Poll
Question:
Vote
Option 1: Bernard Sanders
votes: 24
Option 2: Joseph Biden
votes: 29
Option 3: This question scares me
votes: 6
durka durka
Uncle Joe.
I like them both. I think Bernie has a better chance against Trump.
I don't know them and I don't care to know them.
Biden would be part of the "dandruff right" over here. So the other guy wins by default.
[edit] Also, he's a creep.
Bernie.
Biden wouldn't be my first choice, but against Sanders he would be the only choice. Credit to Bernie for moving the Overton window, but he's just not a serious candidate for a president. Not on his own, and definitely not when you consider the impact of his candidacy on other elections that matter.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2020, 04:08:35 PM
I like them both. I think Bernie has a better chance against Trump.
I think there's a reason why Trump is pulling so hard for Bernie, and doing what he can to bring down Biden...
Because Trump has so much political savvy.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 04:22:27 PM
Because Trump has so much political savvy.
That's pretty much the only kind of savvy he has. He, or his handlers, doesn't really matter.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 04:22:27 PM
Because Trump has so much political savvy.
He has more than you'd think.
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 04:24:48 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 04:22:27 PM
Because Trump has so much political savvy.
He has more than you'd think.
The umbrella move is the signature of a 5D chess player. :yes:
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2020, 04:08:35 PM
I like them both. I think Bernie has a better chance against Trump.
I think there's a reason why Trump is pulling so hard for Bernie, and doing what he can to bring down Biden...
Or is he pretending to pull for Sanders knowing that it will hurt his chances at the nomination? This is one of those infinitely recursive questions. I don't think there's much to be gained from watching Trump. I personally think he's terrified of Sanders.
But the real reason to believe that Sanders is more likely to beat trump is that he will drive up turnout where it matters. Biden will drive it down.
Sleepy Joe, though not by a lot. I tend to agree that he'd pull the Democratic slate behind him better than someone who isn't even a Democrat.
Quote from: Maximus on March 02, 2020, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2020, 04:08:35 PM
I like them both. I think Bernie has a better chance against Trump.
I think there's a reason why Trump is pulling so hard for Bernie, and doing what he can to bring down Biden...
Or is he pretending to pull for Sanders knowing that it will hurt his chances at the nomination? This is one of those infinitely recursive questions. I don't think there's much to be gained from watching Trump. I personally think he's terrified of Sanders.
But the real reason to believe that Sanders is more likely to beat trump is that he will drive up turnout where it matters. Biden will drive it down.
Is there proof of Sanders having magical turnout powers? From what I've read on 538, that hasn't materialized.
Who do I like?
Joe seems to be the kind of guy who you'd have beers with after work. Hard working, honest, says dumb shit all the time but you forgive him because he has a heart of gold and he reminds you of better times.
Bernie is the guy you meet at a party who won't stop shouting about how the capitalists have ruined the country and even though you agree with him, somehow he still seems like a pompous ass.
Quote from: DGuller on March 02, 2020, 04:38:02 PM
Is there proof of Sanders having magical turnout powers? From what I've read on 538, that hasn't materialized.
Proof? I doubt it; he hasn't been nominated yet.
Quote from: Maximus on March 02, 2020, 04:32:45 PM
Or is he pretending to pull for Sanders knowing that it will hurt his chances at the nomination? This is one of those infinitely recursive questions. I don't think there's much to be gained from watching Trump. I personally think he's terrified of Sanders.
I stand by my statement that Trump has political savvy, but what he isn't is subtle.
For example his most recent tweet is:
QuoteThey are staging a coup against Bernie!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1234592543821705219
Trump never says a bad word about Bernie. Numerous Trump supporters were urging GOP voters in SC to vote for Bernie in the Dem primary in order to help Trump. This isn't Trump playing 3-d chess here.
Quote
But the real reason to believe that Sanders is more likely to beat trump is that he will drive up turnout where it matters. Biden will drive it down.
There's zero evidence this is true. Turnout is flat to down so far compared to 2016. Sanders is not out performing his 2016 run.
I don't think "Crazy Bernie" is meant to be flattering.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 04:55:55 PM
I don't think "Crazy Bernie" is meant to be flattering.
From last night:
QuotePete Buttigieg is OUT. All of his SuperTuesday votes will go to Sleepy Joe Biden. Great timing. This is the REAL beginning of the Dems taking Bernie out of play - NO NOMINATION, AGAIN!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1234263037110083587
QuoteSleepy Joe Biden also said that guns killed 150 million Americans last year, wants to win Georgia on Super Tuesday (not up), and got his speaking location wrong again!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1234284276239261696
QuoteDemocrats are working hard to destroy the name and reputation of Crazy Bernie Sanders, and take the nomination away from him!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1233976658572566529
Biden's best chance was in 2016. He declined to run. We saw what happened instead. The Republicans have been stockpiling ammo to use against him since he was VP. Who is honestly excited or motivated to vote by him running? He is the definition of "Boring Establishment Candidate".
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:10:00 PM
Biden's best chance was in 2016. He declined to run. We saw what happened instead. The Republicans have been stockpiling ammo to use against him since he was VP. Who is honestly excited or motivated to vote by him running? He is the definition of "Boring Establishment Candidate".
And that ammo hasn't already been spent? Joe Biden is the most vetted individual in history, having run for the nomination 3 times now, having served as VP for two terms. From being overly friendly with women, to stealing Neil Kinnock's speech in the 80s, to his son's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company... it's all out there.
It's Sanders who has been virtually untouched going through the nomination process.
He doesn't need "excited" voters - he just needs voters. And lots of people are motivated to vote for him. They're called "the middle". People tired of the clown show that is Trump, and want no part of Bernie's permanent revolution.
Ideal world?
Sanders by a country mile.
Who stands the best chance of winning thus would be my actual real world preference? Harder to say. I have seen research that suggest Sanders and he's no Corbyn. Nonetheless the socialism word in America is a worry.
It doesn't need to be real. Look at all of the garbage they threw at Hillary. She ran a more energetic campaign in my opinion and still lost to Trump. At least there were people excited to vote for Hillary. I don't know a single person who is motivated to vote for Biden out of genuine enthusiasm for his message or what he represents other than "he's not Trump". Democrats will basically murder their party's future if they hand it to him. My generation and younger generations are beyond sick of the same establishment candidates force fed to us by a party that is increasingly not responding or even acknowledging our problems, concerns, hopes, and dreams. It will solidify the Democrats as the "We're not Trump Party" with zero actual messaging or platform beyond that. There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
Politics is weird and creepy.
Biden for stability and morality.
However, even with this (at this point) ideal outcome, we'd likely have a weak caretaker president assaulted by militants on the left and right.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:30:02 PM
It doesn't need to be real. Look at all of the garbage they threw at Hillary. She ran a more energetic campaign in my opinion and still lost to Trump. At least there were people excited to vote for Hillary. I don't know a single person who is motivated to vote for Biden out of genuine enthusiasm for his message or what he represents other than "he's not Trump". Democrats will basically murder their party's future if they hand it to him. My generation and younger generations are beyond sick of the same establishment candidates force fed to us by a party that is increasingly not responding or even acknowledging our problems, concerns, hopes, and dreams. It will solidify the Democrats as the "We're not Trump Party" with zero actual messaging or platform beyond that. There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
James Carville recently commented that if there really isn't a middle anymore--no one can be convinced to vote for the other candidate through reasoned arguments--then there is not really a point to democracy and elections and we should just have a revolution.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 02, 2020, 05:33:21 PM
James Carville recently commented that if there really isn't a middle anymore--no one can be convinced to vote for the other candidate through reasoned arguments--then there is not really a point to democracy and elections and we should just have a revolution.
James Carville said something honest and on point. Consider me legitimately shocked. I'll give it a few years to see how deeply Republicans will break the system to stay in power, but if things keep trending the way they are, I don't see how things don't come down to bloodshed. You can't systematically disenfranchise the majority of voters and citizens endlessly without something eventually breaking.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:10:00 PM
Biden's best chance was in 2016. He declined to run. We saw what happened instead. The Republicans have been stockpiling ammo to use against him since he was VP. Who is honestly excited or motivated to vote by him running? He is the definition of "Boring Establishment Candidate".
Establishment, yes, boring, no. A little more boring in him would be better.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:30:02 PM
There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
Indeed, centrism is dying everywhere in the western world. Social and economic changes basically mean it's no longer a viable political position to take without it looking like you are ignoring everyone's problems. I mean, I'm not particularly radical myself, but even I don't think the resurgence of fascism and authoritarianism will be defeated by reasoned arguments and maintaining the status quo. And I'm sure the fascists also don't expect to defeat whatever they perceive as threats through regular political process (except where they can subvert it for their ends).
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:30:02 PM
It doesn't need to be real. Look at all of the garbage they threw at Hillary. She ran a more energetic campaign in my opinion and still lost to Trump. At least there were people excited to vote for Hillary. I don't know a single person who is motivated to vote for Biden out of genuine enthusiasm for his message or what he represents other than "he's not Trump". Democrats will basically murder their party's future if they hand it to him. My generation and younger generations are beyond sick of the same establishment candidates force fed to us by a party that is increasingly not responding or even acknowledging our problems, concerns, hopes, and dreams. It will solidify the Democrats as the "We're not Trump Party" with zero actual messaging or platform beyond that. There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
Where will you and the youth go?
Centerism is the position of privilege. The position where your life is not truly affected by the vast majority of policies and so you have the luxury of sitting on the fence. That island of privilege is shrinking rapidly though and the demise of the centrist platform politically is the result.
Extremism is also the position of privilege. The position where you aren't paying the price for anything, nothing actually works, but you get to virtue-signal and nail yourself to a cross and pretend that none of the dysfunctional solutions are your fault, that it's always the moderates and the extremists on the other side that are to blame.
I like Bernie, as a guy. I think that he is sincere, even though ineffective. I think he'd be no danger to the country if elected, because he doesn't have any power base and wouldn't let himself be used as a tool of the vested interests.
I loathe every one of his followers that I have met personally, though. They are self-righteous to an obnoxious extent and think that they and their messiah are the only moral people in the country. That's the definition of "the position of privilege."
Quote from: garbon on March 02, 2020, 06:15:51 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:30:02 PM
It doesn't need to be real. Look at all of the garbage they threw at Hillary. She ran a more energetic campaign in my opinion and still lost to Trump. At least there were people excited to vote for Hillary. I don't know a single person who is motivated to vote for Biden out of genuine enthusiasm for his message or what he represents other than "he's not Trump". Democrats will basically murder their party's future if they hand it to him. My generation and younger generations are beyond sick of the same establishment candidates force fed to us by a party that is increasingly not responding or even acknowledging our problems, concerns, hopes, and dreams. It will solidify the Democrats as the "We're not Trump Party" with zero actual messaging or platform beyond that. There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
Where will you and the youth go?
Home.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 06:42:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 02, 2020, 06:15:51 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:30:02 PM
It doesn't need to be real. Look at all of the garbage they threw at Hillary. She ran a more energetic campaign in my opinion and still lost to Trump. At least there were people excited to vote for Hillary. I don't know a single person who is motivated to vote for Biden out of genuine enthusiasm for his message or what he represents other than "he's not Trump". Democrats will basically murder their party's future if they hand it to him. My generation and younger generations are beyond sick of the same establishment candidates force fed to us by a party that is increasingly not responding or even acknowledging our problems, concerns, hopes, and dreams. It will solidify the Democrats as the "We're not Trump Party" with zero actual messaging or platform beyond that. There is no "middle" voter anymore. Everyone has a firm enough position on Trump at this point. They also have a firm enough understanding of the alternatives.
Where will you and the youth go?
Home.
Sure, I guess if they want more Trump.
Biden. Say no to socialism.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 05:10:00 PM
Biden's best chance was in 2016. He declined to run. We saw what happened instead. The Republicans have been stockpiling ammo to use against him since 1987. Who is honestly excited or motivated to vote by him running? He is the definition of "Boring Establishment Candidate".
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Monoriu
Biden. Say no to socialism.
You pick NOW to state a political position?
Quote from: Maximus on March 02, 2020, 04:32:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 02, 2020, 04:08:35 PM
I like them both. I think Bernie has a better chance against Trump.
I think there's a reason why Trump is pulling so hard for Bernie, and doing what he can to bring down Biden...
Or is he pretending to pull for Sanders knowing that it will hurt his chances at the nomination? This is one of those infinitely recursive questions. I don't think there's much to be gained from watching Trump. I personally think he's terrified of Sanders.
But the real reason to believe that Sanders is more likely to beat trump is that he will drive up turnout where it matters. Biden will drive it down.
Oh, and Trump trying to get Biden's son jailed is just him trying to get keep Sanders off the ballot.
You do have a point about turn out. It's what Bernie Bros are threatening. Nominate Sanders or we will stay home.
Quote from: dps on March 02, 2020, 07:10:13 PM
You pick NOW to state a political position?
I have been saying that for years. But it is also my belief that nobody should vote or stand in elections.
Biden. Bernie is a DINO.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 02, 2020, 08:05:39 PM
Biden. Bernie is a DINO.
