| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On July 26 2019 04:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I've heard that as well... Any idea why? Seems weird, but maybe Yang found a way to get through to niche Trump supporters, which could be good. Free money yay More seriously it's possible that Yang is doing some crypto stuff but I'm not comfortable making the accusation. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On July 21 2019 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Debate lineups are out. Warren and Bernie vs all on night 1 and "look at these reasonable people, racist old Biden, and some radical asshole named deblasio" on night 2. Going to be two different audiences watching imo. People watching both nights will be a sliver of the population. De Blasio should use his time to attack Biden and Harris from progressive positions and do some of the dirty work for Bernie and Warren | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
On July 26 2019 07:46 darthfoley wrote: De Blasio should use his time to attack Biden and Harris from progressive positions and do some of the dirty work for Bernie and Warren He should but Harris and Booker are probably going to do the job for him by cutting into Biden's support among older Black voters just to try to keep them away from Bernie. Bernie's problem is he's bad at appealing to older Black voters and Warren's got Black women of the pundit class ready to ride her coattails into national prominence and spin for her post debate like there's no tomorrow. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5452 Posts
On July 26 2019 05:06 Nebuchad wrote: Free money yay More seriously it's possible that Yang is doing some crypto stuff but I'm not comfortable making the accusation. DT dropping Trump's campaigners? | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 26 2019 04:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I've heard that as well... Any idea why? Seems weird, but maybe Yang found a way to get through to niche Trump supporters, which could be good. My understanding is the first thing Yang did was appeal to Midwest White America. Something no other dem has done. He got to the truckers etc and told all of them they are all Americans and he wants to help them. These are the same people Supremacists claim to represent, their whole issue was to call to attention the needs of these people and Yang answered the call. That being said he denounces the support of supremacists on moral grounds. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
| ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
My understanding is the first thing Yang did was appeal to Midwest White America. Something no other dem has done. This is exactly right. A perfect, quick example of this is the unemployment rate right now. It's at 3.8% right now, which many politicians and news sources will tell you is great. But the unemployment rate is designed to me misleading. It doesn't count people who have been out of work for so long that they are no longer looking for work. And further, it doesn't distinguish between those who are employed, but are only part-time or underemployed. So while 3.8% unemployment sounds pretty good, it seems almost designed to hide the reality that there are tons of people working part-time barely scraping by. There are tons of people with college degrees working untrained labor jobs, and there are tons of people whose job disappeared and they went on disability and fell into the "poverty trap". The reality of employment is largely unrelated to the unemployment rate that politicians roll out to tell us that everything is fine. The Midwest and rural areas in general are feeling the brunt of this, to the degree that going from an economically depressed area in the Midwest to a coastal city is like walking into a sci-fi novel. But to get tot the point that started talking Yang - the claim that "white supremacists are voting Yang." He appeals to a very broad audience. It turns out even white supremacists like hearing actual solutions to human problems. But I'm just speculating really. The real reason I came to post is that just last night, someone on Yang's reddit made a post about exactly this topic, from the perspective of a (ex-) white supremacist: Andrew Yang and his campaign is what ended up leading me out of the depths of the Alt-Right Andrew Yang is literally de-radicalizing white supremacists by offering real solutions to real problems. Here are some snippets, though I encourage you to read the whole thing (it's not that long) and even check out the subreddit further. We're really nice people. There was a perception that Trump is firmly in Israel's pocket, and will never act in America's interest when it comes to foreign policy, instead continuing to cozy up to Saudi Arabia and launch vapid tirades against the Iranian boogeyman. The idea was, if even our best chance was going to be a failure, we may as well get a thousand bucks a month while we watch the country descend into chaos. His perception that AI is currently the largest 'unseen' threat to the average American worker - me, couldn't have rung more strongly with me. His solutions just made sense to me in a way that I can't articulate. I tried to poke holes in the argument for a basic income, but could only come up short. ... I don't know why, but seeing the benefit to myself in such a dramatic manner just triggered some otherworldly type of empathy within me. Out of 300,000,000 Americans, tens of millions probably live through