Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 258: Imminent Song

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also, is Elizabeth Warren seriously bragging about beating Scott Brown in Massachusetts? Incidentally, i read this week that Scott Brown is becoming president of the New England School of Law - which is a bottom tier law school that made their outgoing president the highest paid law school dean in the country. While saddling their students with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt on average and graduating them with awful employment prospects. I guess Scott Brown has given up on winning another election for high office and has decided to cash in.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, is Elizabeth Warren seriously bragging about beating Scott Brown in Massachusetts? Incidentally, i read this week that Scott Brown is becoming president of the New England School of Law - which is a bottom tier law school that made their outgoing president the highest paid law school dean in the country. While saddling their students with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt on average and graduating them with awful employment prospects. I guess Scott Brown has given up on winning another election for high office and has decided to cash in.

If Trump University wasnt disqualifying I dont see why that would be!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If Trump University wasnt disqualifying I dont see why that would be!

Well, Trump University didn't ask students to invest 3 years of their life into their studies there, only a few weekends. And the cost of attendance ranged from the thousands to tens of thousands, rather than getting into the 200-300k range. Trump University also to my knowledge did not accept federal student loans, which means that they weren't counting on gullible students thinking, "the federal government approved this school, it must be legitimate."

---

Man, this whole Ukraine scheme is basically a Coen Brothers movie in real life

---

New report came out saying that Warren asked Bernie to borrow a pencil in 5th grade and he said no

---

cuz we're still somehow talking about it, if we're parsing their statements and the reporting around it I think what happened is whether it was explicit or implicit (the latter would certainly explain the incongruity if it boiled down to interpretation, the former it still works how they've responded to it) is that Sanders is pushing back and denying that he said that a woman could not win in a general sense. Warren seems to be confirming a report that was discussed around the specific scenario of 2020. Honestly, this read would make sense to me on how they're both saying what they're saying and both technically telling the truth, if in a somewhat jedi-like way. I still don't take either of them as a person who would lie about this (or that this is some Warren approved gambit, still feels like a staffer going rogue to me) and this scenario would make sense with that. I think the media/CNN is unhelpfully (but probably intentionally not gonna lie) letting the idea that Sanders meant it in a general sense out there for "drama" and "fight!" but that is clearly bullshit. OTOH, I don't think it's honestly in either Warren or Sanders' interest for either of them to make that clarification. Sanders because the optics wouldn't be great and Warren because it legitimately isn't helpful to either of them for that reason really.