But he's not a Democrat in name only. He's not a Democrat at all. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 08:10:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 02, 2020, 08:05:39 PM
Biden. Bernie is a DINO.
But he's not a Democrat in name only. He's not a Democrat at all. :mellow:
I will agree, but it annoys the Bernie Bubba's.
He's a social democrat, which is even better.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 08:21:03 PM
He's a social democrat, which is even better.
His crew is in the same wheelhouse as the crazy right.
No u.
Biden isn't in my top 2 no matter how big the field is.
He was my fourth pick on Caucus day.
He's my 4th pick now.
Warren-->Sanders---------------------------------------------------------->Tulsi->Biden--------->Bloomberg
You'd vote for a woman who is angling for a job at Fox News before you'd vote Biden?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2020, 08:21:03 PM
He's a social democrat, which is even better.
He claims that he's not - that he is, instead, a democratic socialist.
I'd also prefer Warren to either, but that's not one of the choices.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2020, 09:17:57 PM
You'd vote for a woman who is angling for a job at Fox News before you'd vote Biden?
Correct. Its a close run thing, but at least she isn't in the early stages of senility and dementia. I suppose if Biden put Warren or someone else I really liked as a running mate he'd move up. Regardless, whomever ends up with the nod I prefer dramatically over Trump if only on a harm reduction level.
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2020, 05:19:12 PMAnd that ammo hasn't already been spent? Joe Biden is the most vetted individual in history, having run for the nomination 3 times now, having served as VP for two terms. From being overly friendly with women, to stealing Neil Kinnock's speech in the 80s, to his son's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company... it's all out there.
What bit of this wasn't also said about Clinton? I think it's very naive and ignores the last four years and the last election if you think it's done - Biden's been vetted and we won't hear constantly about Ukraine from Trump and other Republicans, and that the media won't cover it in the same sort of way they covered Hilary's emails.
This is the biggest reason I think Biden's a risk. It is like Clinton, it's very easy for Trump to point at Biden and say "they're all corrupt, at least I'm honest and I'm on your side". I think you need a candidate who is clearly different and perceived as different from Trump and I'm not sure that's Biden.
QuoteHe doesn't need "excited" voters - he just needs voters. And lots of people are motivated to vote for him. They're called "the middle". People tired of the clown show that is Trump, and want no part of Bernie's permanent revolution.
Yeah that's fine (though again it reminds me of 2016) - what do you think Biden's map is?
I can see how Bernie works (though it would hurt the Democrats running for the Senate etc), because I think there is a route to winning for Bernie that runs through winning back the rust-belt. I think the route that involves people who are tired of the clown show is more like where the Democrats did well in 2018 - so it's in the suburbs and is riskier because some of those states are more traditionally purple than the rust-belt. But I'm not sure Biden's a particularly good candidate for those voters and I think he'll focus on the rust-belt because that's his image of himself.
I also think relying on voters being tired of Trump is a dangerous assumption and one every candidate made in 2016.
QuoteI stand by my statement that Trump has political savvy, but what he isn't is subtle.
I slightly disagree. I think Trump did this in 2016 and if Bernie wins he'll do something similar. I'm sure you're right that he things Sanders is the weaker candidate (just like I imagine Democrats cheered when they realised they'd be up against Trump). But I think what Trump is doing is more about discouraging Sanders voters from turning out in November and if he wins he'll have similar lines aimed at Bernie supporters.
He also spent 2016 saying the DNC were stealing it from Bernie, that there was a coup. I think he'll do the same this time round. He did it in October too about how there were improprieties in Democratic states - letting millions of illegal immigrants vote - I think he'll do that again too.
QuoteI like Bernie, as a guy. I think that he is sincere, even though ineffective. I think he'd be no danger to the country if elected, because he doesn't have any power base and wouldn't let himself be used as a tool of the vested interests.
I loathe every one of his followers that I have met personally, though. They are self-righteous to an obnoxious extent and think that they and their messiah are the only moral people in the country. That's the definition of "the position of privilege."
Bernie isn't Corbyn, but his support and movement reminds me a lot of Corbynism.
I will be very pleasantly surprised by the American public if either of them defeats Trump.
Sanders takes good ideas to uncomfortable extremes, and Biden tries to appear as a reasonable man, which is repulsive to today's sensibilities.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on March 02, 2020, 10:10:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 02, 2020, 09:17:57 PM
You'd vote for a woman who is angling for a job at Fox News before you'd vote Biden?
Correct. Its a close run thing, but at least she isn't in the early stages of senility and dementia. I suppose if Biden put Warren or someone else I really liked as a running mate he'd move up. Regardless, whomever ends up with the nod I prefer dramatically over Trump if only on a harm reduction level.
Ah, so you'd rather have someone who intends to harm us over someone who may do so because they are senile.
Many in my family who have been huge Dem participants and insiders called me for the NV caucus to see if I'd go vote for Bloomberg. Is there a Durbin wing of the party? That would accurately describe them. My cousin got a lawyer when Blago got out of jail.
Sanders
I haven't followed the race that closely, but my pick would be Warren. Given that she's not a viable option, I find myself closer to Sanders, but his electability in the US gives me pause. So I'm a bit torn, but went with Sanders.
Quote from: celedhring on March 03, 2020, 05:23:51 AM
I haven't followed the race that closely, but my pick would be Warren. Given that she's not a viable option, I find myself closer to Sanders, but his electability in the US gives me pause. So I'm a bit torn, but went with Sanders.
He doesn't sound electable, but a lukewarm middle-of-the-road guy will put people to sleep nowadays, so Biden won't win either.
It'll be a Trump re-election followed by an Ivanka presidency.
Well, yeah. This is all sort of pointless. So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
I've already seen the first story about someone who's been hit by medical fees getting checked for coronavirus.
And the Trump Health Secretary has not guaranteed that any treatment/immunisation will be universally available as private companies need to be incentivised to do research.
I think this virus does highlight the need for robust labour laws - such as sick pay - and some form of universal healthcare. Or you'll have people who should be off sick, getting treatment if necessary spreading it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
Well, yeah. This is all sort of pointless. So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.
Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.
Look, this isn't rocket science. Either man is a risk in the general election. Nominate Bernie, and the risk is that moderate voters and black voters don't turn out--and the Democrats can't win a Presidential election without a high turnout in those two groups. OTOH, if the Democrats nominate anyone but Bernie, the Bernie Bros won't turn out--and since the Bernie Bros seem to be about 30-35% of Democratic votes now, the party probably can't win the White House without them, either.
But that's the downside for the Democrats. There's an upside with both candidates, as well. If Bernie is the nominee, there's a chance that the party establishment will be able to get enough of the traditional Democratic voters to turn out to beat Trump, despite their reservations about/dislike for Bernie and some of his positions. With Biden, the upside is that enough of the Bernie Bros will realize that it's better to turn out to vote against Trump than to stay home and sulk because their guy doesn't have the support of the majority of Democratic voters.
This dynamic hasn't changed since it became apparent that both Bernie and Biden were going to run in 2016. And it has virtually nothing to do with what Trump might or might not do.
FWIW, I think Bernie would be the riskier choice for the Democrats because he probably has the potential to cost the party Senate and House seats as well as the Presidency, and the potential for him being completely whipped by Trump is higher. Biden, one way or the other, is probably going to get about as much of the popular vote as Hillary did in 2016, and the hope is that the votes will be distributed a bit more favorably for him, letting him pick up some of the states Hillary lost by narrow margins. His downside in the Electoral College is pretty much what Hillary actually did in 2016--232 votes (not taking into consideration that there were a few faithless electors). His upside is probably about the 332 EC votes that Obama got in 2012.
Bernie, OTOH, probably has a slightly higher upside--I'm guessing about 367 EC votes. His downside, though, is horrible for the Democrats. I've seen some people suggest 1972 George McGovern or 1984 Walter Mondale levels in the Electoral College (that would be just 17 or 13 votes). I don't think he could possibly do that badly, but I can easily see him getting significantly fewer EC votes than Clinton in 2016.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 07:19:01 AMLook, this isn't rocket science. Either man is a risk in the general election. Nominate Bernie, and the risk is that moderate voters and black voters don't turn out--and the Democrats can't win a Presidential election without a high turnout in those two groups. OTOH, if the Democrats nominate anyone but Bernie, the Bernie Bros won't turn out--and since the Bernie Bros seem to be about 30-35% of Democratic votes now, the party probably can't win the White House without them, either.
Yeah the risk is Bernie blows up the party either way.
Imagine if Bloomie hadn't gone on that debate stage, he'd probably be polling in second place now. :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
:yes:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2020, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
:yes:
You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you? I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).
If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it. Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 07:19:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
Well, yeah. This is all sort of pointless. So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.
Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.
Well not the DoJ but the FBI certainly was a significant factor. The DoJ will just make it easier, and I think Trump has already checked that Barr is personally loyal to Trump.
Quote from: frunk on March 03, 2020, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 07:19:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
Well, yeah. This is all sort of pointless. So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.
Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.
Well not the DoJ but the FBI certainly was a significant factor. The DoJ will just make it easier, and I think Trump has already checked that Barr is personally loyal to Trump.
You do remember that Trump wasn't President, and therefore not in charge of the DoJ or FBI during the 2016 election, right?
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2020, 06:40:16 PM
Extremism is also the position of privilege. The position where you aren't paying the price for anything, nothing actually works, but you get to virtue-signal and nail yourself to a cross and pretend that none of the dysfunctional solutions are your fault, that it's always the moderates and the extremists on the other side that are to blame.
I like Bernie, as a guy. I think that he is sincere, even though ineffective. I think he'd be no danger to the country if elected, because he doesn't have any power base and wouldn't let himself be used as a tool of the vested interests.
I loathe every one of his followers that I have met personally, though. They are self-righteous to an obnoxious extent and think that they and their messiah are the only moral people in the country. That's the definition of "the position of privilege."
Indeed.
the Bernie Bros, meaning the annoying fucking dbags, are almost all universally white male middle class assholes.
Again, I am sure most Bernie followers are fine, and you don't notice them because they are just like people who prefer Biden, or Warren, and don't go around screeching about how their candidate is getting screwed if they don't win, or if they don't win ENOUGH.
But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2020, 08:28:08 AM
But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?
Well, that narrative is already written--Trump used the DoJ to steal the election by doing, well we aren't sure what, but we can be sure it was tricky and illegal!
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 08:39:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2020, 08:28:08 AM
But Jesus, the vocal wing is absolutely insufferable. If Sanders gets the nomination, and loses to Trump, I wonder what they will blame THAT on?
Well, that narrative is already written--Trump used the DoJ to steal the election by doing, well we aren't sure what, but we can be sure it was tricky and illegal!
Did you really forget the emails?
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 08:13:59 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2020, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
:yes:
You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you? I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).
If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it. Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.
That's good, but there's many who have high deductible insurance or large copays after any serious hospital visit (not to mention lost pay from no paid sick leave). Personally, my insurance is pretty awesome: I only pay $20 on doctor visits and everything else is fully covered, but not everyone has that.
WaPo article that I wanted to post last night, but I couldn't find it until this morning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/worries-about-medical-bills-and-lost-pay-may-hamper-coronavirus-efforts-in-the-united-states/2020/03/02/75825be0-5c9c-11ea-9055-5fa12981bbbf_story.html
Out of those two? Sanders I guess. I think he would energize the rust belt working class and help up win those critical states.
But utlimately if I cannot have Andrew Yang then I just want somebody who will win.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2020, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
I've already seen the first story about someone who's been hit by medical fees getting checked for coronavirus.
And the Trump Health Secretary has not guaranteed that any treatment/immunisation will be universally available as private companies need to be incentivised to do research.
I think this virus does highlight the need for robust labour laws - such as sick pay - and some form of universal healthcare. Or you'll have people who should be off sick, getting treatment if necessary spreading it.
Yeah, having universal health care, besides being the right thing to do, is also self-serving: you don't want sick people spreading around diseases because they can't afford health care. Having pockets of uncovered people is dangerous for the population as a whole.
I guess we will see how good universal healthcare systems are at dealing with the virus. -_-
So far so good :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 03, 2020, 11:44:27 AM
So far so good :)
Yeah not sure how that determination can be made at this time.
If people aren't getting tested in the US because of the expense or because of a refusal to test, then our numbers will look pretty good!
If the CDC doesn't even publish the numbers, then we'll look even better!
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 08:13:59 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2020, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
:yes:
You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you? I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).
If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it. Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.
I almost died from diabetes because I hadn't been diagnosed or been to the doctor in several years.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 08:13:59 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 03, 2020, 08:05:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 03, 2020, 05:39:23 AM
You know what, actually, it should be Sanders running against Trump. If the Coronavirus epidemic becomes bad enough there because poor people simply don't have the money to be checked, and things go to shit, that will be as powerful an argument for a civilised healthcare system suggested by Sanders as any the US is ever likely to receive.
:yes:
You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you? I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).
If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it. Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.
Well I was having some chest pains and high blood pressure issues when I was in engineering school so I went to get tested to make sure I wasn't developing some kind of heart condition. I got tested and everything was fine but I got billed for $1,800 dollars of which my health insurance paid for 800 of it (and it was not the only bill I got...). So I, who was currently not working to finish my degree and had taken out loans to get me through had a bill I couldn't pay just to go make sure nothing was wrong, I was not even treated for anything! And I had health insurance. But I don't know what your household income is, but I am glad you can afford those kinds of charges just to get checked out.