more stressful situations every single day. What's meaningful to me would be monumental to them. I'm still de-programming myself from the hate that I absorbed over the last five years. But I can confidently say I am not a racist any longer. I am not a sexist any longer. I am not an anti-semite any longer. I believe Andrew Yang has the winning formula for neutralizing the movement that today is a radicalized, racially-conscious group of disaffected young white men who feel that they have less and less of a future to live for. Thank you. I am proud to say Andrew has secured my vote in the primaries and I will do my utmost to get this man elected. He has won me my life back. The notion that "if white supremacists like Yang, he must be a bad guy" is absurd. So is the notion that "if Trump supporters like Yang, he must be bad." These are literally the people that we must reach the most. Guys (and gals), the enemy is poverty and a mindset of scarcity. When people are afraid for their futures, they justify some very inhuman things. We have the power to essentially eliminate poverty and usher in a new era of humanity in the United States. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
On July 26 2019 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote: With the next debate coming up I was wondering which candidates people think most closely reflect the policy positions Hillary ran on in 2016? In terms of the top four candidates (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris), I would definitely say either Biden or Harris, as they're far more moderate or centrist (by American standards; by European standards, more conservative) like Clinton. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
On July 26 2019 20:54 Dromar wrote: Hey, I noticed some talk about Andrew Yang in here, and I'm a pretty big fan of his, so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. This is exactly right. A perfect, quick example of this is the unemployment rate right now. It's at 3.8% right now, which many politicians and news sources will tell you is great. But the unemployment rate is designed to me misleading. It doesn't count people who have been out of work for so long that they are no longer looking for work. And further, it doesn't distinguish between those who are employed, but are only part-time or underemployed. So while 3.8% unemployment sounds pretty good, it seems almost designed to hide the reality that there are tons of people working part-time barely scraping by. There are tons of people with college degrees working untrained labor jobs, and there are tons of people whose job disappeared and they went on disability and fell into the "poverty trap". The reality of employment is largely unrelated to the unemployment rate that politicians roll out to tell us that everything is fine. The Midwest and rural areas in general are feeling the brunt of this, to the degree that going from an economically depressed area in the Midwest to a coastal city is like walking into a sci-fi novel. But to get tot the point that started talking Yang - the claim that "white supremacists are voting Yang." He appeals to a very broad audience. It turns out even white supremacists like hearing actual solutions to human problems. But I'm just speculating really. The real reason I came to post is that just last night, someone on Yang's reddit made a post about exactly this topic, from the perspective of a (ex-) white supremacist: Andrew Yang and his campaign is what ended up leading me out of the depths of the Alt-Right Andrew Yang is literally de-radicalizing white supremacists by offering real solutions to real problems. Here are some snippets, though I encourage you to read the whole thing (it's not that long) and even check out the subreddit further. We're really nice people. The notion that "if white supremacists like Yang, he must be a bad guy" is absurd. So is the notion that "if Trump supporters like Yang, he must be bad." These are literally the people that we must reach the most. Guys (and gals), the enemy is poverty and a mindset of scarcity. When people are afraid for their futures, they justify some very inhuman things. We have the power to essentially eliminate poverty and usher in a new era of humanity in the United States. I think these are important points, and reaching out to groups who feel disenfranchised and chipping away at various conservative demographics is something that the Democratic candidates need to be better at. I feel like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do a reasonable job with this too, which is why I'm happy they're at least mathematically capable of winning the primary. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On July 26 2019 21:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think these are important points, and reaching out to groups who feel disenfranchised and chipping away at various conservative demographics is something that the Democratic candidates need to be better at. I feel like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do a reasonable job with this too, which is why I'm happy they're at least mathematically capable of winning the primary. Bernie has been espousing these ideas for a long time, and he's one of my top non-Yang choices for sure. I just worry that Bernie doesn't fully understand how technology is driving much of the economic distress people are experiencing. To put it bluntly, $15 minimum wage and free college does not help most people. Beyond that, there are some problems associated