddy. Klobuchar abuses her staff. Pete is inexperienced. Warren is being erased by the media. Sanders is a bit of a youthful idealist who never grew up. Is any of that determinative?

For all we know, the 2nd coming of Pol Pot could beat Trump because of his unpopularity. That's obviously a bit of exaggeration but what it comes down to is that anecdotally the Democrats are very worried about electability but don't have any reasonable framework to work with. It's going to be a wacky year if this debate showed us anything.

I've also been interested lately in what exactly is the "unelectable" case against Bernie. I get the electability concerns about Bernie, specifically: (1) that the media tends to cover him (fairly or unfairly) through kind of a "crazy, extremist" lens; (2) that he calls himself a Socialist, which is a poorly branded term among American voters; (3) that he's actively hostile to coalition building. Is he marginally more likely to lose against Trump than some other nominees? Probably (though one can debate that, and which ones).

But I don't get the case that he's borderline certain to lose against Trump. First, partisanship these days are such that I don't think there really is such a thing as an unelectable major party nominee - the party label bakes in at least 43% - 45% of the vote, so all you really need is an opponent that's not hugely popular and a few breaks (say, the head of the FBI writing a vague letter about opening an investigation against your opponent eight days before the election, to pick a random example). Second, his polling (including head-to-head vs. Trump) seems fine. I don't take that as a lock, but I'm not sure what the data (though I'd love to read more about it) for the notion that Bernie is unelectable.

Not that he's my first choice, but just thinking in terms of beating Trump.

At the outset, I'm a little skeptical of "data" these days when it comes to presidential elections. I get that we're all looking for something rock solid to get our bearings and inform our beliefs/predictions, but the available data wasn't all that reliable last time around.

But my deep feeling (gut feeling) on Sanders being unelectable stems from two things:

(1) I don't think a self-avowed socialist screaming for a "political revolution" is a viable national candidate:

Take a look at the party breakdown regarding socialism. Fifty percent of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism compared to 46% who have a favorable view of capitalism.

But again, socialism is far less favorable than capitalism in the country as a whole. In the NPR poll, among Americans overall, just 28% had a favorable view of socialism compared to 57% who had a favorable view of capitalism.

Among Republicans, 76% held a favorable view of capitalism compared to 7% who felt favorably about socialism. And, among independents -- who may or may not decide the next presidential election -- it was 23% who had a favorable view of socialism compared to 59% who had a favorable view of capitalism.

And while views of socialism are slightly favorable among Democrats, they're below 35% for whites (25%), minorities (33%), Gen Xers (28%), Baby Boomers (20%), and the Silent Generation (20%).

Favorable views of socialism are greatest among younger adults (38% favorable), who just happen to also be Sanders' base of support.

(2) To the extent Sanders has a path to victory, it is dependent on his base, which is heavily skewed to the younger demographic . Unlike the over 65 crowd, that's not a demographic you can depend on. Young people love Bernie. Old people love Trump. Only one of those groups can be relied on to actually vote, and it's not the young.

[Kurth]

Shit like this makes me wonder if he won't be worse than Trump.

Deeply, deeply, deeply dishonest edited bullshit from a deeply cynical campaign. This is a disgrace.

That's totally innocuous. Getting worked up over that is almost analogous to Trump screaming bloody murder about Adam Schiff's obvious paraphrasing of the Trump/Zelensky phone call. It's clear as day what's happening there - Bloomberg isn't trying to fool anyone. It's not a deep fake.

There are literally discussions right now wondering if it was edited or a deep fake. Not everyone watched the debate. Not everyone gets that it is satire. People are deeply confused all the time, overwhelmed with information, and this is an attempt to try to turn the page on a terrible performance. It's partly standard exaggeration but done in a way that is deeply misleading to the unaware.

No one would ever view that and think that it's not "deeply" edited by Bloomberg's campaign to amplify his point that he's the only one with any real business experience.

Maybe an unfair recommendation but try to look at it from outside your point of view. I think you are missing part of the intent here.

If there are "literally discussions right now wondering whether that clip was edited or a deep fake," I give up. I don't care if you watched the debate or not, it's obviously edited, and done in a way to make that fact abundantly clear. It's standard political campaign fare, no better and no worse than other stuff we've seen many times before. It's not a disgrace, at least, certainly not compared to the actual performance of Bloomberg at the debate, which is far more important and should be what people are focused on instead of some manufactured outrage over an edited social media clip. That kind of outrage just contributes to the noise.

