EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1834
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28761 Posts
Warren gives me the opposite impression. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 02 2019 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: The main thing is that he's just.. extremely unimpressive when speaking. Fumbles so hard that it seems like a given to me that the more exposure he gets the less support he will get. Warren gives me the opposite impression. I echo this, there are more debates between now and the first primary. If Biden doesn't turn it around, or warren doesnt flounder, I don't see him being the front runner forever. I could be very wrong though | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On October 02 2019 05:54 Gorgonoth wrote: Is the general consensus here that Biden doesn't have a chance anymore? If so, I'm curious what makes you all so confident. I've been mainly looking at polling data to try to get a sense of how candidates are rising and falling, not getting caught up in the news cycle. I've looked at almost every poll for the last few months and I have yet to see something which convinces me that Biden is no longer the front runner of the nomination let alone not having a chance. Warren is absolutely surging, but until consistent nationwide polls that she beats Biden are released, she hasn't officially passed him in my book. Last week the Quinnipac and YouGov polls had her up a point or two but not before two polls with him as 11 point favorites came out to close the week. I think Biden will struggle in Iowa, NH, and NV(where even still he's neck and neck with Warren and Sanders) but will gain big ground after Super Tuesday, where his polling looks rock solid. 4 months ago Biden was the only candidate worth discussing with respect to polls. We still have another 4 months until the first primary. Multiple debates before then. Every debate is great for Warren/Bernie and at best ok for Biden. Biden is only where he is because people know who he is and liked Obama. As time goes on, his support can only go down. How many people do you think still need to learn more about Biden? IMO he is totes screwed. Also: As candidates continue to drop out, I think it is very unlikely many supporters will gravitate to Biden. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23713 Posts
On October 02 2019 05:19 plated.rawr wrote: The way i see it, GH: the change you want, won't be coming from the presidental vote, but rather through constant day-to-day work gathering like-minded and preparing for the eventual conflict with those enforcing the status quo. Even so, the day-to-day work is not yet finished, and presidental (and local) elections still happen. Why not make the best out of the existing system by ensuring the least shitty candidates get some time, so that the day-to-day work can continue? Or is it instead in your opinion better to let the shittiest people get more power, thus making more people desperate for drastic change? I feel this is a choice between helping those that need help today and working for tomorrow , versus sacrificing the people that need help today to benefit the work for tomorrow. There's a great deal of literature on the subject but the basics of it is based around reformism vs non-reformist reforms or revolution. Reforms that preserve the system (as Warren advocates) or revolutionary reform which functionally weakens the system and strengthens the proletariat. One reason Warren is a hard no for me is that even though her prescriptions are better than the rest of the Democrats besides Bernie, she's clearly running game like Obama did in 08. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On October 02 2019 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote: There's a great deal of literature on the subject but the basics of it is based around reformism vs non-reformist reforms or revolution. Reforms that preserve the system (as Warren advocates) or revolutionary reform which functionally weakens the system and strengthens the proletariat. One reason Warren is a hard no for me is that even though her prescriptions are better than the rest of the Democrats besides Bernie, she's clearly running game like Obama did in 08. As much as I do agree, there are times where you have to take the best you can get. Personally I’d love to marry a trilingual Swedish underwear model with no gag reflex who has two PhDs and for some reason is attracted to me. Would be nice but, failing that (I still fervently believe it’ll happen one day), I ‘may’ have to settle for something beyond the ideal. True revolutionary change isn’t especially common, in history it has not tended to always go that well, and in the modern telecommunications ages is much less common again. Incremental change, while sure it’s not ideal is still something. You normalise certain things and then you build from them. If you can’t normalise an idea like universal healthcare, you are fucked for doing anything more radical beyond that. Give people something a bit better, they see it’s not apocalyptic and they get used to it, then they get emboldened to push for more. Now personally I prefer Bernie over Warren, but the latter has a pretty solid record, some good ideas and something to hang her hat on to as well. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