Well then just last year my doctor sent me to get some blood tests done and we both assumed my insurance would cover it. My insurance decided it had far better medical knowledge than my doctor did and decided I shouldn't have gotten that blood test and made me pay $500 for it. Again in neither case was I actually sick or getting treated for anything it is just all preventitive shit that I get such big charges for.
And last year I paid thousands for my kids health care and again, I have insurance. Pretty good insurance. So I don't know what you are talking about, but my experience of health care in the United States is that it is really expensive to do anything...or rather to do nothing but just get tested for stuff.
Vote Sanders, you fools.
Sometimes I have thought I should just go to my insurance company instead of my doctor for treatment. They might as well tell me what sorts of tests and treatments I should be getting before they refuse to cover them :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
To watch him fail to implement his signature policy?
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2020, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
To watch him fail to implement his signature policy?
The logic that Sanders supporters have explained to me is that they understand none of his policies will get passed as he wants them, but a compromised position is probably going to be better than they would get from somebody less radical. I don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 01:18:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 03, 2020, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
To watch him fail to implement his signature policy?
The logic that Sanders supporters have explained to me is that they understand none of his policies will get passed as he wants them, but a compromised position is probably going to be better than they would get from somebody less radical. I don't know.
Which seems odd given he already got dialogue on healthcare shifted (at least during primary). Not sure how much further he can shift the conversation as president on that topic - with what not native base of congressional support in congress...bar AOC and those like minded?
There is merit in not starting out negotiating with yourself. That said, there is also merit in knowing what you're voting for, and when the candidate is widely believed to be full of shit, you don't get that.
One of the other things I don't like about Sanders is he seems very comfortable with some of Trump's tricks, like attacking the media (he refused to answer a question posed by the Washington Post the other day), or refusing to release medical records (which would seem to be important information for someone who recently suffered a heart attack).
I don't think Obama took essential economic reform seriously enough, and that passes onto his Vice President. I early voted for Klobuchar but I'll support Sanders.
Ultimately my position is:
1. The Democrats better support whomever wins the plurality of the votes, to not do so would be disastrous in the current paranoid anti-establishment atmosphere. The narrative of the crooked Democrats would be hard to shrug off.
2. Even if they screw the first part up I will support the nominee with my money and time despite the fact I do not have a ton of confidence in the likely winners.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 02:02:18 PM
Ultimately my position is:
1. The Democrats better support whomever wins the plurality of the votes, to not do so would be disastrous in the current paranoid anti-establishment atmosphere. The narrative of the crooked Democrats would be hard to shrug off.
It depends on how it all shapes up - but why? If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.
In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner. You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 01:18:54 PM
The logic that Sanders supporters have explained to me is that they understand none of his policies will get passed as he wants them, but a compromised position is probably going to be better than they would get from somebody less radical. I don't know.
The question is not what is the best negotiating position to start from. The question is - if one starts with the employer-based health care system we have - what is the most likely path to getting to the end result of a proper universal system. ACA was never intended to be an endpoint. ACA- with the public option that was removed in the negotiations before passage - was hoped to be the beginning of a ultimate transition to true universal care.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:07:36 PM
It depends on how it all shapes up - but why? If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.
In every single federal election in the US, and in Canada for that matter, the person with the most votes wins (well ok on a state by state basis in the Presidential election, since it is really 50 small elections but still...). If you start rationalizing around that people will be very pissed off. But there is one exception:
QuoteIn particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner.
If the margin is just a few delegates then maybe, if there is essentially a tie. But this is why: Because if you select the person with fewer votes it looks anti-democratic and corrupt and feeds the Trumpian narrative that the Democratic party is a corrupt league of elitists who are the enemy of the common people. I mean hell it feeds that narrative already present inside the party itself. It makes it harder to win in the general election.
QuoteYou should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.
If that needs to happen to get the person with the most votes to win then sure.
I am just interested in winning this election and having the democratic party collapse into chaos right as we are selecting our candidate seems like a bad strategy to me.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:07:36 PM
It depends on how it all shapes up - but why? If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.
In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner. You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.
I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2020, 02:30:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:07:36 PM
It depends on how it all shapes up - but why? If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.
In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner. You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.
I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.
Yeah I am just saying it would be politically disastrous, not that the Democrats would be breaking any rules.
If they do decide to do this, they better have a well thought out and iron-clad strategy on how to deal with the implications.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2020, 02:30:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:07:36 PM
It depends on how it all shapes up - but why? If you don't have a majority, you haven't won.
In particular if the margin is relatively small, why do you have the right to be declared the winner. You should have to negotiate with the other candidates and earn the votes of their delegates.
I think that's one of those things that's technically right, but politically an issue. I think it would smack of unfairness.
Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President. Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.
I think the margin of victory matters though.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:35:41 PM
Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President. Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.
I think the margin of victory matters though.
He won the electoral college - I've got issues with it but that's the system.
My view is whoever wins the most delegates should be the nominee - unless it's very narrow and there's a split, in that case I could see an argument that it's better to favour the popular vote (but that's effectively favouring primaries v caucuses). Anything else looks unfair and like a stitch-up - votes should matter.
If Sanders lost because of that I don't know if he would complain about unfairness - though his supporters might. Last time Sanders was a loyal soldier and did more campaign events for Hilary than she did in 2008 for Obama. I imagine he'd do the same again though there might be frustration. But I think if that happens Trump would be the one making it resonate - Democrats cheating their own supporters etc etc. And he'd probably link it into the inevitable victimhood narrative of how they'll do anything to try and beat him - I fully expect him to be accusing the Democrats of trying to rig the election, just like he was hinting in 2016.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:35:41 PM
Trump didn't win the most votes yet is still President. Someone (Sanders) may well complain about unfairness, but I'm not sure how far it would resonate.
I think the margin of victory matters though.
He won the most electoral votes by winning the state elections. Exactly like winning delegates in a Primary.
I do think, despite your claims, that there is anger about the electoral college and it does resonate and its existance does damage our democratic institutions. So why double down on that?
Because votes matter.
If Bernie fails to get to a majority, Biden is close behind him, and remaining delegates are pledged to candidates who have now thrown their support to Biden, why should the will of the majority who didn't want Bernie be swamped by the plurality who did?
There is a difference between winning the presidency with a minority of voters but in the electoral college and winning a nomination with a minority of voters / delegates.
For starters, the presidency is the prize, so to a certain extent it doesn't matter how you win so long as you win. Trump (and previously Bush) opponents may regard the process as a travesty but Trump is still president. The nomination is just one step toward getting the prize - the presidency. If Sanders supporters are furious about the process, they may not join the broader coalition to get the democrat in the white house.
Also, while there is significant precedent for the electoral college, there is not for contested conventions under modern rules. The parties pay lip service (maybe more than lip service) to democratic ideals, and the rules were shifted to reflect that, but you still have super delegates and the processes don't really align themselves to easy analysis of democratic intent. Suppose that Biden gets a plurality of votes cast but Bernie a plurality of delegates (because caucuses have less voters, and Bernie does better there). Who should be the nominee? Ultimately if it is close I assume the losing side could accept a loss and an outreach would occur to bring the party together (such as Biden making Bernie the VP). But if Bernie has a clear lead under any measure and the super delegates come in to favor Biden, all hell could break lose.
Moving toward two candidates does seem to reduce the risk, however.
Parties should be free to resolve their own issues they way the see fit. Democracy applies to elections, not to how parties function. If the candidate is a controlling asshole boss to his workers, is that also a failure to adhere to democratic ideals?
The problem is that we just have two parties by system's design, so the organizational party matters are everyone's business. Ideally if you don't like what the party is offering you in the voting booth, you just vote for another one that in some way represents your interests or values.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:49:48 PM
Because votes matter.
If Bernie fails to get to a majority, Biden is close behind him, and remaining delegates are pledged to candidates who have now thrown their support to Biden, why should the will of the majority who didn't want Bernie be swamped by the plurality who did?
But there's a leap there from voting for another candidate to not wanting Sanders - he could be their second choice, they may just really like their other candidate or whatever else. Voters are messy, look at the Buttigieg voters, how many people here would have thought more Buttigeig supporters back Bernie + Warren v Biden + Bloomberg?
I think the cleaner, fairer route is whoever gets the plurality wins. The only exception, possibly, is if it's super narrow and one candidate won on delegates and one won in votes because I think you have two slightly competing sources of legitimacy there. But even then it should be between those candidates only.
As I say, I think it should apply whoever gets the most delegates.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
"Fools". Yeah, that sounds like Sanders voters to me.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 03, 2020, 02:57:23 PM
Trump (and previously Bush) opponents may regard the process as a travesty but Trump is still president.
The Bush process was more of a travesty, considering that Bush was elected by 1 vote...Rehnquist's.
Quote from: dps
You guys really have no idea how health care in the US actually works, do you? I can understand how Tamas would be confused about it, but HMB should know better (assuming that I'm remembering it correctly that HMB is an American).
If I went by what a lot of the media says about the US health care system or what many internet posters say, I would never have been to a doctor in my adult life, because I would have just assumed that I couldn't afford it. Well, guess what, I can afford health care and doctor's visits, even though I probably have one of the lowest household incomes of any poster here.
You're lucky then.
I have two sons with full-time jobs and no health insurance because they're 26. If either of them gets this virus and gets sick, they're screwed.
Neither gets paid time off, either. And they work in the service industries. So if they get sick, they'll probably still go to work.
Count your blessings, dps, because these guys aren't far off from a hell of a lot of younger Americans.
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2020, 02:49:48 PM
Because votes matter.
If Bernie fails to get to a majority, Biden is close behind him, and remaining delegates are pledged to candidates who have now thrown their support to Biden, why should the will of the majority who didn't want Bernie be swamped by the plurality who did?
You are presenting one scenario as if it is the only outcome. I already conceded it might work if it is effectively a tie.
But I am sorry I care about this fucking country and I am not interested in having its institutions destroyed. Having a candidate with the most votes, especially if it is a wide margin, by denied would be a disaster in this current atmoshere.. I am not sure why you are so intent on spinning this any other way.
I mean if this system was put in place in the Ridings in Canada your party would lose almost every election. Why shouldn't the will of the majority who didn't vote for the Conservative Party not get the seat? Obviously the other parties should get together and decide the NDP or Liberals should get it, because clearly that was what the voters wanted really the party who finished in second place to win. Seems fair.
If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 02:26:40 PM
In every single federal election in the US, and in Canada for that matter, the person with the most votes wins (well ok on a state by state basis in the Presidential election, since it is really 50 small elections but still...). If you start rationalizing around that people will be very pissed off.
Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US. And the person with the most votes doesn't win. And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College. I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality. If no candidate wins a majority in the EC, then the House of Representatives choose the President from the top 3 finishers in the Electoral College. Of course, this has only come into play once, in 1824.
The sticking point is that we're used to first past the post voting in the US, where you just have to gain a plurality of the votes to win. But a Presidential nominating convention, where you need to have an actual majority, is, like the Electoral College, one of the few exceptions.
Of course, the mandate that a candidate has to have a majority in the EC to be elected comes from the Constitution. The requirement that a candidate have a majority at a convention in order to secure the Presidential nomination does not come from the Constitution, but from party rules. The parties could save themselves any potential problems simply by doing away with the requirement of having a majority in order to get the nomination, and allow the conventions to pick the nominee using a fptp system. I can think of a few problems that could cause, though.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 04:43:49 PM
Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US. And the person with the most votes doesn't win. And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College. I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.
Not true. To win the Electoral Votes from a state you just need the most votes, not the majority of votes.
QuoteOf course, the mandate that a candidate has to have a majority in the EC to be elected comes from the Constitution. The requirement that a candidate have a majority at a convention in order to secure the Presidential nomination does not come from the Constitution, but from party rules. The parties could save themselves any potential problems simply by doing away with the requirement of having a majority in order to get the nomination, and allow the conventions to pick the nominee using a fptp system. I can think of a few problems that could cause, though.
I mean I understand the rules. I am addressing this from a strategic and political point of view. The Republicans once stole the Primary from Roosevelt despite him having won almost every Primary, because most states did not have primaries. We all know how much damage that did to the Republican Party.
So could the Democrats, by their own rules, nominate the candidate who got fewer votes? Sure. Of course they could. But should they? No. That is all I am saying. Now I understand that that is not strictly how the process is designed, I understand that the candidate is not entitled the nomination just because they won the plurality of votes. I am just saying that to do otherwise would be a very very bad idea. You might as well just paint the White House Red and put an elephant in the front yard if they do that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
I don't think replacing one cult of personality with another is much of an improvement.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2020, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
I don't think replacing one cult of personality with another is much of an improvement.
Obama was a cult of personality. Cults of personality are not all the same.
Besides there are people who are left wing who actually support Sanders because they agree with his policies, there are many other leftwing candidates allied with Sanders that they support. This is not some Sanders cult and it will continue on long after he leaves politics...which could be very soon. But him leaving will not change much. There will be plenty of others to pick up his banner.
I'm not so sure.