tl;dr: pretty sure this is all just a bunch of bs the media is having fun with because fights and drama are better for them than the semi-unity thing they had going.

~~~

Anyway, for my routine "watched the debate later and here are some hot takes"

Sanders won I think but it felt like a really bleh debate. He did win on what was clearly the most important exchange of the night and that would be that 1990 is within the last 30 years, sorry Warren you're still my top choice but you were wrong there. Honestly felt Biden gave a weak performance IMO but I guess I'm pretty alone in that? I mean since I don't think anyone made any waves you can make the standard "nothing big frontrunner won" thinking but I dunno. The Sanders/Warren/Steyer alliance during healthcare (and a few other things) is surreal as always but it was nice that they finally had half the stage this time. Kinda wish the three of them went harder at Buttigieg and Klobuchar when they were attacking their plans and stuff but whatever they talk healthcare every debate so whatever.

moderator time felt weird. i kept thinking i was in some warped time or something because it felt like they called time on the progressives faster than the others. But maybe Biden pulled some Aizen-level illusions on me by being the only guy who religiously obeys the clock so him never getting called influenced my perception on it overall.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

jesus christ

Have you guys never had a conversation that was interpreted differently by both parties? You all post in this topic series so I find it ridiculously hard to believe it's never happened.

I mean look no further than their other dumb fight tonight - Warren said she's the only person on the stage to beat an incumbent Republican in 30 years, and Bernie took offense because he beat one exactly 30 years ago! They were both technically correct!

The issue is that if its a misunderstanding, its being reported (and repeated) as Bernie says a woman cant be President, which is just...theres no chance he said it that way, its like shes suicide bombing into him.

---

The Democrat party never ceases to amaze.

It's the final debate before the first caucus, and instead of pitching their ideas, they somehow manage to bring personal animus to the divide in the only motivated wing of their party.

The media is going to have to work harder than ever before if they want any shot of beating Trump.

---

Who gives a fuck about the Democrat drama, we have clear evidence that the president tried to have an American ambassador assassinated

Idk maybe my priorities are misaligned

---

okay i am apologizing in advance for this post but in my defense a psuedo-migraine yesterday knocked my sleep schedule out of wack and my mind is both wandering and lingering on this way too much

Now, if you want to just declare that one of them is a lying liar who is lying to make the simplest possible explanation, then fine, I can't stop you but I also don't agree with you and don't have any real interest in arguing that scenario.

I do, however, think if the situation went something like this both the actual actions/statements made and the political game theory checks out so I'm feeling increasingly confident something like this is what happened.

2018
Warren and Sanders are discussing 2020 politics
Warren: What if the Democratic Party nominates a woman [in 2020]?
Sanders: I think they'd lose.

a few days ago
Staffer (probably a Warren staffer but maybe just some anti-Sanders person with knowledge of that meeting): *Runs to media* "hey want to hear a story from 2018?"

Media: *relates exchange with the scope of 2020*
Media/Punditry: Sanders says a woman can't win the presidency!
Media (to Sanders): Did you say that a woman can't win the presidency?
Sanders: Uh, no. Check my record.
Media/Twitter/Pundit/Social Media buzzing grows to the point where Warren can't realistically dodge this
Warren (through a statement, not in person): The exchange as reported happened.
Media: oh. em. gee. someone's l-y-i-n-g~~~~ fight fight FIGHT!

Debate
Moderator: Hey did you say a woman can't win?
Sanders: No, that's absurd.
Moderator: Hey, Warren, how did you feel when Sanders said a woman couldn't win??? (Note that this would technically fit the truth of a 2020 exchange even though it was exhaustively primed to come with the implication of the general sense that Sanders just refuted)
Warren: I disagreed. *spins it into a pro-woman candidate message*

~~~

Now, if the initial exchange went down more or less like that I think everyone else actually falls into place. Sanders giving a political punditry prediction that in the 2020 environment a woman would lose, while not a take I agree with, is one I think that can come from a rational place. If you think the election is going to be extremely uphill to start and that the sexism that would be brought in makes the incline one that's impassable that's not an irrational argument. Again, I think a woman can beat Trump and win in 2020, but I don't think that the counter-argument has to come from a bad faith place.

So moving up to the initial reporting phase. I'll admit I ignored this story mostly at the start, but didn't the first reporting include the context that showed they were discussing 2020? I think this is where things go south for everyone. If we assume the exchange happened as I hypothesize no one is in a good place once the discussion is leaked. So let's say they go to Sanders for comment. Saying the exchange didn't happen at all is a lie and a dangerous one that Warren can call him on. It's actually probably Sanders's best move to pivot the issue to the general case and refute that because that is a ridiculous idea. Unfortunately it's also the exact framing that anti-Sanders people would want to push to damage Sanders and the one the media would want for max drama so rather than bury the issue the circus just gets started. Meanwhile, Warren can't just ignore this is all playing out like she isn't paying attention. Heck, I saw criticism that she didn't say anything fast enough. From her perspective the initial report is technically accurate so saying it was made up would be a lie. No one could/would call her on it but expecting her to just lie to cover would be gross. So all she can do is say, "Yeah, it happened. I disagreed. Let's move on." Well now the media is in full drama mode because now they can sell a "someone has to be lying~" story along with the "FRIENDSHIP ENDED" narrative they're pushing.