Also, for what it's worth, I never think it's an unfair recommendation to try to look at something from outside your point of view. I honestly try to do that as much as I can. Here, I continue to miss what you think I'm missing.

[noxiousdog]

That's just good ole American evangelism. Everything has to be binary.

Only the impure could possible believe in free, open, and competitive markets but want government regulation when those conditions aren't met.

[malchior]

At the outset, I'm a little skeptical of "data" these days when it comes to presidential elections. I get that we're all looking for something rock solid to get our bearings and inform our beliefs/predictions, but the available data wasn't all that reliable last time around.

But my deep feeling (gut feeling) on Sanders being unelectable stems from two things:

(1) I don't think a self-avowed socialist screaming for a "political revolution" is a viable national candidate:

Take a look at the party breakdown regarding socialism. Fifty percent of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism compared to 46% who have a favorable view of capitalism.

But again, socialism is far less favorable than capitalism in the country as a whole. In the NPR poll, among Americans overall, just 28% had a favorable view of socialism compared to 57% who had a favorable view of capitalism.

Among Republicans, 76% held a favorable view of capitalism compared to 7% who felt favorably about socialism. And, among independents -- who may or may not decide the next presidential election -- it was 23% who had a favorable view of socialism compared to 59% who had a favorable view of capitalism.

And while views of socialism are slightly favorable among Democrats, they're below 35% for whites (25%), minorities (33%), Gen Xers (28%), Baby Boomers (20%), and the Silent Generation (20%).

Favorable views of socialism are greatest among younger adults (38% favorable), who just happen to also be Sanders' base of support.

(2) To the extent Sanders has a path to victory, it is dependent on his base, which is heavily skewed to the younger demographic . Unlike the over 65 crowd, that's not a demographic you can depend on. Young people love Bernie. Old people love Trump. Only one of those groups can be relied on to actually vote, and it's not the young.

The gist of your whole post (i.e. approach to evaluating electability) is what I was getting at above. The CW that you are using to base your gut feeling around electability is based on a model from a past that is defunct. In the past did young people not vote. Yup, true. Will they vote in this pattern again? Maybe but they rarely have had someone they were deeply passionate about in this regard. One example was Obama and the young actually did turn out in record numbers in 2008. Is that predictive? Ehh...I wouldn't bank either way on it. We just don't know. The electorate looks to be un-moored from traditional patterns here.

Anyway, the point is that what 2016 told us is that our elections are predictable in the macro sense that you can predict pretty reliably which states are in play or will matter. Think the PA, FL, WI here. What is not reliable is how the margins will play within those states. We've had a lot of very surprising results and extremely tight contests. That is a long way to go to say that gut feelings don't amount to much anymore in this environment. Expertise in this area is stretched extremely. I think an expert might get sentiment direction right (socialism - bad, capitalism - good) but not the amplitude at this point. Hardly a basis for getting anywhere near an accurate prediction about who can win the race.

And this was a super long-winded way of saying that the things that you see make Bernie unelectable could very well be the factors that make him extremely electable. But we just don't have any data to support it either way. That is likely a big factor in why we are going to likely muddle through a very painful, divisive and counter-productive Democratic primary campaign.

Edit: This is why I never focus on electability outside pure personality macro scale stuff. For instance, I am still pretty confident Joe would fare badly against Trump. It'd be like a wolf going up against an already cooked piece of meat. And I have no idea if it'd affect electability. We are in the middle of a major movement in politics now and people are still trying to impose the "old order" on chaos in very tenuous ways. The middle is *not* holding.

[malchior]

If there are "literally discussions right now wondering whether that clip was edited or a deep fake," I give up. I don't care if you watched the debate or not, it's obviously edited, and done in a way to make that fact abundantly clear.

It's great that you don't care or get it. The reality is people are mislead easily right now. Just because you get it doesn't mean many people aren't deeply confused by these techniques. It isn't about you.

It's standard political campaign fare, no better and no worse than other stuff we've seen many times before. It's not a disgrace, at least, certainly not compared to the actual performance of Bloomberg at the debate, which is far more important and should be what people are focused on instead of some manufactured outrage over an edited social media clip. That kind of outrage just contributes to the noise.

Sorta. Again people are given no context and see the video on its own. They know its posted by Bloomberg but don't know if its accurate or exaggeration. This type of manipulation is how Trump campaign and Russian propaganda helped to swing 2016. You are missing the forest from the trees.