As I say I don't think Sanders is anything like Corbyn. The movement around him reminds me a lot of Corbynism though, which I'm not sure is an enduring political movement (though parts of it are) or just a cult of the magic grandpa.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2020, 05:03:52 PM
I'm not so sure.
As I say I don't think Sanders is anything like Corbyn. The movement around him reminds me a lot of Corbynism though, which I'm not sure is an enduring political movement (though parts of it are) or just a cult of the magic grandpa.
I mean that would be fine with me, but we already have people like AOC out there.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 04:32:03 PM
If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.
That is exactly what a multi-round convention is intended to create!
Yeah - she's incredible.
And maybe there'll be more or less total overlap, and she can pick up Bernie's support. But I do think there is something to the Bernie bro point about some of his support and wonder if some of it'll possibly evaporate if a woman's in charge.
Again it's another comparison with Corbynism which was often very laddish and Corbynish events were often not a pleasant atmosphere if you weren't a young straight white man.
Quote from: Berkut on March 03, 2020, 05:19:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 04:32:03 PM
If we want a system where the person with the most votes doesn't win, at least have ranked choice voting or some way for the voters to weigh in again.
That is exactly what a multi-round convention is intended to create!
Well I don't see that others see it that way.
I mean I am voting, campaigning, and funding whomever wins. I am just very concerned about splitting the party on the eve of a huge election and handing a propaganda win to Trump. This election is lokely to be very close anyway.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 03, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
But there's a leap there from voting for another candidate to not wanting Sanders - he could be their second choice, they may just really like their other candidate or whatever else. Voters are messy, look at the Buttigieg voters, how many people here would have thought more Buttigeig supporters back Bernie + Warren v Biden + Bloomberg?
Not a huge surprise if you assume that Buttigieg voters = white and college educated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2020, 03:59:29 PM
durka durka
Biden will not wreck America's economy and he's not an isolationist. Plus, he's not Putin's favorite candidate. 3 points for him. From a foreigner's point of view.
I'm a little surprised we still have 47 posters.
You lurkers suck.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 04:49:59 PM
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 04:43:49 PM
Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US. And the person with the most votes doesn't win. And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College. I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.
Not true. To win the Electoral Votes from a state you just need the most votes, not the majority of votes.
Re-read my post. I wasn't talking about winning a state. I'm talking about winning the Elector College vote itself. You have to get a majority of the EC votes to be elected President; a plurality isn't enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2020, 05:55:26 PM
I'm a little surprised we still have 47 posters.
You lurkers suck.
I'd like to know who the 4 secret Trumpers are. :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 04:56:58 PM
Obama was a cult of personality.
That's some good quality bullshit right there. :rolleyes:
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 03, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Vote Sanders, you fools.
"Fools". Yeah, that sounds like Sanders voters to me.
Sounds like everyone else to me. Greedy fools. I have no illusion, you are top 2 behind DerHitler around here.
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 06:20:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 04:49:59 PM
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 04:43:49 PM
Well, technically, you could say that there is only 1 federal election in the US. And the person with the most votes doesn't win. And I'm not talking about a situation such as in 2000 or 2016 in which a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College. I'm talking about the fact that to win the Presidency, you have to get a majority, not just a plurality.
Not true. To win the Electoral Votes from a state you just need the most votes, not the majority of votes.
Re-read my post. I wasn't talking about winning a state. I'm talking about winning the Elector College vote itself. You have to get a majority of the EC votes to be elected President; a plurality isn't enough.
I know. But this is a factor that has not been an issue since 1824 while Presidential candidates winning Electoral Votes without a majority in a state happens all the time. So until it happens again it is not really a political issues.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2020, 06:23:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2020, 05:55:26 PM
I'm a little surprised we still have 47 posters.
You lurkers suck.
I'd like to know who the 4 secret Trumpers are. :ph34r:
It's not clear that the 4 people who voted "This question scares me" are Trump supporters. They might be scared because they think neither Bernie nor Biden can beat Trump in November.
In a totally unscientific poll on Facebook, one of the political pages I'm on asked who people were planning to vote for. Most of the 750 people who commented said either Warren first and Biden second, or Biden first and Warren second. Very few say Bernie, and most of those were men.
Again, totally unscientific, but interesting.
Quote from: merithyn on March 03, 2020, 09:17:52 PM
In a totally unscientific poll on Facebook, one of the political pages I'm on asked who people were planning to vote for. Most of the 750 people who commented said either Warren first and Biden second, or Biden first and Warren second. Very few say Bernie, and most of those were men.
Again, totally unscientific, but interesting.
Most of the Bernie supporters I know are women. So there you go.
Is that also interesting?
I like both of them. :) So I'm pretty happy with tonight's results. I can't make up my mind which of them is the better one to beat Trump, and my main priority is getting that piece of shit out of the White House.
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 09:24:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 03, 2020, 09:17:52 PM
In a totally unscientific poll on Facebook, one of the political pages I'm on asked who people were planning to vote for. Most of the 750 people who commented said either Warren first and Biden second, or Biden first and Warren second. Very few say Bernie, and most of those were men.
Again, totally unscientific, but interesting.
Most of the Bernie supporters I know are women. So there you go.
Is that also interesting?
It is to me, so thanks for sharing. :)
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
It is a little early to be hitting the sauce.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
Jesus F Christ, Tyr.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
:yes:
BIDEN
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 16% 16% 0
New Hampshire 8% 8% 0
Nevada 18% 17% 1
South Carolina 48% 49% -1
SANDERS
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 26% 20% 6
New Hampshire 31% 23% 8
Nevada 38% 30% 8
South Carolina 24% 17% 7
Bernie's exit polls from the earlier states seem to suggest a different dynamic (at least among voters)
Pulled from here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/#265509
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 05:54:16 AM
BIDEN
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 16% 16% 0
New Hampshire 8% 8% 0
Nevada 18% 17% 1
South Carolina 48% 49% -1
SANDERS
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 26% 20% 6
New Hampshire 31% 23% 8
Nevada 38% 30% 8
South Carolina 24% 17% 7
Bernie's exit polls from the earlier states seem to suggest a different dynamic (at least among voters)
Pulled from here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/#265509
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 03:57:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
It is a little early to be hitting the sauce.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
I've seen cases where anecdotal evidence explains the outcomes better than facts.
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 07:17:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
I've seen cases where anecdotal evidence explains the outcomes better than facts.
Well my anecdotal evidence goes straight against this one.
Not to mention how archaic and misogynistic the whole "ladies are nice and caring and fluffy, and men are forceful and uncaring" stance is. Besides being pretty wrong.
Humans are from Uranus.
Quote from: Tamas on March 04, 2020, 07:43:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 07:17:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
I've seen cases where anecdotal evidence explains the outcomes better than facts.
Well my anecdotal evidence goes straight against this one.
Not to mention how archaic and misogynistic the whole "ladies are nice and caring and fluffy, and men are forceful and uncaring" stance is. Besides being pretty wrong.
I'd say its less down to caring and more down to thinking in more than one dimension.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 07:53:14 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 04, 2020, 07:43:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 07:17:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
I've seen cases where anecdotal evidence explains the outcomes better than facts.
Well my anecdotal evidence goes straight against this one.
Not to mention how archaic and misogynistic the whole "ladies are nice and caring and fluffy, and men are forceful and uncaring" stance is. Besides being pretty wrong.
I'd say its less down to caring and more down to thinking in more than one dimension.
MUCH better.
Quote from: The Brain on March 04, 2020, 07:48:53 AM
Humans are from Uranus.
That does explain how shitty they are.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 06:40:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 03:57:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
It is a little early to be hitting the sauce.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
Are you changing your contention to young women are more likely to support socialist candidates than young men?
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 05:54:16 AM
BIDEN
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 16% 16% 0
New Hampshire 8% 8% 0
Nevada 18% 17% 1
South Carolina 48% 49% -1
SANDERS
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 26% 20% 6
New Hampshire 31% 23% 8
Nevada 38% 30% 8
South Carolina 24% 17% 7
Bernie's exit polls from the earlier states seem to suggest a different dynamic (at least among voters)
Pulled from here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/#265509
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
Now, now, it depends on whether he was replying to Meri or to Tyr. If it was Meri, yes, then he was using facts to undermine anecdotal evidence. If it was Tyr, then he was using facts to undermine inane delusions. Quite a different thing.
There's nothing inane about it. It's a pretty interesting divide.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 08:15:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 06:40:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 03:57:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
It is a little early to be hitting the sauce.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
Are you changing your contention to young women are more likely to support socialist candidates than young men?
No?
The data there lines up with what was said. More women voting left than men.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 10:12:12 AM
There's nothing inane about it. It's a pretty interesting divide.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 08:15:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 06:40:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 03:57:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 03:19:17 AM
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
If men didn't have the vote then the whole brexit mess could have been avoided in the UK.
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
It is a little early to be hitting the sauce.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election
Are you changing your contention to young women are more likely to support socialist candidates than young men?
No?
The data there lines up with what was said. More women voting left than men.
This exercise isn't even worth my time. Goodbye.
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 07:17:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
I've seen cases where anecdotal evidence explains the outcomes better than facts.
I have too but only anecdotally.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2020, 01:24:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 03, 2020, 09:24:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 03, 2020, 09:17:52 PM
In a totally unscientific poll on Facebook, one of the political pages I'm on asked who people were planning to vote for. Most of the 750 people who commented said either Warren first and Biden second, or Biden first and Warren second. Very few say Bernie, and most of those were men.
Again, totally unscientific, but interesting.
Most of the Bernie supporters I know are women. So there you go.
Is that also interesting?
It is to me, so thanks for sharing. :)
Sure :)
My wife, and her mother and her friends, are big Bernie supporters.
It makes sense Bernie voters skew male with Warren still in the race, assuming she skews female.
I skew anything that moves.
From CBS News:
QuoteIn Warren's home state, Biden won a larger share of female voters than Sanders and Warren.
Thirty-four percent of women backed Biden, 26% went for Sanders and 24% supported Warren, according to exit polls.
Of course it's possible Massachusetts has usually high proportions of fascist women.
Lots of women support Bernie, I really hate the smear Bernie Bros.
Of course since one of those women is my favorite person in the world that kind of biases me I admit. I think that is the big reason I just cannot dislike Bernie even if I will only ever vote for him if he actually wins the nomination.
The big demographic phenomenon for Super Tuesday is that young voters didn't show. That not only contributed to Bernie's defeat in certain states, it raises questions about the entire raison d'etre of his electability case: that he can mobilize younger voters to come out in higher proportions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:20:06 PM
The big demographic phenomenon for Super Tuesday is that young voters didn't show. That not only contributed to Bernie's defeat in certain states, it raises questions about the entire raison d'etre of his electability case: that he can mobilize younger voters to come out in higher proportions.
Added to that, about twice the voters showed up in Virginia compared to the 2016 primary - Joe demonstrated he can turn out the vote in the states the matter. Turning out a few more votes in California is not going to impact the next Presidential election. So what is Sander's argument now?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:20:06 PM
The big demographic phenomenon for Super Tuesday is that young voters didn't show. That not only contributed to Bernie's defeat in certain states, it raises questions about the entire raison d'etre of his electability case: that he can mobilize younger voters to come out in higher proportions.
No doubt.
I heard some rather radical young guy on NPR talking about how nominating a moderate like Biden was a racist attempt to appeal to the "white moderate" and a radical was needed to mobilize the young "people of color" who want radical changes. Of course when the actual election comes the people of color voted for the moderate and the young people of all races stayed home. So much for that theory.
It was the guy who wrote this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/why-i-fear-a-moderate-candidate/605608/
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:20:06 PM
The big demographic phenomenon for Super Tuesday is that young voters didn't show. That not only contributed to Bernie's defeat in certain states, it raises questions about the entire raison d'etre of his electability case: that he can mobilize younger voters to come out in higher proportions.
Both 18-29 and 30-44 skewed Bernie pretty heavily. I don't have the turnout by age handy, but it looks like "younger" in this case is anyone under middle age.
Which is worrying if it holds in the general election.
Well lots of (most?) Millenials are now in the 30-44 range.
Bernie can still win but the Bros (and Gals) have to go to the polls. If they show in Michigan, Ohio, etc, he will win. If they don't he won't. The DNC establishment isn't forcing them to stay home. His fate is in his own hands and his supporters' hands.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:30:13 PM
Bernie can still win but the Bros (and Gals) have to go to the polls. If they show in Michigan, Ohio, etc, he will win. If they don't he won't. The DNC establishment isn't forcing them to stay home. His fate is in his own hands and his supporters' hands.
Yeah if any of them were thinking Sanders had a clear path they now have to scramble and show up in a big way.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 04, 2020, 01:26:58 PM
Which is worrying if it holds in the general election.
I agree, all the more reason Bernie needs to show he can mobilize those demographics to come out, and not just get the lion's share of the few that do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:30:13 PM
Bernie can still win but the Bros (and Gals) have to go to the polls. If they show in Michigan, Ohio, etc, he will win. If they don't he won't. The DNC establishment isn't forcing them to stay home. His fate is in his own hands and his supporters' hands.