So then moving to the debate. They both have to know the question is coming. Sanders's best move - and only move at this point - is to keep to his line from before. Moving from it would be disastrous. Meanwhile, Warren's in a bad place too. Providing clarification that they were talking about 2020 just isn't helpful to either of them. It would be a clear shot at Sanders because regardless of what was meant in that initial discussion it'd still be a bad look for him to have her effectively say, "Guys, Sanders didn't say a woman couldn't win the presidency. He just said a woman couldn't win this election." I mean that framing (which no matter how she might articulate it would be the way the media would reframe it) is basically a textbook example of sexism. Meanwhile, it'd be a bad look for her too because it would 100% come off as political opportunism even if technically correct. You think she's being attacked for it the way things happened in reality? Imagine that. So her only play is to also repeat her previous response that it happened. However, since going any further is going to be bad for both and if she just cuts her answer there you no the moderator asks a follow-up her best move is to just try to spin it into a generic positive message for women. It's the least harmful way to proceed for all parties involved and hey... she is still running.

tl;dr: The moment this story leaked to the media, assuming it happened, Sanders and Warren were put in an awful spot and they actually have played it as best they could and in a way that sought to minimize the damage to either.

and that is all for my sleep-distorted political game theory storytime

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The media is going to have to work harder than ever before if they want any shot of beating Trump.

The media helped Trump get elected last time so not sure why they'd help the Dem this time.

---

xp1337 posted...

1990 is within the last 30 years, sorry Warren you're still my top choice but you were wrong there.

It's like what Hero said, where you can have two people understand things differently and both be right.

If you're counting 2020 itself, 1990 isn't within the last 30 years. If you're not counting 2020, then it is within the last 30 years. It depends how you look at it. When people refer to, say, the "last ten years," some count the year they're in, some don't.

---

xp1337 posted...

I mean since I don't think anyone made any waves you can make the standard "nothing big frontrunner won" thinking but I dunno.

That's all it is behind claims of Biden won.

Now bear in mind, it's entirely possible that Warren's attack with her very, very notable and obvious media push right now will make both her and Bernie more relevant. No such thing as bad press so there's a chance both go up due to this "beef" in the immediate future. Longer term - and by that I just mean through Iowa and maybe NH - she might go down while he stays up. I can't see the Bernie attack work against him in any way but the press doing what they're doing means she's staying up until other notice. As it stands, this is a conscious hit against Pete to set her up as a third option as she's getting back that affluent and educated white vote. With it she's back to 20%.

... though that may well means Biden scores another couple points since he's a lesser second choice there too.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

It's like what Hero said, where you can have two people understand things differently and both be right.

If you're counting 2020 itself, 1990 isn't within the last 30 years. If you're not counting 2020, then it is within the last 30 years. It depends how you look at it. When people refer to, say, the "last ten years," some count the year they're in, some don't.

no this is a math fight there are winners and losers

that comment was made on January 14th, 2020.
one year before that was January 14th, 2019
two years before that was January 14th, 2018
ten years before that was January 14th, 2010
thirty years before that was January 14th, 1990

If Sanders said he won in 1990 I'm going to just assume he won in November of 1990 (if he won in a special election at some other time then shit just got real) that takes place after January 14th, 1990.

Verdict: Math does not compromise. Math does not forgive. Math does not forget. Sanders is correct.

---

We don't need your fancy math getting into this, all you need to do is count calendars. If I get out my 30 most recent calendars, 1990 isn't one of them.

Suck on that, math.

---

xp1337 posted...

tl;dr: The moment this story leaked to the media, assuming it happened, Sanders and Warren were put in an awful spot

Hell no this is the best thing that's happened to both of them.

Sanders gets a remotived base for a massive smear that CNN couldn't hold back on literally less than 5 seconds for in an easy to clip part of the debate.

Warren plays up identity politics and gets to be a media darling again, which recaptures a lot of that floating population.

