mwguy

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] mwguy 1 points 1 week ago

1.5% was her popular vote margin. Hardly some blowout. Maybe instead of scapegoating brown people we look at the legitimate ways in which her campaign should have been better but couldn't be because of corruption in the DNC. That corruption is correctable.

[–] mwguy 1 points 1 week ago

Marx made regular writings and letters to contemporary movements up until his death. At no point did he back down on violent, sudden revolution as the path to achieving Socialism. Marx was many things, but he wasn't anti-gun.

[–] mwguy 2 points 1 week ago

Exactly. The Primary process is about getting your policies in the platform as much as it is getting you candidate(s) the nomination. She should run, a "standard neoliberal" should run, a corporatist should run etc.... the process is allowed to be messy.

[–] mwguy 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

She also ran an incredibly poor campaign (Not completely her fault). Assuming she would have a run a Biden free open (which I'm not convinced of given how poorly she did in 2020), she would have done so by being good at campaigning and testing which messages swayed the electorate. Every winning canadite gets it.

Additionally the people you beat, give you a feel for the parts of the party that you need to bring into the coalition which you can satisfy as you build out your proposed VP and Cabinet. Think of how Obama brought in Clinton as Sec of State, Trump brought in Pence as VP to satisfy the religious right, how Biden brought in Harris etc... Harris didn't have any of that feedback and picked a pretty questionable VP as a result.

At the end of the day she lost by 1.5% of the popular vote. And I got to imagine that the whole process lost her significantly more than that.

[–] mwguy 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think it's worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.

The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn't had the revolution they'd get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.

[–] mwguy -1 points 2 months ago

Actually they stopped claiming that during the Bernie-Hillary primaries. It's part of why the candidates

[–] mwguy 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Losing the nomination would not be the end for AOC. But as a champion for the "Democratic Socialist" wind of the Democrats there's really not a better candidate to speak at the primaries and ensure that even in a primary loss the eventual winner adds parts their goals to the administrations goals.

This is why the "Christian Conservatives" always run a few candidates in the Republican party, and why they've always got a spot in the Republican party platform.

[–] mwguy 74 points 2 months ago (10 children)

She should absolutely run. I don't know if she should win the nomination, but running brings a voice to the wing of the party she represents.

Primaries are about coalition building. And to have your ideas represented by the eventual candidate you need a champion to promote them in the process.

[–] mwguy 1 points 2 months ago

The other is offensive yes.

[–] mwguy 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Militaries tend to do both this things.

[–] mwguy 9 points 3 months ago

Wasn't he openly bragging about regular use of Ketamine a few years ago?

I thought him (and the entire SV "tech bro" scene for that matter) being in drugs was an open secret?

[–] mwguy 14 points 3 months ago (9 children)

What is the fediverse chat equivalent?

3
.500 Baby (self.minnesotatwins)
 

7 Game win streak too!

 

New multi-tenant db mode to consider.

 

I tried to make an AI summary of the article but it somehow thought that Biden beat Trump in 2024 so I'm throwing that away.

This is part 1 of a ongoing 3 part series looking at the Harris campaign. Mostly based on her campaign management's recent podcast appearance(s) and statistics from the election results.

 

AI Summary thing I've been expirimenting with:


This article is a nuanced exploration of how internal polls and campaign dynamics are reported by journalists, particularly on social media platforms like Twitter. The author proposes a categorization system for levels of access to information:

  1. Level 3.1: Journalists reporting on internal polls or campaign mood without citing numbers directly.
  2. Level 3.2: Well-connected elites (e.g., politicians, strategists, donors) sharing internal polls or campaign sources within the media.
  3. Level 3.3: Random individuals on Twitter claiming to have seen internal polls.

The article highlights the potential for misinformation and spin at each level:

• Level 3.1: Journalists may repeat spin or uncritically pass along information from campaign sources, as seen in the Axios report mentioned in the article. • Level 3.2: Well-connected elites might share unverified or biased information, often without realizing it's not accurate or might be used to manipulate public opinion.

The author emphasizes that:

  1. Data beats vibes: Even if internal polls are not publicly available, data-driven reporting can provide a more objective picture of the campaign.
  2. Journalists should be cautious: Reporters should verify information, especially when it comes from well-connected elites or unverified sources.
  3. The feedback loop: As misinformation spreads through social media and elite networks, it can create a self-reinforcing narrative that becomes detached from reality.

The article also highlights the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in evaluating internal polls and campaign dynamics. By distinguishing between Level 3.1 reporting (which might be informative) and Levels 3.2 and 3.3 (where misinformation or spin is more likely to occur), readers can better navigate the complexities of electoral politics and media coverage.

 

Uuid4's Baby!

view more: next ›