Personal responsibility is evil.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:20:06 PM
The big demographic phenomenon for Super Tuesday is that young voters didn't show. That not only contributed to Bernie's defeat in certain states, it raises questions about the entire raison d'etre of his electability case: that he can mobilize younger voters to come out in higher proportions.
No doubt.
I heard some rather radical young guy on NPR talking about how nominating a moderate like Biden was a racist attempt to appeal to the "white moderate" and a radical was needed to mobilize the young "people of color" who want radical changes. Of course when the actual election comes the people of color voted for the moderate and the young people of all races stayed home. So much for that theory.
It was the guy who wrote this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/why-i-fear-a-moderate-candidate/605608/
Apparently the young black vote went Sanders in South Carolina. But elections cannot be won be depending only on the young vote - again South Carolina is the best example of that.
Man, what a difference a week can make. Bernie was a mortal lock and Joe was dead in the water.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
Man, what a difference a week can make. Bernie was a mortal lock and Joe was dead in the water.
I am still nervous about Biden and his Bidenness in a long Presidential campaign. Everybody who has watched the debates know what I mean.
But it seems he is the guy the party decided to rally around. We could have certainly done worse.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
Man, what a difference a week can make. Bernie was a mortal lock and Joe was dead in the water.
I am still nervous about Biden and his Bidenness in a long Presidential campaign. Everybody who has watched the debates know what I mean.
But it seems he is the guy the party decided to rally around. We could have certainly done worse.
Given the available datapoints, being semi-senile seems an electoral asset rather than a problem.
Hmm, so Warren could be the explanation for the general trend being altered in Garbons data?
Hard to know without seeing hers too.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 10:12:49 AMquote]
This exercise isn't even worth my time. Goodbye.
:blink:
I have no idea what's going on here.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
Lots of women support Bernie, I really hate the smear Bernie Bros.
Clearly not every Bernie supporter is a "bernie Bro", but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a "Bernie Bro". I started using Twitter a few months ago, follow lots of people relating to the US election, and there are definitely some very aggressive/obnoxious pro-Sanders twitterers out there.
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
Man, what a difference a week can make. Bernie was a mortal lock and Joe was dead in the water.
I am still nervous about Biden and his Bidenness in a long Presidential campaign. Everybody who has watched the debates know what I mean.
But it seems he is the guy the party decided to rally around. We could have certainly done worse.
But remember - he's going up against Trump.
Man - those debates are going to be an absolute train-wreck. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2020, 01:45:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:18:37 PM
Lots of women support Bernie, I really hate the smear Bernie Bros.
Clearly not every Bernie supporter is a "bernie Bro", but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a "Bernie Bro". I started using Twitter a few months ago, follow lots of people relating to the US election, and there are definitely some very aggressive/obnoxious pro-Sanders twitterers out there.
I don't deny that. But twitter makes even decent people toxic monsters. That was my main take away from my time on twitter (2010-2014).
Regarding "women skew socialist" debate I just checked the Spanish data and over here they skew centrist. Far-left and far-right parties have significantly more men voting for them than women.
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2020, 01:46:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 04, 2020, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
Man, what a difference a week can make. Bernie was a mortal lock and Joe was dead in the water.
I am still nervous about Biden and his Bidenness in a long Presidential campaign. Everybody who has watched the debates know what I mean.
But it seems he is the guy the party decided to rally around. We could have certainly done worse.
But remember - he's going up against Trump.
Man - those debates are going to be an absolute train-wreck. :lol:
Trump is a showman though, and has the ability to turn even crazy stuff in his favour. Biden has no such skill from what I've seen.
Bernie's candidacy is on life support at the moment. He isn't going to win a truly contested convention, and he obviously is now behind in delegates.
What makes this far worse for Sanders is that the only reason he didn't lose worse on Super Tuesday was that there was a ton of early voting that diminished the huge swing going Biden's way with all his dropouts and endorsements. That isn't going to help in the coming primaries. He needs an event to swing things back his way...the only hope I can see is that Biden wilts under the new spotlight.
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2020, 01:46:47 PM
Man - those debates are going to be an absolute train-wreck. :lol:
I think there's a decent chance they would get violent. Maybe Vince McMahon should moderate them. :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 04, 2020, 01:54:16 PM
the only hope I can see is that Biden wilts under the new spotlight.
Not impossible, though.
Quote from: Solmyr on March 04, 2020, 01:52:15 PM
Trump is a showman though, and has the ability to turn even crazy stuff in his favour. Biden has no such skill from what I've seen.
Biden's superpower though is this feeling of compassion and empathy - that he feels what you feel and that you can empathize with what he's gone through in his life.
Just because both of them are capable of spewing out meaningless word salads doesn't necessarily diminish their abilities as politicians.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 01:44:19 PM
Hmm, so Warren could be the explanation for the general trend being altered in Garbons data?
Hard to know without seeing hers too.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 10:12:49 AMquote]
This exercise isn't even worth my time. Goodbye.
:blink:
I have no idea what's going on here.
Clearly not.
You said that the data Garbon had posted lined up with what you had stated, when in fact it showed the exact opposite of what you had stated. At that point, Garbon gave up on engaging with you on the topic.
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2020, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 01:44:19 PM
Hmm, so Warren could be the explanation for the general trend being altered in Garbons data?
Hard to know without seeing hers too.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 10:12:49 AMquote]
This exercise isn't even worth my time. Goodbye.
:blink:
I have no idea what's going on here.
Clearly not.
You said that the data Garbon had posted lined up with what you had stated, when in fact it showed the exact opposite of what you had stated. At that point, Garbon gave up on engaging with you on the topic.
He was talking about the data I posted.
Which showed across all age ranges women were more left voting than men
Quote from: Caliga on March 04, 2020, 01:54:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2020, 01:46:47 PM
Man - those debates are going to be an absolute train-wreck. :lol:
I think there's a decent chance they would get violent. Maybe Vince McMahon should moderate them. :hmm:
I think there's a decent chance Trump chickens out, claiming the networks are too biased.
Quote from: Barrister on March 04, 2020, 01:57:54 PM
Biden's superpower though is this feeling of compassion and empathy - that he feels what you feel and that you can empathize with what he's gone through in his life.
I don't know that we are in a caring moment right now, and I don't know that Biden has what it takes to meaningfully shrug off Trump, or even cast his super-awesome compassion into the kinds of things that the world needs now. Which is, as we all know, is love, sweet love.
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2020, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 05:54:16 AM
BIDEN
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 16% 16% 0
New Hampshire 8% 8% 0
Nevada 18% 17% 1
South Carolina 48% 49% -1
SANDERS
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 26% 20% 6
New Hampshire 31% 23% 8
Nevada 38% 30% 8
South Carolina 24% 17% 7
Bernie's exit polls from the earlier states seem to suggest a different dynamic (at least among voters)
Pulled from here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/#265509
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
Now, now, it depends on whether he was replying to Meri or to Tyr. If it was Meri, yes, then he was using facts to undermine anecdotal evidence. If it was Tyr, then he was using facts to undermine inane delusions. Quite a different thing.
:huh:
I pointed out that a silly poll on FB showed that women tended to prefer Warren or Biden over Bernie. This bears that out.
By the way, I was joking in my nodding head to Tyr. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:17:27 PM
From CBS News:
QuoteIn Warren's home state, Biden won a larger share of female voters than Sanders and Warren.
Thirty-four percent of women backed Biden, 26% went for Sanders and 24% supported Warren, according to exit polls.
Of course it's possible Massachusetts has usually high proportions of fascist women.
Wait. When did Biden become fascist? :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2020, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2020, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2020, 06:24:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 05:54:16 AM
BIDEN
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 16% 16% 0
New Hampshire 8% 8% 0
Nevada 18% 17% 1
South Carolina 48% 49% -1
SANDERS
STATE MALE FEMALE DIFF.
Iowa 26% 20% 6
New Hampshire 31% 23% 8
Nevada 38% 30% 8
South Carolina 24% 17% 7
Bernie's exit polls from the earlier states seem to suggest a different dynamic (at least among voters)
Pulled from here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday/#265509
Stop using facts to undermine perfectly good anecdotal evidence.
Now, now, it depends on whether he was replying to Meri or to Tyr. If it was Meri, yes, then he was using facts to undermine anecdotal evidence. If it was Tyr, then he was using facts to undermine inane delusions. Quite a different thing.
:huh:
I pointed out that a silly poll on FB showed that women tended to prefer Warren or Biden over Bernie. This bears that out.
WTF?!? It doesn't show that! It shows Biden's support among women to be almost the same as his support among men, but it shows Sanders to have much more support from men than from women.
Quote from: dps on March 04, 2020, 02:28:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2020, 02:22:26 PM
:huh:
I pointed out that a silly poll on FB showed that women tended to prefer Warren or Biden over Bernie. This bears that out.
WTF?!? It doesn't show that! It shows Biden's support among women to be almost the same as his support among men, but it shows Sanders to have much more support from men than from women.
:blink:
I'm clearly missing something.
It appears to me that we're both saying the same thing: Women tend to prefer Biden over Sanders, aka it's mostly men who support Sanders.
Is that not true? Is that not being shown in the data provided?
It makes no comparison between Biden & Sanders.
Only between men & women for a given candidate.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Wait. When did Biden become fascist? :unsure:
Since Tyr posted:
QuoteIt's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
. . .
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 04, 2020, 02:36:14 PM
It makes no comparison between Biden & Sanders.
Only between men & women for a given candidate.
For the two candidates it shows the gender skew in their vote in those 2 states. You can then compare the skews.
Quote from: merithyn on March 04, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2020, 01:17:27 PM
From CBS News:
QuoteIn Warren's home state, Biden won a larger share of female voters than Sanders and Warren.
Thirty-four percent of women backed Biden, 26% went for Sanders and 24% supported Warren, according to exit polls.
Of course it's possible Massachusetts has usually high proportions of fascist women.
Wait. When did Biden become fascist? :unsure:
When he kicked Kamala off the bus.
Quote from: celedhring on March 04, 2020, 01:49:08 PM
Regarding "women skew socialist" debate I just checked the Spanish data and over here they skew centrist. Far-left and far-right parties have significantly more men voting for them than women.
Yeah. Historically it went the other way in the UK - when women's suffrage happened lots of Tories were terrified these soft-minded, kind-hearted creatures would vote Liberal or even socialist. As it turned out they disproportionately voted Conservative.
Until 2017 women were more likely to vote Tory, men were more likely to vote Labour. 2017 was different, 2019 is back to something like the norm so we'll see if 2017 was a blip or the start of a re-alignment:
(https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R-Shorrocks.jpg)
The entire time I can remember UK politics there's been talk about x Conservative leader having an issue winning women voters, but I think it's just because the UK political class inhales American news and culture. So we've transported the gender politics from there (where I think women do vote Democratic far more than Republican) to here. This sort of thing happens a lot :bleeding:
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2020, 06:23:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2020, 05:55:26 PM
I'm a little surprised we still have 47 posters.
You lurkers suck.
I'd like to know who the 4 secret Trumpers are. :ph34r:
It's not clear that the 4 people who voted "This question scares me" are Trump supporters. They might be scared because they think neither Bernie nor Biden can beat Trump in November.
Or alternatively didn't realise that this was a specifically Trump option.
The idea that the Democrats are putting up either a demented wannabe Socialist who has already had at least one heart attack before taking on any of the pressures of the Presidency, or a has-been twice defeated on previous presidential runs (the first as far back as 1988!!!) who is only a year younger than the demented wannabe Socialist and who also has a known history of speech impediments that can serve as a ready made defence against accusations of dementia...
...no there's nothing frightening about that at all.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 04, 2020, 03:45:43 PM
Or alternatively didn't realise that this was a specifically Trump option.
It's the Jaron option.
QuoteQuote from: merithyn on Today at 01:25:07 pm
Wait. When did Biden become fascist? :unsure:
Since Tyr posted:
Quote
It's a well observed tendency for women to tend to be more in favour of socialist candidates whilst men are more prone to falling for fascism.
. . .
Not a massive surprise Sanders would poll better with women.
So when did Biden become a fascist after this? :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2020, 03:40:31 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 04, 2020, 01:49:08 PM
Regarding "women skew socialist" debate I just checked the Spanish data and over here they skew centrist. Far-left and far-right parties have significantly more men voting for them than women.
Yeah. Historically it went the other way in the UK - when women's suffrage happened lots of Tories were terrified these soft-minded, kind-hearted creatures would vote Liberal or even socialist. As it turned out they disproportionately voted Conservative.
Until 2017 women were more likely to vote Tory, men were more likely to vote Labour. 2017 was different, 2019 is back to something like the norm so we'll see if 2017 was a blip or the start of a re-alignment:
[img]https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uplo
The entire time I can remember UK politics there's been talk about x Conservative leader having an issue winning women voters, but I think it's just because the UK political class inhales American news and culture. So we've transported the gender politics from there (where I think women do vote Democratic far more than Republican) to here. This sort of thing happens a lot :bleeding:
2019 had women being far more Labour leaning and less Conservative than men. 19 points of difference for men vs. 6 for women.
With women increasingly being more educated and the toxic culture of masculinity further entrenching I can really see this trend continuing.
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 04:39:50 PM
2019 had women being far more Labour leaning and less Conservative than men. 19 points of difference for men vs. 6 for women.