Both get media coverage. Bernie's never been mentioned more often in media! And just in time considering there's no ads for them to buy.

---

(Honestly the fact that Warren seemed to almost be counting on her fingers mentally during the exchange lends credence to the idea she was interpreting the count that way but I'm just saying she was wrong. >_>)

should have played it safe and said 25 years.

---

xp1337 posted...

(Honestly the fact that Warren seemed to almost be counting on her fingers mentally during the exchange lends credence to the idea she was interpreting the count that way but I'm just saying she was wrong. >_>)

should have played it safe and said 25 years.

Yeah, I figured it was a joke after I initially replied. My sarcasm meter is busted in this topic.

---

Seems like a lot of semantics to be like "She said in the last 30 years, but it's really only been 29 years!" Like, I'm not even 29 years old yet. That's a really long time.

But none of this really matters when the President may have tried to have an American ambassador assassinated. Or at least it shouldn't. I'll gladly take Bernie or Warren as the next President. I'll even take Joe Biden, but I'd rather have Warren or Sanders. And anyone who is "Bernie or Bust!" or "Biden or Bust!" or anything like that should really just shove it, cause we've got a dangerous lunatic in the white house that even some super conservatives think "Yeah, I'll take my chances with a Socialist over a guy I agree with on a lot of issues cause he's THAT dangerous."

---

In less dumb news the Lev Parnas stuff is pretty insane to see laid out together.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21066219/impeachment-lev-parnas-evidence-ambassador

The texts in particular are pretty ridiculous. If Hyde hadn't apparently already confirmed then as real on Twitter I'm not sure I'd believe them.

---

In the aftermath of the debate, I think it's possible this helped Bernie, at least in the short term.

It doesn't seem like very many people are buying Warren's framing of what happened.

Enough people can see what Bernie has consistently said his entire life and know that "Bernie said a woman can never win" is disingenuous framing, at best, or an outright lie.

---

honestly it's not even that bad of a take. plenty of people believe it or understand where that kind of sentiment is coming from so it can't really hurt him even if you think he's wrong. if you know him/see the old video/believe him instead, it's all good. either way, she ends up looking like someone who's using the woman card (I'm With Her 2.0), especially since she quickly veered from "he said" to "women win elections!" like... sure, you had all that info lined up and planned, wanted to have a line of the night, but this totally wasn't an attack or any way of grabbing attention, nope.

---

"I'm With Her" was the "woman card"?

that's a new one

---

...it's really not? it was accused of such back then.

---

xp1337 posted...

"I'm With Her" was the "woman card"?

that's a new one

Uhh it definitely was

Its constructed to point out that being a woman nominee for President is unique, because Im With Him doesnt work for men. There are so many Hims!
---

By who? Because I'm guessing it wasn't by good faith actors that's for sure.

---

Of course it was accused as such back then. Mainly by insecure men who feel threatened by the fact a woman dared run for President.

Only in America can men be so insecure that "I'm with her!" is threatening, but "Grab em' by the pussy!" is perfectly acceptable locker room talk.

---

And for the record, Im not criticizing it for that. Its just apparent
---

Wait, hold up guys. We need to pause here for me. Really?

"I'm With Her" is so generic.


---

xp1337 posted...

Wait, hold up guys. We need to pause here for me. Really?

"I'm With Her" is so generic.

But yet you know exactly who Her refers to.

Unless Carly Fiorina had gotten the GOP nom, then it would have been awkward
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Its constructed to point out that being a woman nominee for President is unique, because Im With Him doesnt work for men. There are so many Hims!

Jill Stein was running in that same election.

---

https://www.fastcompany.com/90109190/the-story-behind-im-with-her

We started all our projects with fast sketching, wed review it with Jennifer, and then wed get our ideas on the computer. I started with some obvious stuff, Honk for Hillary, some fun uses of the H [Michael Bieruts Hillary logo], but then when Jennifer and I looked at the sketches, Im With Her really stood out from the set. It was so simple, yet so unmistakable, since there was only one her in the race.

