|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
McConnell easily. The bills that didn't get to see the light of day. The SC chair that was held hostage and then forced through. Every bad policy that has taken effect since 2016 is on him. trump is a stooge and he can't even obstruct justice the right way.
|
On April 24 2019 12:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
McConnell easily. The bills that didn't get to see the light of day. The SC chair that was held hostage and then forced through. Every bad policy that has taken effect since 2016 is on him. trump is a stooge and he can't even obstruct justice the right way.
Yeah, to me it isn't even a question. McConnell basically threw out all of the norms the senate had ever operated under and turned quite literally anything and everything into a political game. He is a person without shame who has no problem being blatantly hypocritical if it can score him anything he perceives to be a victory.
He's also the one after all who caused the shutdown earlier in the year to last over a month by blocking any votes on bills to reopen the government. He allowed hundreds of thousands of government workers to go without pay for over a month because he thought it would weaken his and Trump's political position on the stupid wall.
|
On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing.
"voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic.
Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people.
Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo.
|
On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo.
Please don’t go full populist / paranoid on Bernie as you did last time; it was god damn awful. I read The New York Times and it’s rather positive on Sanders. The last entries are letters from democrats who criticize the Stop Sanders democrats as deeply destructive, an article by Krugman saying that criticizing him on his tax thing is “deeply stupid” (that’s his words) because the problem is not at all the 1% but the 0,01%, and so on and so forth.
There is also negative coverage, which reflects the negative views of many people within the democratic party apparatus but the martyr narrative is simply off, as far as the NYT is concerned. The coverage is as balanced as with any other candidate, and if I knew nothing about US politics and opened the NYT these days, I would have a rather positive image of him.
|
On April 24 2019 17:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. [quote] www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo. Please don’t go full populist / paranoid on Bernie as you did last time; it was god damn awful. I read The New York Times and it’s rather positive on Sanders. The last entries are letters from democrats who criticize the Stop Sanders democrats are deeply destructive, an article by Krugman saying that criticizing him on his tax thing is “deeply stupid” (that’s his words) because the problem is not at all the 1% but the 0,01%, and so on and so forth. There is also negative coverage, which reflects the negative views of many people within the democratic party apparatus but the martyr narrative is simply off, as far as the NYT is concerned. The coverage is as balanced as with any other candidate, and if I knew nothing about US politics and opened the NYT these days, I would have a rather positive image of him.
You can comment on my argument without the armchair diagnosis of paranoia, try that next time please.
The easiest way for me to tie it together is to point out this isn't a new corporate media attack line.
Bernie Sanders Is a De Facto Millionaire
You're right that there is a significant bandwagon effect in the Democratic party though, so as more people accept the statistical likelihood of Bernie winning the nomination they'll hop on and hope for a ride.
But corporate media isn't dissimilar from Trump in that they'll say both things and the story is in the juxtaposition of their impressions (both size and target audience).
|
Ahm, are they lying? No.
Is it a bit hypocritical of Bernie being a millionaire given some of his rethoric? Yes.
Should he expalin or even excuse himself for it? Hell no.
Will his enemies in the DNC, the Republican party and anywhere else try to use this against him? Hell yes.
Will it hurt him in the long run? No.
Where do you see this constant horrible attacks? I mean Biden, Buttigieg and others have to deal with worse? At least in my Youtube and Magazinsphere Biden is basically a molester and Buttigieg an evil establishment shill.
|
On April 24 2019 18:19 Velr wrote:
Ahm, are they lying? No.
Is it a bit hypocritical of Bernie being a millionaire given some of his rethoric? Yes.
Should he expalin or even excuse himself for it? Hell no.
Will his enemies in the DNC, the Republican party and anywhere else try to use this against him? Hell yes.
Will it hurt him in the long run? No.
Where do you see this constant horrible attacks? I mean Biden, Buttigieg and others have to deal with worse? At least in my Youtube and Magazinsphere Biden is basically a molester and Buttigieg an evil establishment shill.
"are they lying" depends on where you draw the line between intentionally misleading people and lying.
Is it hypocritical, I'll side with Krugman's assessment on that.
Should he explain? I think he should and did. The last two I agree with though.