With women increasingly being more educated and the toxic culture of masculinity further entrenching I can really see this trend continuing.
Women were 4 points more likely to vote Labour and 2 points less likely to vote Tory - so the same as 2017. I think you're just looking at the women 18-24 (and that's common across lots of previous elections too):
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2019-12-17/How%20Britain%20voted%202019%20age%20and%20gender-01.png)
But you're right if education keeps being a key divide it's likely that women will break more to Labour. Although that may not be an enduring divide - people with degrees tend to earn more than people without degrees and I think class/material interest will eventually out.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2020, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 04, 2020, 04:39:50 PM
2019 had women being far more Labour leaning and less Conservative than men. 19 points of difference for men vs. 6 for women.
With women increasingly being more educated and the toxic culture of masculinity further entrenching I can really see this trend continuing.
Women were 4 points more likely to vote Labour and 2 points less likely to vote Tory - so the same as 2017. I think you're just looking at the women 18-24 (and that's common across lots of previous elections too):
[img width=1024 height=1024]https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfron]
No, I'm looking at all women.
The difference is most stark with the young but it carries across the age groups. Women are more likely to vote leftwards than men.
But the gap for all women is the same as in 2017 (+4 and -2), which is fairly small and those are two of the only three elections in a century where women were more likely than men to vote Labour.
2017 and 2019 are also the first election when C2DE voters mainly voted Tory. So it's like just looking at those two and saying the working class are more likely to vote right-wing than the rich.
Both could be a big re-alignment, or they could be blips.
Sheilbh is much more patient than I.
Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2020, 06:29:26 PM
Sheilbh is much more patient than I.
More than pretty much all of us
I watched a couple of The Daily Show videos on Youtube, and then read the comments. Holy crap, forget coronavirus, the groupthink of Bernie bots in the comments section makes me shit my pants. I probably said this many times before, but it keeps making an impression on me as to how potently echo chambers can warp peoples' sense of reality. They regard everyone voting for someone other than Sanders as zombies that need to be saved from themselves and their poor decision-making. The social media unleashed a deadly poison on us all with their algorithms.
More than zombies, I'd say it's closer to The Enemy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 08:47:46 PM
More than zombies, I'd say it's closer to The Enemy.
The Enemy is the establishment. The Biden voters are just zombies who do what they're told, because they just don't care to inform or enlighten themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 08:51:13 PM
The Enemy is the establishment. The Biden voters are just zombies who do what they're told, because they just don't care to inform or enlighten themselves.
Disagree. Their student loans are paid off so they don't give a shit. Already have company provided health insurance, so don't give a shit. Selfish, self-interested, uncaring. The Enemy.
We should never let YouTube comments shape so much of our political sensibilities
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 09:09:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 08:51:13 PM
The Enemy is the establishment. The Biden voters are just zombies who do what they're told, because they just don't care to inform or enlighten themselves.
Disagree. Their student loans are paid off so they don't give a shit. Already have company provided health insurance, so don't give a shit. Selfish, self-interested, uncaring. The Enemy.
I guess we may be reading different echo chambers, or same echo chambers but in different times. The one I read was for the Super Tuesday video, so the prevailing mood was "how can they be so fucking stupid?"
Oh, you mean the permanent Languish mood. :P
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 08:19:49 AM
Quote from: frunk on March 03, 2020, 08:14:32 AM
Quote from: dps on March 03, 2020, 07:19:01 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 03, 2020, 05:35:03 AM
Well, yeah. This is all sort of pointless. So long as Trump uses the Justice Department against his foes nobody can win.
Yeah, because that's how Trump won in 2016--by using the DoJ against his opponents.
Well not the DoJ but the FBI certainly was a significant factor. The DoJ will just make it easier, and I think Trump has already checked that Barr is personally loyal to Trump.
You do remember that Trump wasn't President, and therefore not in charge of the DoJ or FBI during the 2016 election, right?
He did use the investigation against his opponent, whether he was in charge of it or not. It isn't better now that he can start the investigations on his own.
Damage per Second statement doesn't make much sense. I never said that Trump required the DOJ to help him to win. I just said that Democrats can't win while Trump abuses his power in the DOJ. Trump has been pretty open about using the DOJ to help him destroy political rivals. He believes he has the "Absolute Right" to do so.
Compare this to Obama who did not forbid criminal investigation into Clinton (as Barr seems to have done with Trump). Obama knew about an ongoing counter intelligence operation regarding the Trump campaign but was careful to not announce it out of fear it would delegitimize the election.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2020, 05:22:10 PM
But the gap for all women is the same as in 2017 (+4 and -2), which is fairly small and those are two of the only three elections in a century where women were more likely than men to vote Labour.
2017 and 2019 are also the first election when C2DE voters mainly voted Tory. So it's like just looking at those two and saying the working class are more likely to vote right-wing than the rich.
Both could be a big re-alignment, or they could be blips.
Certainly, its too early to start calling it a definite rule of politics or anything like that.
But I'd say there definitely does seem to be a trend developing.
Their overall share of the vote was much smaller so it'd harder to see but there is also a male slant in those going to the far right extreme and supporting the brexit party.
We are living in an age of education yet the culture of toxic masculinity is out there actively telling men not to educate themselves, not to care about others, etc... Girls have no such pressures.
I've read about similar developments elsewhere in the world too. Poland is one where its quite stark.
It's perfectly possible it could all be a blip and means nothing. But looking at everything around it as well it does seem society is going through some huge changes.
I agree it exists in some parts of the world - like the US and Poland - but I wonder how much of that is because of abortion which is a big issue in those countries, but not really a political issue here.
It's why I distinctly remember loads of articles during 2012 and Mitt Romney's "binder full of women" moment about how Cameron had a "women's problem". But from the polling and elections, there was no evidence of that. It was just reading across from a very, very different political context.
It's a bit old but apparently historically women lean right in the UK, Australia and Italy (I'm sure there's others) and lean left in Germany, Spain, Portugal and the US. No idea what the factors are in each country - I'm 90% sure abortion is a big part of it in the US, but no idea why Australia, Italy (the Church?) or Germany etc :mellow:
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 09:21:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2020, 09:09:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2020, 08:51:13 PM
The Enemy is the establishment. The Biden voters are just zombies who do what they're told, because they just don't care to inform or enlighten themselves.
Disagree. Their student loans are paid off so they don't give a shit. Already have company provided health insurance, so don't give a shit. Selfish, self-interested, uncaring. The Enemy.
I guess we may be reading different echo chambers, or same echo chambers but in different times. The one I read was for the Super Tuesday video, so the prevailing mood was "how can they be so fucking stupid?"
Demonizing your political enemies is pretty easy when they stand in your way. I mean listening to some of the anti-Bernie people you would think they are the new Red Guard or some shit.
Chris Matthews was on National TV comparing them to Nazis invading France and claiming there would be executions in Central Park. That is a major network.
So trying to pain this as entirely one way is just dishonest.
I prefer when people point out how unworkable his ideas are, but for many that is insufficiently oppositional.
I want to be clear that my horror has little to do with Bernie or his politics, and more to do with how ill-equipped humans in 2020 are to expose themselves to social networks without falling into one rabbit hole or another.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2020, 12:41:48 PM
I want to be clear that my horror has little to do with Bernie or his politics, and more to do with how ill-equipped humans in 2020 are to expose themselves to social networks without falling into one rabbit hole or another.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESXsp0HX0AIE0Jz?format=jpg&name=small)
The sometimes over-the-top Bernie freakout is pretty funny I gotta say.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 03:35:58 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2020, 12:41:48 PM
I want to be clear that my horror has little to do with Bernie or his politics, and more to do with how ill-equipped humans in 2020 are to expose themselves to social networks without falling into one rabbit hole or another.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESXsp0HX0AIE0Jz?format=jpg&name=small)
The sometimes over-the-top Bernie freakout is pretty funny I gotta say.
I saw that on Twitter and I did a big lol
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 03:35:58 PMThe sometimes over-the-top Bernie freakout is pretty funny I gotta say.
It's a freakout because people think - rightly in my view - that the stakes are high, and if you think - as I fear - that Biden will not do well in a campaign against Trump, it's the specter of 4 more years of sliding into authoritarianism that is being raised.
If you want to get a taste of freakout about something one believes to be important, have a chat with your other self, the one who posts in the coronavirus thread.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 05, 2020, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 03:35:58 PMThe sometimes over-the-top Bernie freakout is pretty funny I gotta say.
It's a freakout because people think - rightly in my view - that the stakes are high, and if you think - as I fear - that Biden will not do well in a campaign against Trump, it's the specter of 4 more years of sliding into authoritarianism that is being raised.
The freakouts from Bernie Bros I've seen are not because Biden will lose, but because they don't see a difference between Biden and Trump - they're both "corporate shills" or whatever. :bleeding:
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 05, 2020, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 03:35:58 PMThe sometimes over-the-top Bernie freakout is pretty funny I gotta say.
It's a freakout because people think - rightly in my view - that the stakes are high, and if you think - as I fear - that Biden will not do well in a campaign against Trump, it's the specter of 4 more years of sliding into authoritarianism that is being raised.
Yes, to put it mildly Biden is not a young 77 year old. Watching clips of him speak is always exciting and fun. Will he manage to land that sentence he's struggling to articulate. Dammit, almost but not quite! Trump will tear him limb from limb. It'll be a special on the Gorilla Channel. :hmm:
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 04:40:32 PM
Yes, to put it mildly Biden is not a young 77 year old. Watching clips of him speak is always exciting and fun. Will he manage to land that sentence he's struggling to articulate. Dammit, almost but not quite! Trump will tear him limb from limb. It'll be a special on the Gorilla Channel. :hmm:
Yeah, Trump will definitely pick up the voters who put an emphasis on eloquence. :lol:
A Biden Trump debate will be like two hobos arguing over a bottle.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 04:40:32 PM
Yes, to put it mildly Biden is not a young 77 year old. Watching clips of him speak is always exciting and fun. Will he manage to land that sentence he's struggling to articulate. Dammit, almost but not quite! Trump will tear him limb from limb. It'll be a special on the Gorilla Channel. :hmm:
It's as if you haven't heard Trump speak... :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on March 05, 2020, 04:45:35 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on March 05, 2020, 04:40:32 PM
Yes, to put it mildly Biden is not a young 77 year old. Watching clips of him speak is always exciting and fun. Will he manage to land that sentence he's struggling to articulate. Dammit, almost but not quite! Trump will tear him limb from limb. It'll be a special on the Gorilla Channel. :hmm:
It's as if you haven't heard Trump speak... :hmm:
The scary part is he has.
Trump has political skills - and I agree, from my perspective, about his style. But it's worth watching a bit of the re-gendered debate I mentioned to Yi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk&feature=emb_title
The Guardian piece on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trump-gender-swap-play-her-opponent
Because he is effective and I missed it.
Flipside is I think we focus so much on the negative media Biden's got and his fumbles that we forget he's a serious political operator too - and surprisingly wonkish underneath the persona. I think him against Palin and Ryan showed different skills, but he can pitch it right which is impressive.
So the PDF thing reminded me...my father retired as a judge a few years ago. He was emailed a pdf form to print out and complete and then mail back in to get retirement benefits. He had no clue what this "pdf" was. I tried to explain, but in vain. He decided the best course of action was to put his desktop computer in his car, drive to his old office, and have one of his former secretaries figure out the "pdf" mystery that was in his email.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 05, 2020, 05:40:07 PM
So the PDF thing reminded me...my father retired as a judge a few years ago. He was emailed a pdf form to print out and complete and then mail back in to get retirement benefits. He had no clue what this "pdf" was. I tried to explain, but in vain. He decided the best course of action was to put his desktop computer in his car, drive to his old office, and have one of his former secretaries figure out the "pdf" mystery that was in his email.
At least that makes it less likely he'll discover social media and loss all his mental faculties as a result.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2020, 05:43:47 PM
At least that makes it less likely he'll discover social media and loss all his mental faculties as a result.
Is it really that different than the old chain email? It's just more widespread, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2020, 05:45:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2020, 05:43:47 PM
At least that makes it less likely he'll discover social media and loss all his mental faculties as a result.
Is it really that different than the old chain email? It's just more widespread, no?
Chain e-mails don't have an algorithm to deliver just the right dose of confirmation bias at just the right time, straight into your frontal lobe.
Quote from: DGuller on March 05, 2020, 06:03:51 PMChain e-mails don't have an algorithm to deliver just the right dose of confirmation bias at just the right time, straight into your frontal lobe.
Share if you agree.
Biggest downside of a Joe victory: He won't allow the Federal government to prosecute Donald Trump.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2020, 05:27:37 PM
Trump has political skills - and I agree, from my perspective, about his style. But it's worth watching a bit of the re-gendered debate I mentioned to Yi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk&feature=emb_title
The Guardian piece on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trump-gender-swap-play-her-opponent
Because he is effective and I missed it.
Flipside is I think we focus so much on the negative media Biden's got and his fumbles that we forget he's a serious political operator too - and surprisingly wonkish underneath the persona. I think him against Palin and Ryan showed different skills, but he can pitch it right which is impressive.