We see it in different ways, like with Im Still With Her and the sign at the Womens March with all of the arrows. Its about pushing forward positive messaging for women and inclusion, and thats just how it will continue to live on and evolve.

---

we're talking about a candidate who literally sold woman cards because her campaign got viewed that way due to slogans like that. i ain't saying it's threatening, just that it's one of those clear tie-ins of candidate to their sex. which is also what warren effectively did last night, same idea.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

But yet you know exactly who Her refers to.

yeah the candidate who took it as their slogan. it's why i don't associate it with jill stein

Is the argument you're making that even the slightest acknowledgement that Clinton was a woman is playing a card? It's who she is. Is she supposed to hide it? Was it a spoiler? Saying it was playing a card carries a negative, cynical connotation and I just... I don't know how you get there from what is like one of the most generic slogans I have ever seen. (and yet perhaps not the most generic slogan of 2016 brexit strikes again)

---

Well yeah to be fair I wouldnt personally use the phrase playing a card because of the connotations.

It was clearly meant to highlight the fact that she was a pioneer for her gender though.
---

Let me put this a different way. I can see how it evolved into a rallying cry for women in the wake of 2016 (and arguably over the course of the election with literal Trump as the foil with Access Hollywood, the paegant stories, hell name any story about him) but by itself it's just nothing IMO.

---

Republicans play the Christian Card all the time. It plays very well with evangelicals, and you rarely see anyone say anything about it. Nevermind that we've had about all but 3 Presidents who clearly identified as Christian. And even those 3 are probably somewhat arguable.

---

playing the ___ card means that you're intending to use your status/identity of being something (sex, race, religion, sexuality, etc) as leverage for yourself. yes, that phrasing has an additional negative connotation to it, though it's in direct reference to the followup of that leverage/message: by using your status/identity your message has implied "if you have a problem with me pointing this out you clearly have a problem with [insert category here]". the pushback to that idea gets seen as exploitative and that's the negative attribute.

Hillary's idea was pretty straightforward, pointing out that yes she's a woman, this is historic, and this fact is, at the very least, a positive reason to vote for her. Warren's idea was pointing out that yes she's a woman, this is still historic, and it's a positive reason to vote for her because women are the ones winning elections as opposed to those men who can't.

---

Warren's "idea" was to counter the idea that "woman can't win/are disadvantaged in an election" by pointing out that if you look at the W/L records of everyone on stage the women are undefeated and the men have accumulated 10 losses.

It's obviously a massive oversimplification of the issue and made for a soundbite but spoiler alert: the debates are all about getting those kinds of moments. But also the debate format means you literally don't have the time to make the more nuanced argument. The closest that Warren or any of them could get was pointing out that in 2018 women candidates outperformed men. (And if you buy my rambling game theory because it was the best possible pivot away from the BS feud drama she could make.)

Reading some negative, exploitative purpose into it is just looking for it and fitting it for that IMO.

---

Women make up 50% of the population. They should obviously make up at least 35% of congress and the senate. Yet, they haven't even accounted for 20% until 2019! That's crazy when you think about how literally more than half the population are underrepresented in our government.

---

Ashethan posted...

Republicans play the Christian Card all the time. It plays very well with evangelicals, and you rarely see anyone say anything about it. Nevermind that we've had about all but 3 Presidents who clearly identified as Christian. And even those 3 are probably somewhat arguable.

that they do and it plays well because that's the point. those who heavily pander to evangelicals can do really, really well in districts that are like that but the second they're out of it they collapse. religion is a super easy one to play up because you don't need infer or add additional reason to it - you've got a clear belief system attached to it. all that said the limit is pretty clear as when it broadens elsewhere the religion card tends to piss off everyone else. and of course what's their reply to that? "what, you have a problem with God?" "this is a Christian nation you know!" if that sounds like an eyerolling idea, congrats, we're of the same opinion. just extend it to any other __ card.