with each of those proposals that I can get into, but would be a longer discussion that I'll hold off on for now. Elizabeth Warren is a candidate that I feel is very centrist and using her reputation as progressive to gain popularity that she really shouldn't have. Easiest example is that when she ran for senate she was in favor of medicare for all; now she's not. Now she uses the usual politician speak, like "what's important is that we allow Americans to get medical care at a price they can afford." She has proposed a policy of a $500 / month copay as her answer to healthcare. This is just one example where I find her wanting. She used to talk very progressively, but then she ran for president and the big money started rolling in, and now she's changed her tune. Then of course there's her refusal to go on Fox news, which is essentially an announcement that she doesn't want to unite the country or be a president to all Americans. Yang is the real deal, as I've mentioned before. One of his biggest hurdles is naysayers who don't give him a chance because they feel that he doesn't have a chance. Obviously that's self-fulfilling, and you can make political decisions based on whatever you want. But I'll just mention that Yang is beginning to poll in the 3, 4, and 5 % ranges, and he's pretty much a lock for debates 3 and 4 at this point, which will have probably 8 to (maybe?) 10 candidates. He has a much better shot than you give him credit for, and honestly as I've said, one of his biggest limiting factors is public perception that he doesn't have a chance. Yang's popularity is also greater than what polls suggest, since they are largely targeting registered dem voters, which ignores his wide appeal with Trump voters and even previously "disengaged" voters. Many of Yang's supporters say they've never really cared about a politician before. I can say that's true about me, though I have voted in the past. I'm not blind to Yang's chances of winning; I realise he's one candidate of many. But I can confidently say that his chances of winning are significantly higher than 2%. On July 26 2019 20:36 GreenHorizons wrote: With the next debate coming up I was wondering which candidates people think most closely reflect the policy positions Hillary ran on in 2016? To answer GH's question, my quick answer is "take your pick." The race right now is Bernie, Yang, Gabbard, and Williamson, and then 20+ status quo politicians. Any of those 20+ are more or less like Hillary in my opinion. I guess Hillary played a lot of identity politics too, so for the closest reflection I'd have to go either Warren or Harris. Though Biden is pretty much running on a platform of "orange man bad" and "I was friends with Obama" similar to how Hillary did. It's really tough to pick just one. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
I'm not blind to Yang's chances of winning; I realise he's one candidate of many. But I can confidently say that his chances of winning are significantly higher than 2%. I hope Andrew Yang sticks around to continue talking about important topics and foster potential discussion (UBI, automation, technology, etc.), but he has no chance of winning. Percent of national support being at 1-5% does not equate to probability of actually winning the nomination. The top 5 candidates are the only ones who aren't realistically eliminated yet, and 5th place (Buttigieg) is really close to being equally irrelevant to the other lower candidates. I understand that most Democratic candidates are going to stick around longer to spread more ideas and earn more name recognition for future political runs (or business ventures), which are also beneficial for them, but it's 99% likely that our 2020 Democratic nominee will be either Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Harris (with the other 1% just flat-out going to Buttigieg, and 0% to the remaining ~20 candidates). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
Iowa is unusually important if it's still a 5+ person race (it's probable ~10 stay in that long). Caucus style voting forces (not completely but you won't be very popular remaining with an inviable (a term of art) candidate. In the many precincts where Biden and Bernie are consistently 2 of 3 candidates to reach viability there will be pressure for the other candidates supporters to choose between Biden, Sanders, and _____ If that's not Harris (NH is ballot but also favors those two in polling) in at least on of the first 2 competitions she can't win South Carolina and will have to either drop out or focus on winning California (to the detriment of everywhere else on super Tuesday) to save political face. Warren being that third splits progressives netting Biden the most delegates as long as they don't unite around Sanders (Sanders supporters aren't going Warren's way). At this point if the old guard falls fully behind Biden he's got the nomination by taking it to the convention with the most delegates. Silver lining is the wrench in this is Biden himself, he's got to dodge a gaff that actually hurts him. Debates are when he's most vulnerable since it seems his handlers have him mostly under control otherwise. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On July 26 2019 22:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I largely agree with your response, Dromar, except for this: I hope Andrew Yang sticks around to continue talking about important topics and foster potential discussion (UBI, automation, technology, etc.), but he has no chance of winning. Percent of national support being at 1-5% does not equate to probability of actually winning the nomination. The top 5 candidates are the only ones who aren't realistically eliminated yet, and 5th place (Buttigieg) is really close to being equally irrelevant to the other lower candidates. I understand that most Democratic candidates are going to stick around longer to spread more ideas and earn more name recognition for future political runs (or business ventures), which are also beneficial for them, but it's 99% likely that our 2020 Democratic nominee will be either Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Harris (with the other 1% just flat-out going to Buttigieg, and 0% to the remaining ~20 candidates). You could have said the same thing about Trump 4 years ago, and the same thing about Obama 12 years ago. Both times you would have been wrong. I agree that percent of national polling does not equate to probability of actually winning. But I don't assume that it means their actual chances of winning are 0%, as you do. Again, I'll reiterate that I understand Yang's chances are pretty low at this stage, but I cannot agree that they are essentially 0. That seems pretty foolish to me. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
On July 26 2019 23:03 Dromar wrote: You could have said the same thing about Trump 4 years ago, and the same thing about Obama 12 years ago. Both times you would have been wrong. I agree that percent of national polling does not equate to probability of actually winning. But I don't assume that it means their actual chances of winning are 0%, as you do. Again, I'll reiterate that I understand Yang's chances are pretty low at this stage, but I cannot agree that they are essentially 0. That seems pretty foolish to me. I don't think Obama or Trump are analogous to Andrew Yang, either in personality or in their specific situations in the primary. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that both Obama and Trump were polling better after the first primary debate than Andrew Yang currently is, and both Obama and Trump were far more impassioned and resonating in their message to the general public than Andrew Yang is. Also, both Obama and Trump made a splash during their debates; Yang hasn't. I don't see a path for Yang unless ~5-10 of the higher candidates all drop dead or mysteriously disappear. Do you see a path for Yang to win the primary? | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On July 26 2019 23:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I don't think Obama or Trump are analogous to Andrew Yang, either in personality or in their specific situations in the primary. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident that both Obama and Trump were polling better after the first primary debate than Andrew Yang currently is, and both Obama and Trump were far more impassioned and resonating in their message to the general public than Andrew Yang is. Also, both Obama and Trump made a splash during their debates; Yang hasn't. I don't see a path for Yang unless ~5-10 of the higher candidates all drop dead or mysteriously disappear. Do you see a path for Yang to win the primary? Sure. He stands out in one of the future debates, gets more attention as other candidates drop out, continues to gain steam, and starts polling higher. People start to take him seriously as a candidate as more people start paying closer attention to the election, and realize that he's genuine and wants to actually help normal people and has good ideas. Primary voting begins and he does well in at least a couple of the early states. Most other candidates drop out or have already dropped out at this point. He continues to outperform expectations in the primaries, due in part to unexpectedly high primary participation from independents, Trump voters, libertarians, etc. It's a long path, it's not easy, and it's not even likely. But I'd give it more than 0%. Trump and Obama were both polling higher at this equivalent point in time; you are correct. But Yang now is looking very similar to Trump and Obama 4 to 6 months prior to the equivalent of now. Is that insurmountable for Yang? I don't know. But the fact that Yang is not analogous to Trump or Obama goes both ways; just because he is not matching their place at the equivalent time in previous elections doesn't mean, well, anything really. Trump and Obama's performance is not necessarily the minimum requirement for a successful presidential run. They only show that unexpected things are possible. You say you don't see a path for Yang unless ~5 to 10 of the higher candidates drop out. How many candidates do you think are higher than Yang? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28561 Posts