Also, for what it's worth, I never think it's an unfair recommendation to try to look at something from outside your point of view. I honestly try to do that as much as I can. Here, I continue to miss what you think I'm missing.

Exactly you are definitely not getting it. I'll reiterate: what you see as standard campaign exaggeration is now a standard technique to deliver propaganda meant to deceive people. That you see through it is great but many, many people do not. That is the important factor here.

[Kurth]

If there are "literally discussions right now wondering whether that clip was edited or a deep fake," I give up. I don't care if you watched the debate or not, it's obviously edited, and done in a way to make that fact abundantly clear.

It's great that you don't care or get it. The reality is people are mislead easily right now. Just because you get it doesn't mean many people aren't deeply confused by these techniques. It isn't about you.

It's standard political campaign fare, no better and no worse than other stuff we've seen many times before. It's not a disgrace, at least, certainly not compared to the actual performance of Bloomberg at the debate, which is far more important and should be what people are focused on instead of some manufactured outrage over an edited social media clip. That kind of outrage just contributes to the noise.

Sorta. Again people are given no context and see the video on its own. They know its posted by Bloomberg but don't know if its accurate or exaggeration. This type of manipulation is how Trump campaign and Russian propaganda helped to swing 2016. You are missing the forest from the trees.

Also, for what it's worth, I never think it's an unfair recommendation to try to look at something from outside your point of view. I honestly try to do that as much as I can. Here, I continue to miss what you think I'm missing.

Exactly you are definitely not getting it. I'll reiterate: what you see as standard campaign exaggeration is now a standard technique to deliver propaganda meant to deceive people. That you see through it is great but many, many people do not. That is the important factor here.

Ok. Let's assume that people may see that Bloomberg clip and be misled into thinking that's actually an unbiased, truthful recreation of what went down on the debate stage (although I guess they'd have to believe there was an invasion of crickets in Las Vegas that night, too). But even if I accept that, how is that different than a lot of the other misleading political campaign rhetoric and advertising we see all over the place?

Stupid people are going to be misled. That's just the way things go. But at the end of the day, don't we have to rely on most people to view information and then make a judgment about what it means and whether they can rely on it or not?

Going back to the issue of Russian influence/propaganda during 2016, I feel really uneasy about that.

Obviously, I don't want Putin interfering in our elections. Any kind of hacking of our election infrastructure is, in my mind, close to an act of war. But saturating social media with misleading and divisive information (not actual deep fakes - that's another story)? It sucks, but in a free society, don't we have to rely on people to have some judgment and to use some common sense regarding what's reliable and what's not?

I recognize the problem that this may be, in many ways, a naive view that doesn't comport with facts on the ground right now. People use little or no judgment and just forward and contribute to the virality of the latest trending thing in their feed. But I'm not sure what the answer is. If we want to prohibit speech like Bloomberg's clip (not that that's what you said), I don't know where that leaves us. I've always been a huge believer in the notion that the best way to combat bad ideas is with better ones. It would be sad if that notion is broken in today's society.

[Lagom Lite]

Sanders is unelectable because of socialism and young voters.

(I'm paraphrasing.)

Valid points, but it's equally true that Donald Trump was "unelectable" in 2016 because he's a sexist, racist, lying gameshow host clown. And Hillary was the most moderate, status quo, name recognition establishment candidate there ever was.

I think what makes Sanders the most electable among the current democratic nominees is:

- Polls says so
- He is building a grassroots movement of millions of people (like Trump did)
- He has a strong message (like Trump did)
- He is anti-establishment (like Trump pretended to be)
- He has the potential to mobilize new voter groups that normally don't vote (independents, young voters, disillusioned midwestern working class)
- He is one of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country (by favorability ratings)
- Where are moderate voters gonna go anyway? Abstain? Vote for Trump? "Vote blue no matter who" goes both ways.

Bloomberg on the other hand is one of the weakest candidates against Trump. He will lose the working class vote and the minority vote, he lacks excitement, has no message and no political movement behind him.

Sanders recently held a rally in Washington attended by 17,000 people. Bloomberg buys TV ads.

[malchior]

Ok. Let's assume that people may see that Bloomberg clip and be misled into thinking that's actually an unbiased, truthful recreation of what went down on the debate stage (although I guess they'd have to believe there was an invasion of crickets in Las Vegas that night, too). But even if I accept that, how is that different than a lot of the other misleading political campaign rhetoric and advertising we see all over the place?