---

Wanglicious posted...

that they do and it plays well because that's the point. those who heavily pander to evangelicals can do really, really well in districts that are like that but the second they're out of it they collapse. religion is a super easy one to play up because you don't need infer or add additional reason to it - you've got a clear belief system attached to it. all that said the limit is pretty clear as when it broadens elsewhere the religion card tends to piss off everyone else. and of course what's their reply to that? "what, you have a problem with God?" "this is a Christian nation you know!" if that sounds like an eyerolling idea, congrats, we're of the same opinion. just extend it to any other __ card.

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between "Hey, we've never had a female President before. A woman winning will be smashing that glass ceiling!" and "We're a Christian Nation!" One is a group that's been long marginalized and had their identity become an obstacle for them, and the other is a group that only thinks they've been marginalized because some stores decide to say "Happy Holidays" instead of a specific "Merry Christmas!"

---

xp1337 posted...

Reading some negative, exploitative purpose into it is just

finding out that the source of the info was her staffers, it directly resulted into a smear campaign against one of her main rivals, and it was used as a pre-rehearsed soundbite followup.

meaning that she took a convo from a over a year ago, told her staffers about it at some point, and they just happened to leak that info to the media the day before the final debate before the first primary. but fortunately for her this narrative that got planted by her staffers saying women can't win is one that she just so happened to have a counter for, citing the 2018 election and even Klobuchar as clear references, all to say that yes women can not only win but they're better at it.

it's all just very coincidental.

---

do you think that women politicians have never once had to defend their status as women and it's weird she had an argument?

or that, given the story has already leaked, it is strange that Warren correctly anticipated it would come up during the debate and came up with a speech to deflect the issue? Should she instead have had no planned response and just stumbled around on stage?

That's not coincidental - it's logical! Believe Warren personally leaked it if you want but her response at the debate doesnt support it being a masterful 5d chess move one way or the other.

---

Ashethan posted...

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between "Hey, we've never had a female President before. A woman winning will be smashing that glass ceiling!" and "We're a Christian Nation!" One is a group that's been long marginalized and had their identity become an obstacle for them, and the other is a group that only thinks they've been marginalized because some stores decide to say "Happy Holidays" instead of a specific "Merry Christmas!"

evangelicals will also mention things like abortion, abstinence, marriage, etc. they'll also mention the collapse of the nuclear family, though that ain't much of a Christian thing. not that i think any of it matters for this particular subject, just don't want them to be strawman'd to that extreme is all. the point is still that when a candidate uses this identifying factor like this they are signaling with it as a positive and are trying to use it as leverage for your vote. hence why i call it them using a card. it's fine if you agree, that's just what they're playing and you'll see people in favor of it as well as people rolling their eyes with a "oh it's this again" attitude. and a bunch who were in favor calling that group out because, by associating candidate with group, they've assumed that any attack on the candidate for this must be because of an attack of said group, which is part of why the eyerolling happened to begin with.

---

I find it more plausible that one of them went rogue after the story about the Sanders campaign giving volunteers scripts describing Warren as the candidate of the "elite" and being mad about that and retaliating considering it a breach of their non-aggression pact. The media getting confirmation from another (or maybe two went rogue together at the start who cares.)

The media predictably blows it up, probably as the staffers intended, yes.

And then because anyone with half a brain knew it was going to come up at the debate Warren and her campaign scripted up an answer to it looking to get a "moment" out of it because it was a question they could be sure they would get so they could prepare for it beforehand. You can reasonably guess many of the topics you'll get but this is a case where they were basically certain they'd get a unique, timely, personal question so of course they'd work on the answer instead of just winging it with not only zero prep but intentionally not prepping for a question they know is going to be there.

---

Sure, but even with those issues they've never been marginalized. Nobody has ever denied them a right in this country because they are Christian.

---