Weird article. What I get most from the video is how rude Trump is.
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2020, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 05, 2020, 05:27:37 PM
Trump has political skills - and I agree, from my perspective, about his style. But it's worth watching a bit of the re-gendered debate I mentioned to Yi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk&feature=emb_title
The Guardian piece on it:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/clinton-trump-gender-swap-play-her-opponent
Because he is effective and I missed it.
Flipside is I think we focus so much on the negative media Biden's got and his fumbles that we forget he's a serious political operator too - and surprisingly wonkish underneath the persona. I think him against Palin and Ryan showed different skills, but he can pitch it right which is impressive.
Weird article. What I get most from the video is how rude Trump is.
Indeed. Trump still seems awful.
Also, I don't think it is a shocker to anyone who paid attention that Clinton had a tough road to walk in what manner to speak as a female candidate.
The only thing I saw in that clip was the part about the TPP, which is one of HRC's worst debate moments since she had clearly flipped for purely political reasons.
So yes - if you cherry pick out her worst moments in the debate, and flip genders, or change to black-and-white, or dub it into Romanian and use English subtitles, or a add a laugh track, or have it done by kids, it will still look bad.
Fine - that's one clip the Guardian had as a good example. Newsnight did a longer section with multiple clips.
This ran in Brooklyn and the academic behind it was basically testing the thesis that a woman could not be as rude as Trump.
What she found from her own perspective, which I find from when I've seen it, but from the feedback of New Yorkers who overwhelmingly voted Clinton was that wasn't the case. The two stand-outs was that Trump was more effective, on-point and direct than they realised or seen when they watched the actual debate. Also that the way women are sort-of socially required to present themselves - artificial smiles etc - are weird on men because there's no social pressure on men to smile and appear non-threatening.
There's a more detailed piece here:
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
QuoteSalvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they'd each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump's aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton's competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn't he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable? [...]
Many were shocked to find that they couldn't seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King's clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they'd remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered. [...]
Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of "now I understand how this happened"—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump's message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, "I'm just so struck by how precise Trump's technique is." Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created "hummable lyrics," while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no "hook" to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, "I wouldn't vote for either one." Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was "really punchable" because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don't like, but you know is doing good things for you.
What did you find most surprising?
I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, "play this more feminine." So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they're taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable. It's been really powerful to hear women talk about that, and a learning experience for me. I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man's body, and also by the fact that I didn't find Trump's behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!" The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.
I agree with the audience members and the director - I remember watching this on the news and a penny dropping. Clearly you all here are having a different experience.
I worry about Biden's candidacy for resasons about him, but I also worry that the Democrats haven't evolved in terms of their critique of Trump since 2016 especially if we're still relying on Trump's ineloquence or rudeness or some other trap to catch him (Russia, Ukraine, coronavirus, kids in cages). It feels like there's a risk of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Yeah male Clinton is an incredibly off-putting shitweasel, even down to the pinched facial expressions. Well done I must say. :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2020, 09:41:19 AM
I worry about Biden's candidacy for resasons about him, but I also worry that the Democrats haven't evolved in terms of their critique of Trump since 2016 especially if we're still relying on Trump's ineloquence or rudeness or some other trap to catch him (Russia, Ukraine, coronavirus, kids in cages). It feels like there's a risk of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Yep. Hence the whole « Biden will kill them with kindness and relatability » strikes me as unlikely. I also fear the whole « Biden is corrupt » narrative has taken a firmer root than we may think, while «Trump is corrupt » has been drowned in the whole impeachment/Muller procedural nothingness.
Yeah Trump crushes him with a modified 2016 strategy. Biden will wander around lost calling the customers dog-faced pony soldiers and forgetting where he is. And that will be that.
I think the main reason why people believe Biden should be the nominee is that he will bring in the same suburban voters the Democrats won in 2018 to give them the House majority. Locking them up will make the party more robust in swing states, potentially at the cost of losing super liberal voters in California or New York or wherever else is less competitive.
Donald's campaign will probably be to raise the corruption charge repeatedly, call Joe a crypto-communist, and call him Mr. Magoo or whatever else they can think of to stem the losses among suburban voters.
That's the calculus to my mind.
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 06, 2020, 11:31:00 AM
Donald's campaign will probably be to raise the corruption charge repeatedly
:lmfao:
You're probably right though.
Sleepy Joe is clearly somewhat senile, but Trump is clearly massively senile. Those who, like Legbiter, are hoping their hero can repeat 2016 haven't been paying attention to his clear mental decline. While he was a doddering fool in 2016, he looks more like a drooling doddering fool now. Joe is still just doddering.
Plus, of course, Biden's campaign will have a full three+ years or Trump corruption to play with. The fact that he's just the leader of a family of grifters feeding from the public trough won't go down well. Add to that the chance that Trump doesn't get his wish and all of his shit economic decisions come crashing down on him before the election, and I'd not put a lot of money on Trump.
The Democrats should by rights be assured of winning in 2020, because the 55% of the population who disapproves of his job performance includes a fair number of Republicans. But, no, they have to choose the two candidates with the least amount of charisma as their standard bearers. That probably drops their chances of winning the presidency from 95% to about 80%.
The Senate races will be interesting. I have to wonder how the whole republican "let's vote to avoid finding out the truth because we'd have to do the right thing if we allow ourselves to see the facts" vote will go over when people go to the ballot boxes.
I'm hoping that Bloomberg's media artillery will be able to make up for the chronic inability of Democrats to make GOP pay political price for their cynical dirty games.
Quote from: DGuller on March 06, 2020, 12:38:42 PM
I'm hoping that Bloomberg's media artillery will be able to make up for the chronic inability of Democrats to make GOP pay political price for their cynical dirty games.
It is indeed my main hope for victory. The President has been preparing to destroy Joe Biden for months, if not years, so I am anticipating a pretty stressful and painful election now that he is probably the nominee.
Thank Obama-Jesus for Mike Bloomberg's personal hatred for Donald.
You just know trump will score points from Ukraine. Somehow.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2020, 09:41:19 AM
Fine - that's one clip the Guardian had as a good example. Newsnight did a longer section with multiple clips.
This ran in Brooklyn and the academic behind it was basically testing the thesis that a woman could not be as rude as Trump.
What she
Snip
I'd agree it shows Clinton's slime a lot more. Going on about how awesome his cv is the whole time. But I don't think it makes trump any better.
One thing I'm curious about watching this is I note its a fairly young man and woman they've got there. It's not just a gender switch but an age switch. That alters the dynamic too.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 12:46:03 PM
The President has been preparing to destroy Joe Biden for months, if not years, so I am anticipating a pretty stressful and painful election now that he is probably the nominee.
Probably but the president is also very easily distracted, as is demonstrated by incoherent 3am tweeting, so I'm doubting his preparation was focused.
Quote from: Caliga on March 06, 2020, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 06, 2020, 11:31:00 AM
Donald's campaign will probably be to raise the corruption charge repeatedly
:lmfao:
You're probably right though.
Why wouldn't they? No one has bothered to rebut it.
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 02:20:07 PM
Don't be silly, g. Being a woman had no bearing on her candidacy. :)
It certainly didn't help her win the woman vote :weep:
Fuck that election.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2020, 12:19:08 PM
Sleepy Joe is clearly somewhat senile, but Trump is clearly massively senile. Those who, like Legbiter, are hoping their hero can repeat 2016 haven't been paying attention to his clear mental decline. While he was a doddering fool in 2016, he looks more like a drooling doddering fool now. Joe is still just doddering.
Plus, of course, Biden's campaign will have a full three+ years or Trump corruption to play with. The fact that he's just the leader of a family of grifters feeding from the public trough won't go down well. Add to that the chance that Trump doesn't get his wish and all of his shit economic decisions come crashing down on him before the election, and I'd not put a lot of money on Trump.
The Democrats should by rights be assured of winning in 2020, because the 55% of the population who disapproves of his job performance includes a fair number of Republicans. But, no, they have to choose the two candidates with the least amount of charisma as their standard bearers. That probably drops their chances of winning the presidency from 95% to about 80%.
I think this could be how it plays out. I also think we underestimate Biden - he was very effective against Palin and Ryan who were very different candidates. He's been occasionally effective in the primaries too and that's more difficult when you're the front-runner. The NYT long interview is really interesting in that it shows Biden at all of his best and all of his worse. Additionally he doesn't have sexism going against him which was a factor with Clinton and he also doesn't have Clinton's history going against him. He's a known quantity, but doesn't have that decades of loathing that's existed in part of American poltiics for the Clintons.
But, to put the case against. The fundamentals are with Trump. This should be a Reagan style landslide for the Republicans. The economy is doing well, unemployment's falling and there's no ongoing war. Coronavirus could really hurt Trump if his incompetence starts getting people killed (same goes for the BJP actually). Yes Trump is personally unpopular, but with coronavirus as a potential big risk, the fundamentals are still on his side. At the last election it looks like there was at least regional recession going on in 2016 which hurt Clinton. If there continues to be peace and the economy keeps growing I wouldn't bet against enough people basically putting aside their disapproval of him as a man and voting for "more of the same".
On the corruption point - I think Oex is right. It's like that scene in the Simpsons when the doctor explains Mr Burns' immune system and that he's got three stooges syndrome. There are so many scandals and so much naked corruption around this adminsitration and the Trump family particularly, that I don't think it cuts through. If the scandals haven't already convinced by this stage to go against Trump, I'm not sure they will have by November. By contrast - and I think it's bogus - Trump has one scandal that he can keep hammering Biden with: Ukraine, Burisma, Hunter. That's a single line of attack and I think it's got a better chance of cutting through.
Similarly on health - I agree Trump appears to be in clear decline. But again, I feel that's priced in and I feel like Democrats won't attack Trump for his health - I think there's probably still a bit too much of a queasiness about it. As with Clinton, Trump will attack Biden (or Sanders) for his. He will imply that he's got a degenerative condition, or that he's senile, or that he's covering up his health problems. And there's a "pig-fucker" element to this. It's something the media will report, even if it has no basis in fact, because the President baselessly accusing his opponent of health issues is news.
Last time round a lot of voters disliked and disapproved of both candidates, but two-to-one voted for Trump in the end. And I think there's something similar. What might matter more than anything in this election is how high the candidate's floors are because Trump is unpopular but he has quite a high floor. There seems to be a solid 40-45% who are not going to budge. If they're in the right states, he doesn't need many more to win. I don't think it's clear how high or low Biden's floor is yet.
I don't think it's clear either way. I'd like to think that people will turn out to reject Trump and all he stands for. But I think he's skilled at politics, he's an excellent counter-puncher and the fundamentals are on his side. So I feel like it's 50-50 and I'd be inclined to say it's Trump's to lose. I also think the Democrats need more of a message than a return to "normalcy" and outrage at Trump's character and conduct. It wasn't enough in 2016, we've not seen it make much of a dent in Trump's numbers for the last four years, so I see no reason to think it's enough for the next 8 months.
I could be totally wrong and I could have been burned too badly in 2016 when I was utterly convinced that America was too decent to elect Trump. It could be a landslide against him. But that doesn't feel likely to me.
QuoteThe Senate races will be interesting. I have to wonder how the whole republican "let's vote to avoid finding out the truth because we'd have to do the right thing if we allow ourselves to see the facts" vote will go over when people go to the ballot boxes.
Agree - I also think this is the area where a Biden v a Sanders nomination could be quite significant. I think Biden is far more likely to appeal to suburban Republicans as in 2018 and would have bigger coat-tails than Sanders, especially in the Senate races.
Part of me wouldn't be too surprised if what people want/vote for is actually a Democratic Congress and Trump again because of the weird American fetish of split government.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 02:20:07 PM
Don't be silly, g. Being a woman had no bearing on her candidacy. :)
It certainly didn't help her win the woman vote :weep:
Fuck that election.
It's not so much "fuck that election" because women didn't vote for the woman despite the fact that she's a woman, it is "fuck that election" because women
did vote for the Trump despite the fact that he's a Trump. I can account for men voting for Trump by invoking stupidity; the only way to account for the women's vote is by invoking insanity.
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 06, 2020, 02:20:57 PM
Why wouldn't they? No one has bothered to rebut it.
Also it's complicated and boring. If you're explaining, you're losing. The longer Biden spends trying to explain why him and his son aren't corrupt the better it is for the Trump campaign.
I mean we are all fairly well-read on the news - who among us has the patience to actually read the details of Biden's involvement in Ukrainian politics? Outlets I trust and people I trust here as well have done short summaries of why it's nonsense and that's good enough for me. So I think factually there's nothing there.
And one of the particular problems is the key vector for these lies getting repeated is social media, especially Facebook, and that means the fact-check style of responding to dishonest allegations doesn't work. It's like treating a virus with surgery. The way misinformation spreads with its audience is very different from the audiences and the way traditional fact-checks spread - and this isn't just a right-wing thing, we've seen the same here with left-wing alternative media like the Canary and Skwawkbox. I don't know what the solution to that is.
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
Possibly. It is what I am worried about.
At least Clinton was coherent.
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Possibly. It is what I am worried about.
At least Clinton was coherent.