However he's a terribly, terribly far distance away from where Trump or Obama were at any point of announcing. Obama announced that he was running in January 2007. Looking at this, we can see that this is after he had been polling at between 15% and 23% (consistent second place after Hillary) for several months - from September until December 2006. In July 2007, comparable to where we are now, he was pushing 30% - still with a big field; but he was consistently 10-15% above the #3 candidate. As for Trump? Trump was the poll leader from shortly after announcing, and he stood in the center of the first debate, both literally and figuratively. The media was something like 90% Trump 10% other candidates combined. Yang doesn't pull above 2% (edit oops I saw he had one poll at 3%. But he has more at 0, and majority 1%). If he manages to ever get himself to 5% support, that would be a great success for him compared to his current point of departure. Voters at this point are extremely unlikely to start flocking to one of the lowest polling candidates because it is known that only the highest polling ones have any type of real chance. Yangs best hope is to have a Sanders-like thing, where he manages to make UBI a household topic of discussion and something more people start growing positive towards, so that he can have the role of the originator of it in future elections where it ends up being one of the major points, like how Sanders owns social democracy. People might like Warren's policies more in some or several areas, but nobody questions Sanders' authenticity; having supported something when it was unpopular means you weren't doing it for political purposes, which resonates really well with voters who later on grow fond of that policy. For a counter-example, someone like Clinton doesn't get a whole lot of credit from LGBT voters - I mean she's better than republicans, but she's perceived as a weather vane more than anything because she changed her opinion to match public opinion. But he has no chance at winning this primary. I'd bet my dog on it. (she's old, granted, but I do love her more than anything.  ) | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
On July 27 2019 00:16 Dromar wrote: Sure. He stands out in one of the future debates, gets more attention as other candidates drop out, continues to gain steam, and starts polling higher. People start to take him seriously as a candidate as more people start paying closer attention to the election, and realize that he's genuine and wants to actually help normal people and has good ideas. Primary voting begins and he does well in at least a couple of the early states. Most other candidates drop out or have already dropped out at this point. He continues to outperform expectations in the primaries, due in part to unexpectedly high primary participation from independents, Trump voters, libertarians, etc. You could literally say this about any arbitrary candidate though, and it would be just as baseless a conjecture as it is with Andrew Yang. That's simply not feasible. Here's some national polling data over the past two months. You'll see that there hasn't been any change when it comes to Andrew Yang. No post-debate bump, no additional hype or spike for any reason, nothing really. Harris got a bump due to a combination of her debate performance plus the fact that she was already in 4th-6th place with high single-digits at the time, and there's been some other fluctuation above Buttigieg, but everyone else is flatlined at under 3-5%. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ieTdGtc.png) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html Also from the above link: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uqjlZTp.png) It's not happening  It's a long path, it's not easy, and it's not even likely. But I'd give it more than 0%. Trump and Obama were both polling higher at this equivalent point in time; you are correct. But Yang now is looking very similar to Trump and Obama 4 to 6 months prior to the equivalent of now. Is that insurmountable for Yang? I don't know. But the fact that Yang is not analogous to Trump or Obama goes both ways; just because he is not matching their place at the equivalent time in previous elections doesn't mean, well, anything really. Trump and Obama's performance is not necessarily the minimum requirement for a successful presidential run. They only show that unexpected things are possible. You say you don't see a path for Yang unless ~5 to 10 of the higher candidates drop out. How many candidates do you think are higher than Yang? Clearly the top 5 (the aforementioned candidates), but the rest are all within 1-2% of one another anyway, so he's roughly equal to at least 10 others. He doesn't stand out from the rest of the pack at all in terms of percent-support, so even claiming he's ranked 6th or 7th doesn't really do justice to the proper context- that his 2% average polling is being compared to numbers way higher. And I feel you're moving the goalposts a bit to try and make Obama's success and Trump's success analogous to Yang's potential, and I really don't think that's accurate. Saying "unexpected things are possible" is too vague and useless to mean anything when we actually have current polling data and previous presidential runs to look at. Edit: I agree with Liquid`Drone that Yang's focus on UBI (and other important and interesting topics) will hopefully shape future discussions for other candidates (similar to the effects that Bernie has had, especially since the last election), and that that's the most useful case scenario for Andrew Yang's politics in 2020. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22737 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43812 Posts
On July 29 2019 02:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Kamala Harris announced a plan for student debt forgiveness. Just start a business, make it past 3 years(that usually happens right?), and "operate in disadvantaged communities" It seems remarkably poorly thought out and impractical to me. https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1155305122911723526 And before all that, one needs to specifically be a Pell Grant recipient too? I wonder what her justification is for these specific conditions. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