It was practically everywhere prior to ~April 15th when rhetoric shifted somewhat. Might not work without a US ip but a google search of "bernie Sanders Millionaire" will give you pages of examples across corporate media and you'll notice most of the counter takes came after it was pretty clear it failed. Not to mention it looked silly having multi-million dollar/yr commentators criticizing Bernie for making too much to critique capitalism.
I'm not sure even Krugman pointed out that you always either make too much or too little to have a valid criticism of capitalism untinged by jealousy or hypocrisy. Lest it be a criticism determined to preserve it.
|
I personally don't think it is outrageously hypocritical, I actually would have been amazed if Bernie wasn't a millionaire, but it still remains a bit hypocritical. I also agree that "normal" millionaires aren't the issue.
My personal tax policies would be pretty simple:
Tax a companies earnings directly on the products at the place they make their sales (the rest is done by capital gains tax).
Tax inheritance (above a treshhold of about 2 Millions and have excemptions for people that inherit a small/medium business or property until they sell it).
Tax capital gains.
Progressively but moderatly tax income.
Low sales tax on Food/Necessities, higher sales tax on luxury goods.
Imho that would solve most Problems whiteout being any more complicated than what most countries have atm, probably it would be much easier.
|
On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. A new University of New Hampshire poll released Monday shows Bernie Sanders widening his lead over the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders.
The Granite State Poll has the Vermont senator leading former Vice President Joe Biden by a double-digit margin, 30% to 18%, among New Hampshire voters. Right behind Biden at 15% is Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has been generating a lot of attention of late.
Sanders led Biden by just 4% in UNH's last poll in February. Biden has not formally announced a run, but is expected to do so as soon as this week.
Despite her proximity to New Hampshire, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren received only 5% of the support of Democratic primary voters. She was followed by Kamala Harris at 4%, Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke at 3% apiece and Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Yang and Tim Ryan at 2%. www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo.
An exemple of what people think of Bernie :
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/
Have a look at one of the bottom charts : "early state activists who would NOT consider backing a candidate in the primary". Bernie is a close second behind Gabbard, with 50% of the pool not considering supporting him (granted, 60 people is not a lot. Biden is also at ~40%).
You might want to take into account the fact that he is an independant with real-left policies, and not all the democratic party would be willing to fully back that. It's not really undermining I guess, but he is himself in a strange position for the mainstream democratic voters. I don't think they care about his wealth, and his policies are well-known by now. If there are still that amount of people not willing to support him, that means something.
|
On April 24 2019 20:14 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:On April 23 2019 23:41 GreenHorizons wrote:The Biden collapse is beginning. New poll showing NH is basically a lock for Sanders (not unexpected) that means someone besides Bernie has to win Iowa or it's over before super Tuesday. [quote] www.nbcboston.comLooks like Buttigieg might be the establishments last hope. Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens. Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo. An exemple of what people think of Bernie : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/Have a look at one of the bottom charts : "early state activists who would NOT consider backing a candidate in the primary". Bernie is a close second behind Gabbard, with 50% of the pool not considering supporting him (granted, 60 people is not a lot. Biden is also at ~40%). You might want to take into account the fact that he is an independant with real-left policies, and not all the democratic party would be willing to fully back that. It's not really undermining I guess, but he is himself in a strange position for the mainstream democratic voters. I don't think they care about his wealth, and his policies are well-known by now. If there are still that amount of people not willing to support him, that means something.
I dunno man, that article has a lot of problems in its analysis. The author spends very little time discussing how exactly he discovered/defined "early Democratic activists" and that attempt at categorization itself could explain why the folks he spoke to showed disfavor for two of the most outsider candidates. Sanders specifically is infamous for having only one foot in the party, so the lurking selection bias problem inherent to asking fervent (activist) Democrats if they like the guy who some say isn't a Democrat at all upends the impact of the already pretty tiny data set the author is working with. It also begs the question: is there a group of activists who aren't "Democrat" that poll more favorably for Sanders? I suspect the answer is yes, and I suspect they are not a small group compared with the rest of "early activists," whatever that may mean.
That article is, imo, another example how Democrats are way too interested in asking the wrong questions, questions that seem aimed more at establishing a pecking order among allies rather than figuring out how to win.
|
On April 24 2019 20:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 20:14 Nouar wrote:On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens.
Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo. An exemple of what people think of Bernie : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/Have a look at one of the bottom charts : "early state activists who would NOT consider backing a candidate in the primary". Bernie is a close second behind Gabbard, with 50% of the pool not considering supporting him (granted, 60 people is not a lot. Biden is also at ~40%). You might want to take into account the fact that he is an independant with real-left policies, and not all the democratic party would be willing to fully back that. It's not really undermining I guess, but he is himself in a strange position for the mainstream democratic voters. I don't think they care about his wealth, and his policies are well-known by now. If there are still that amount of people not willing to support him, that means something. I dunno man, that article has a lot of problems in its analysis. The author spends very little time discussing how exactly he discovered/defined "early Democratic activists" and that attempt at categorization itself could explain why the folks he spoke to showed disfavor for two of the most outsider candidates. Sanders specifically is infamous for having only one foot in the party, so the lurking selection bias problem inherent to asking fervent (activist) Democrats if they like the guy who some say isn't a Democrat at all upends the impact of the already pretty tiny data set the author is working with. It also begs the question: is there a group of activists who aren't "Democrat" that poll more favorably for Sanders? I suspect the answer is yes, and I suspect they are not a small group compared with the rest of "early activists," whatever that may mean. That article is, imo, another example how Democrats are way too interested in asking the wrong questions, questions that seem aimed more at establishing a pecking order among allies rather than figuring out how to win.
I think the question is very good, but pretty hard to get reliable results on "strange" candidates. Especially with such a small sample size. However, I still found the overall article interesting, and it keeps up well with the recent polling results of Buttigieg for example.
Still, the main body of voters are the independants, and while some of them are leaning pretty left, I still think the bulk of them are somewhere in the center, more pragmatic. I am not sure Sanders really has the potential to appeal to enough people. If they are left with a choice of Trump vs Sanders, instead of Trump vs "center-left" candidate, republicans would most assuredly not vote for him, and independants might be split. Is Trump revulsion going to be strong enough in this case ? I am not sure.
Another issue would be turnout. As we have seen in the primaries, where dems AND reps had a record turnout, you need someone who can raise spirits and motivation to the highest level. Sanders has an edge there compared to a more standard run-of-the-mill candidate. I think only Sanders, and perhaps O'Rourke (and maybe Buttigieg if he doesn't crash and burn in the next few months) have that grass-roots appeal while not being too cheesy. Well, it is early enough that all this are only suppositions.
One thing is for sure in my opinion, democrats need a reliable candidate, able to push policy ideas, with an appealing personality, able to hold his/her ground in a ruthless debate while keeping the high ground, and as few skeletons in the closet as possible as Trump is going to push and tear where it hurts (age being an issue, he's sure to push on it like crazy if Bernie or Biden are selected, as he was told he was too old). I'd like for not being gay/woman/of color not to be disqualifying. Please select the candidate on the merits.
|
Sanders' performance in Michigan in '16 forecasts exactly why I think he has broad crossover appeal of the sort none of the other candidates do. His recent performance on the Fox News townhall proved the point even more; he says things that people, regardless of party, find true, hopeful, and motivating. Here on the Ohio/Michigan border, I see this borne out in conversations I have had with folks from all across the spectrum, with only Clintonites strongly reacting against Sanders' rhetoric.
Granted, I will vote for whomever opposes Trump, but I think Sanders is the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 24 2019 20:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2019 20:14 Nouar wrote:On April 24 2019 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 01:51 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2019 00:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:17 Acrofales wrote:On April 24 2019 00:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2019 00:03 brian wrote:On April 24 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 23 2019 23:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Good to see your calling the primary a year before it happens.