Also, I like Biden, but he is a little creepy with woomen - I don't think it's malicious - but it is a little weird, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2020, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Possibly. It is what I am worried about.
At least Clinton was coherent.
Also, I like Biden, but he is a little creepy with woomen - I don't think it's malicious - but it is a little weird, no?
Yes. I mean he is Gloria Steinem compared to Donald but it is not a good look. I suspect that is more about his age maybe? I just cannot imagine anybody in my generation being so touchy-feely, but that might just be Joe as my dad is close to his age and certainly not like that.
Trump really doesn't have Burisma, though. If Trump brings it up, Biden can just say "let's see some evidence." Trump will have nothing. OTOH, Biden has the millions of dollars Trump has paid himself to spend the thousands of hours Trump has spent on golfing. The fact that Trump has gone bankrupt and dragged others into bankruptcy with him. The fact that Trump's own foundation was shut down for criminal malfeasance and his children forced by the courts to go to anti-grifter school. The fact that Trump was impeached and only found not guilty because the Republican-led Senate refused to try the case.
I think when it comes to the smear, Biden has nukes and Trump has squibs. That won't matter to the Trumpeters, but it will to the rest.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2020, 02:47:21 PM
Trump really doesn't have Burisma, though. If Trump brings it up, Biden can just say "let's see some evidence." Trump will have nothing. OTOH, Biden has the millions of dollars Trump has paid himself to spend the thousands of hours Trump has spent on golfing. The fact that Trump has gone bankrupt and dragged others into bankruptcy with him. The fact that Trump's own foundation was shut down for criminal malfeasance and his children forced by the courts to go to anti-grifter school. The fact that Trump was impeached and only found not guilty because the Republican-led Senate refused to try the case.
I think when it comes to the smear, Biden has nukes and Trump has squibs. That won't matter to the Trumpeters, but it will to the rest.
The nukes have been deployed against Trump already and he is still standing. He was blatantly dishonest and corrupt in 2016, but the scandals that got traction were emails and Benghazi (which I don't really see as even approaching a scandal, but here we are). Burisma has at least as much "scandal" value as the emails and Benghazi.
The Burisma scandal is pretty bad. For the President and leading party members to be willfully promoting Russian intelligence propaganda is extremely scandalous. Treasonable, even.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2020, 03:05:47 PM
The Burisma scandal is pretty bad. For the President and leading party members to be willfully promoting Russian intelligence propaganda is extremely scandalous. Treasonable, even.
Are you confusing your fake scandals?
Burisma was HUnter Biden being on a Ukrainian gas company's board. Not a good look, but probably not a crime, and not linked to Joe Biden - but it was a thing that actually happened.
Russian intelligence spread the idea that the Ukrainians were actually behind the 2016 election hacking / Clinton emails - which is complete nonsense. But has nothing to do with Burisma.
Part of the Russia intel op is to pass off Shokin as a legit prosecutor. Parnas and Fruman set up the call between Rudy and Shokin.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/who-dmytro-firtash-man-linked-1-million-loan-giuliani-ally-n1121561
QuoteIn September, one month before Lev Parnas was indicted on campaign finance charges, his wife received wire transfers from a bank account in Russia.
The sum was $1 million, and the source was a lawyer for Dmytro Firtash, according to a court filing by U.S. prosecutors. . .
A billionaire with alleged ties to the Russian mob, Firtash is facing bribery-related charges in the U.S. and fighting extradition from Vienna. He once attempted to buy and redevelop the famous Drake Hotel in New York with the now-incarcerated Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman. And he's seen by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and Western governments as a corrupt instrument of Russia.
. . .Parnas said the oligarch's involvement stemmed from an explicit quid pro quo. In exchange for Firtash's help in their effort to damage Biden, Parnas told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, he assured the oligarch they would make his U.S. legal troubles disappear. . . .
Firtash lived up to his end of the alleged bargain: His lawyers provided a now-discredited affidavit from a Ukrainian prosecutor accusing Biden of wrongdoing.
The affidavit was from Shokin.
In sum: the President's lawyer did a deal with a mobbed up Russian-linked oligarch to get a falsified affidavit in return for using his clout to get the oligarch cleared of charges in the US. The associate of the President's lawyer received a $1 million payoff as part of the scheme.
So yes - it is scandalous.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2020, 02:31:22 PM
Additionally he doesn't have sexism going against him which was a factor with Clinton and he also doesn't have Clinton's history going against him.
You mean Joe "Let Me Creepily Smell Your Hair" Biden?
The thing is, while Biden might be creepily out of touch with current views on personal space, Trump seems actively malicious in how he treats women.
Quote from: grumbler on March 06, 2020, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 02:20:07 PM
Don't be silly, g. Being a woman had no bearing on her candidacy. :)
It certainly didn't help her win the woman vote :weep:
Fuck that election.
It's not so much "fuck that election" because women didn't vote for the woman despite the fact that she's a woman, it is "fuck that election" because women did vote for the Trump despite the fact that he's a Trump. I can account for men voting for Trump by invoking stupidity; the only way to account for the women's vote is by invoking insanity.
I agree. I simply don't understand... :(
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
I'll disagree with you there. Biden, I think, holds more appeal for more women. He certainly does for me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 06, 2020, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:42:03 PM
Possibly. It is what I am worried about.
At least Clinton was coherent.
Also, I like Biden, but he is a little creepy with woomen - I don't think it's malicious - but it is a little weird, no?
Biden is a centrist, which I think appeals to more women than the unfocused dreams of Bernie. Warren had goals, plans, and ideals with meat. That's not what I've seen in Bernie.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 06, 2020, 02:57:21 PM
The nukes have been deployed against Trump already and he is still standing. He was blatantly dishonest and corrupt in 2016, but the scandals that got traction were emails and Benghazi (which I don't really see as even approaching a scandal, but here we are). Burisma has at least as much "scandal" value as the emails and Benghazi.
The nukes I referred to are almost all things that Trump has done since taking office. He also illegally holds a lease from the US government for the old post office building in DC (now the DC Trump hotel).
Like I said, none of this matters to the True Trump Believers, but there's a shitload of people not in that category, and Trump will be on the defensive when it comes to exchanges of charges of corruption. He'd be better served not bringing up corruption at all.
Trump won't be on the defensive in November, he'll the the candidate who isn't the subject of a major criminal inquiry.
I think he'll be on the defensive for poor disaster management.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 06, 2020, 07:43:40 PM
Trump won't be on the defensive in November, he'll the the candidate who isn't the subject of a major criminal inquiry.
Given everything that happened with impeachment, with Mueller, I don't think Trump can get away with that. The harder he goes after Biden in the courts, the more afraid of Biden he looks, the more outraged centrists and liberals will be.
Quote from: Barrister on March 06, 2020, 08:07:39 PMGiven everything that happened with impeachment, with Mueller, I don't think Trump can get away with that. The harder he goes after Biden in the courts, the more afraid of Biden he looks, the more outraged centrists and liberals will be.
...and? You think this will translate into votes?
The only way Democrats win vote is by producing a narrative of their own, and that narrative must absolutely not be one rooted in some kind of sophisticated discourse about the facts of impeachment, or the details of Burisma, or any of those things. No one cares anymore. This is just not good campaigning. Trump's message is simple stupid: Democrats hate you, and everything you stand for. They are unfair, and ready for anything. This pushes the right buttons of Democrats who over, and over, and over again fall into the trap of trying to show that no, they are not unfair, really. So they keep responding to Trump, who keeps moving the goalposts and while it doesn't look like it at all, that Trumpian message is already quite disciplined by virtue of being vetted and repeated by Fox News. Trumps says something, and Fox spends considerable energy making it real, which in turn gives Trump, who feeds of it, the necessary branching narratives.
It's like 2016 didn't happen. I just saw a video where a Trump supporter stated she did not believe there was a coronavirus. She said she wouldn't trust anything Democrats say. One of the things we have found out because of Trump is that not only do people believe a lie if you tell it long enough, if you try to debunk the lie people will believe the lie even more.
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
I'll disagree with you there. Biden, I think, holds more appeal for more women. He certainly does for me.
More than Clinton?
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 11:19:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
I'll disagree with you there. Biden, I think, holds more appeal for more women. He certainly does for me.
More than Clinton?
Nope. Nor than Warren. But neither of them are in the race. Between Biden and Sanders, though, Biden is preferable.
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 11:19:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on March 06, 2020, 06:23:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 06, 2020, 02:38:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 06, 2020, 02:32:55 PM
Yeah I just meant fuck that election in general. So much fuckness going on.
Yea, so we're going to do the exact same thing this time, but with less appeal for women to vote blue.
I'll disagree with you there. Biden, I think, holds more appeal for more women. He certainly does for me.
More than Clinton?
Nope. Nor than Warren. But neither of them are in the race. Between Biden and Sanders, though, Biden is preferable.
I was comparing it to 2016
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 06, 2020, 09:03:39 PM
...and? You think this will translate into votes?
The only way Democrats win vote is by producing a narrative of their own, and that narrative must absolutely not be one rooted in some kind of sophisticated discourse about the facts of impeachment, or the details of Burisma, or any of those things. No one cares anymore. This is just not good campaigning. Trump's message is simple stupid: Democrats hate you, and everything you stand for. They are unfair, and ready for anything. This pushes the right buttons of Democrats who over, and over, and over again fall into the trap of trying to show that no, they are not unfair, really. So they keep responding to Trump, who keeps moving the goalposts and while it doesn't look like it at all, that Trumpian message is already quite disciplined by virtue of being vetted and repeated by Fox News. Trumps says something, and Fox spends considerable energy making it real, which in turn gives Trump, who feeds of it, the necessary branching narratives.
Exactly.
I think this is also one of the points about Trump being quite skilled. Yes, rambles and seems to go off point all the time - but, he has real message discipline. He always hits the same 3-4 points which is essential because most people aren't paying attention closely or watching the news. It's that thing political strategists always say, that when all the journalists and people who watch the news are absolutely sick of hearing the same thing again and again, that's when it starts to cut through to the average voters. In 2016 I could tell you Trump's message, it's the same in 2020 so far.
I'm not sure what Biden's is yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2020, 05:12:23 AMHe always hits the same 3-4 points which is essential because most people aren't paying attention closely or watching the news.
He did a Fox townhall a couple of days ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcbmisaTUo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcbmisaTUo)
Compare and contrast Trump with Biden going forward. Will the dems be able to offer Trump voters an off-ramp or will it just be Orange Man Bad and visceral, naked hatred of the customers they need to switch?
Yes, focusing on a few stupid points is the way to win. We saw it well with the last UK election. Labour's biggest mistake, even beyond having Corbyn in charge and poor media handling, was that they just kept throwing out idea after idea instead of focusing on some simple messages.
Ill thought-out stupidity is what wins.
What simple messages could the dems push though? This sort of thing works a lot better if you want to keep things as they are.
Quote from: Legbiter on March 07, 2020, 09:32:30 AM
visceral, naked hatred of the customers they need to switch?
Are voters customers now? Can we offer $20 for every customer referral we get?
Clinton said her brilliant deplorables thing but Biden doesn't do visceral and certainly not hatred. His messaging has always been fluffy. That is not his problem (though he does do weird shit like "don't vote for me then" though Trump did turn to the centrist Republicans and basically said "fuck you, you have to vote for me rather you like it or not" and that was fine). I guess if the nutters posting on twitter are running instead...
Simple. One message. People are sick of the nonstop noise coming out of Donald. There is only one way to get him to shut up. Fire his ass.
On the other hand, running as "Not George Bush" didn't help Kerry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 10, 2020, 09:57:42 AM
Simple. One message. People are sick of the nonstop noise coming out of Donald. There is only one way to get him to shut up. Fire his ass.
No, you have to project an alternative, how you want the country to look like. Sure, it will have to be reduced to buzzwords short enough for Twitter messages, but "not Donald Trump" won't be enough, I think.
At least it has not been enough in other countries to remove quasi-fascist baboons like him.
The last Donald approval rating I saw was 49% right after he was TOTALLY EXONERATED IN THE SENATE. I don't see how you can say people are fed up with him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2020, 11:49:06 AM
The last Donald approval rating I saw was 49% right after he was TOTALLY EXONERATED IN THE SENATE. I don't see how you can say people are fed up with him.
538 polling average is currently a hair below 43%. He's been in that bracket for pretty much the past two years so I don't think it matters that much.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on March 10, 2020, 11:40:20 AM
On the other hand, running as "Not George Bush" didn't help Kerry.
In 2004 Bush wasn't that unpopular. Looks like he was above 50% approval.
His second term is where his approval ratings really tanked.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2020, 11:45:46 AM
No, you have to project an alternative, how you want the country to look like.
"take control" "Get it done"
You don't actually have to project a real alternative. The Tories taught us all that.
Oh and "Make America Great Again" -remember that.
Quote from: celedhring on March 10, 2020, 11:55:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 10, 2020, 11:49:06 AM
The last Donald approval rating I saw was 49% right after he was TOTALLY EXONERATED IN THE SENATE. I don't see how you can say people are fed up with him.
538 polling average is currently a hair below 43%. He's been in that bracket for pretty much the past two years so I don't think it matters that much.
And even some of the people who approve generally of his presidency don't like all the tweeting and talking.