I suspect this clip wouldn't be carried by most networks now. If they did, it'd be modified to make it clear that it is a political advert, etc. This is why people are griping loudly about Twitter and Facebook not only for a failure to police themselves but worse that they sell the data and service to *target* these type of message at groups or individuals with razor sharp precision.

Stupid people are going to be misled. That's just the way things go. But at the end of the day, don't we have to rely on most people to view information and then make a judgment about what it means and whether they can rely on it or not?

We absolutely do but that doesn't mean we don't try to call out or shame people into not lying to us. Will it work? It doesn't look good but better to try since it is pretty much free to do. Also, education does work. Make enough noise and it gets into people's heads at some rate that they need to scrutinize things a little tighter. Since we are playing in tight margins every little bit helps.

Going back to the issue of Russian influence/propaganda during 2016, I feel really uneasy about that.

Obviously, I don't want Putin interfering in our elections. Any kind of hacking of our election infrastructure is, in my mind, close to an act of war. But saturating social media with misleading and divisive information (not actual deep fakes - that's another story)? It sucks, but in a free society, don't we have to rely on people to have some judgment and to use some common sense regarding what's reliable and what's not?

Similar idea as above but I'd expand and say that some fatalism is unfortunately inevitable here.But pushing these social media networks to police themselves is something we can demand as customers and as members of society.

I recognize the problem that this may be, in many ways, a naive view that doesn't comport with facts on the ground right now. People use little or no judgment and just forward and contribute to the virality of the latest trending thing in their feed. But I'm not sure what the answer is. If we want to prohibit speech like Bloomberg's clip (not that that's what you said), I don't know where that leaves us. I've always been a huge believer in the notion that the best way to combat bad ideas is with better ones. It would be sad if that notion is broken in today's society.

This is getting to the heart of things. My assumption nowadays from...looking around at the total shit show we live in is that it's broken. My pet theory is there is a threshold or ratio of noise to signal in human society where the ability to process things breaks down.

In context, I've read we consume more information in a day than people did in weeks or months a century ago. Is there a limit? I suspect there is. Are we past that limit? I suspect we are. We need to deal with this somehow. It is likely one of the existential issues of our society. I personally think we should start by demanding that social media networks act responsibly and see how it goes. Not outright censorship but I'd lean to a modern fairness doctrine if they continue to act this way. Though that realistically feels impossible.

[gilraen]

Stupid people are going to be misled. That's just the way things go.

Unfortunately, stupid people also vote. And at this point I'm much more concerned about stupid people voting for Trump or third-party rather than them voting for Bloomberg.

Bloomberg may be a calculating SOB but there's one thing that he is DEFINITELY not - a pathological malignant narcissist with the personality of a grandiose-paranoid dictator (aka our current president). I'll take a calculating SOB over that any day of the week.

[Smoove_B]

Right, I think that was my major takeaway from all this. I really don't know Bloomberg. However, from the way he handled himself last night my impression was more of seeing him as an out-of-touch billionaire than a parasitic opportunist. That doesn't mean he'd be a good President, but he would be bad for different reasons. Whether or not those reasons would have us bending even further away from the moral arc of the universe as a nation, I don't know.

[Holman]

Sanders is unelectable because of socialism and young voters.

(I'm paraphrasing.)

Valid points, but it's equally true that Donald Trump was "unelectable" in 2016 because he's a sexist, racist, lying gameshow host clown. And Hillary was the most moderate, status quo, name recognition establishment candidate there ever was.

I think what makes Sanders the most electable among the current democratic nominees is:

- Polls says so
- He is building a grassroots movement of millions of people (like Trump did)
- He has a strong message (like Trump did)
- He is anti-establishment (like Trump pretended to be)
- He has the potential to mobilize new voter groups that normally don't vote (independents, young voters, disillusioned midwestern working class)
- He is one of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country (by favorability ratings)
- Where are moderate voters gonna go anyway? Abstain? Vote for Trump? "Vote blue no matter who" goes both ways.

Bloomberg on the other hand is one of the weakest candidates against Trump. He will lose the working class vote and the minority vote, he lacks excitement, has no message and no political movement behind him.

Sanders recently held a rally in Washington attended by 17,000 people. Bloomberg buys TV ads.

The problem isn't Sanders' popularity but its distribution.

Sure, he'll win blue states overwhelmingly, but this whole election will turn on a small number of swing states, most of them trending slightly Red and far more inclined to centrism than socialism.

Winning New York by 35 points means nothing if you lose Pennsylvania and Ohio by one point each.