Feels more then a little premature. Not really, the media called it for Hillary about this far into the campaign. Bernie was supposed to be another Ron Paul. Also Trump was definitely going to lose and only statistical illiterates would believe otherwise. I don't think I'm going to be nearly as wrong as the people who believed that stuff. this sounds like an argument in support of his point tbh It was at the same time I suggested that Bernie would do better than anyone was expecting and I provided an argument. I'd love to see that for someone other than Bernie that isn't "anything can happen". It's clear that most people regurgitate opinions they hear from talking heads they like or that say what they like. Most people haven't actually dug into why Bernie is such a prohibitive front runner at this point and don't know because it doesn't get the kind of attention in media all the alternatives to Bernie get. Foreigner here, but I hear absolutely nothing about anybody other than Bernie or Biden. You had a point last election that the press around the primary was heavily slanted towards Hillary, but this time if media is supposed to be proportional to the number of candidates, Bernie is severely hogging time in the media from where I'm standing. Of course, I don't ingest US cable tv, so I know very little about the general US mediascape. Klobachar and Sanders get approximately the same screen time in the US from my anecdotal experience. Though since the media put out "bernie is the frontrunner" disclaimers I expect to see even more ginned up controversy like his tax returns and his "millionaire" status. Dems are dirty too so someone's going to drop some dirt on Mayor Pete before long as well as hyping up Warren's candidacy. I think there's a pretty big problem with voter ignorance regarding attacks based around shit like Bernie being a "millionaire". People seem to think billionaire is just another kind of millionaire and that millionaires are the problem when the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire is of the same order as the difference between getting a thousand dollars in your paycheck every two weeks and getting a million dollars in that paycheck. The whole "how can he go after billionaires when he's a millionaire" is absurd. They're not the same thing. "voter ignorance" doesn't spontaneously manifest into existence. It's systemic. Plenty of people and platforms with 10's of millions of combined viewers made a deliberate effort to gin up controversy around his tax returns and his "millionaire" status rather than inform people. Any extended look at corporate media demonstrates a clear attempt to undermine Bernie's candidacy in whatever way possible imo. An exemple of what people think of Bernie : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/Have a look at one of the bottom charts : "early state activists who would NOT consider backing a candidate in the primary". Bernie is a close second behind Gabbard, with 50% of the pool not considering supporting him (granted, 60 people is not a lot. Biden is also at ~40%). You might want to take into account the fact that he is an independant with real-left policies, and not all the democratic party would be willing to fully back that. It's not really undermining I guess, but he is himself in a strange position for the mainstream democratic voters. I don't think they care about his wealth, and his policies are well-known by now. If there are still that amount of people not willing to support him, that means something. I dunno man, that article has a lot of problems in its analysis. The author spends very little time discussing how exactly he discovered/defined "early Democratic activists" and that attempt at categorization itself could explain why the folks he spoke to showed disfavor for two of the most outsider candidates. Sanders specifically is infamous for having only one foot in the party, so the lurking selection bias problem inherent to asking fervent (activist) Democrats if they like the guy who some say isn't a Democrat at all upends the impact of the already pretty tiny data set the author is working with. It also begs the question: is there a group of activists who aren't "Democrat" that poll more favorably for Sanders? I suspect the answer is yes, and I suspect they are not a small group compared with the rest of "early activists," whatever that may mean. That article is, imo, another example how Democrats are way too interested in asking the wrong questions, questions that seem aimed more at establishing a pecking order among allies rather than figuring out how to win.
Yeah that's a big gap in the article, for example are DSA activists "early Democratic activists"? Probably not, but they're a 60k strong organization that have had a major effect on the previous election cycle and as an organization have endorsed Sanders.
|
Pretty much every single person saying "I won't support x, even against Trump" is perhaps the most giant pile of BS ever. I am sure there are some people, but this is typical of primary voters. Only their candidate is remotely tenable. Yeah right. I have yet to meet a single Democrat of any she or demographic or anything that doesn't have extreme intent to vote in 2020. Primary voters are just overly passionate and worried about beating Trump.
|
Norway28591 Posts
Are there any posters here who would vote for either beto, biden or buttigieg (insert preferred candidate) vs trump but for trump if he faces sanders?
|
Being concerned about winning is important in all elections. Anyone who wants medicare for all or to address the growing student loans crisis in the next 10 years has to know that 2020 is a make or break election. None of that will happen if the GOP has their hands on the census.
|
Northern Ireland24321 Posts
On April 24 2019 23:46 Plansix wrote:
Being concerned about winning is important in all elections. Anyone who wants medicare for all or to address the growing student loans crisis in the next 10 years has to know that 2020 is a make or break election. None of that will happen if the GOP has their hands on the census.
Not all elections have that feel of a potential watershed moment, I get that vibe with the upcoming one though for sure, more so than 2016.
|
I would not be surprised if we hit 80% turnout in 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