It is more difficult to picture him defeating Warren "head-on" as it were, but if he did happen to have a good debate performance that could happen too. His case for winning the primary looks quite weak in some ways but both of the other candidates getting meaningful traction in the polls look weak in some ways too. It's a relative question. | ||
|
pmh
1414 Posts
Biden still has a good change at winning the democratic nomination,its between him and warren I think with both about equal odds. According to bookmakers warren has double the change of biden to become president (which would be very close to the odds of becoming the democratic nominee) For winning the general election Warren pays ~ 3 to 1,biden 6 to 1 and trump ~ 6 to 5. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On October 02 2019 09:44 Aquanim wrote: I think that Biden has a not at all negligible chance; for instance, if Warren should fall off for one reason or another and a substantial fraction of her supporters (it wouldn't even take 50%) moves to Biden rather than Sanders that is probably all it would take. It is more difficult to picture him defeating Warren "head-on" as it were, but if he did happen to have a good debate performance that could happen too. His case for winning the primary looks quite weak in some ways but both of the other candidates getting meaningful traction in the polls look weak in some ways too. It's a relative question. The way I see it, time is not on Biden's side. His support has never grown, only gone down. Once he's behind, he'll never recover. We've got 4 months for other candidates to peel away his support | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 02 2019 09:57 Mohdoo wrote: The way I see it, time is not on Biden's side. His support has never grown, only gone down. Once he's behind, he'll never recover. We've got 4 months for other candidates to peel away his support Certainly, everything I said was predicated on something changing for Biden. I just don't think the odds of that are absurdly low. I agree it is not the most probable outcome of the primary at this point. On October 02 2019 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:... Also: As candidates continue to drop out, I think it is very unlikely many supporters will gravitate to Biden. I don't believe current polling data strongly supports this hypothesis. The "Second Choice" tab here claims that more of both Warren and Sanders' supporters prefer Biden to each other (!?), and while more of Harris and Buttigieg's supporters would prefer Warren than Biden, Biden is still clearly in second place. https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24757 Posts
Anyway, a lot of people probably feel the need to double down on their support of Trump (financially and emotionally) because of all the bad news driving cognitive dissonance and denial. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26359 Posts
On October 02 2019 09:57 Mohdoo wrote: The way I see it, time is not on Biden's side. His support has never grown, only gone down. Once he's behind, he'll never recover. We've got 4 months for other candidates to peel away his support I think that seems the case, I’m often wrong in such things. He had a big boost in early opinion polls from his name recognition, that he hasn’t capitalised at all subsequently on it would say to me his numbers were boosted vs other candidates on that alone, and more exposure will see that trend continue. His real chance is if people want a middle of the road, establishment mainstay that is the sole hope of getting Trump out, and given the current climate I don’t think people will be particularly enthused by his politics, nor that ‘Biden or bust’ is the electoral dichotomy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
On October 02 2019 10:33 Doodsmack wrote: This right here is a measure of how strongly republicans feel about the merits of the impeachment case and the russian collusion case against trump, as well as the media's treatment of those two issues. Personally I think the extortion he attempted on ukraine is very much inappropriate but at this point, since the Russian collusion case was potentially wholly without merit, it doesnt matter. That said it is pretty interesting that people like chuck Grassley are essentially saying that the ukraine matter should be looked into. https://twitter.com/axios/status/1179150878454009856 Meh, this take is tea leaf reading. It can just as easily be posited that this massive donor push is an indication that a lot (or even only a relatively small group) of nasty people with a lot of money are worried their dear leader is in real trouble for once. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On October 02 2019 10:19 Aquanim wrote: Certainly, everything I said was predicated on something changing for Biden. I just don't think the odds of that are absurdly low. I agree it is not the most probable outcome of the primary at this point. I don't believe current polling data strongly supports this hypothesis. The "Second Choice" tab here claims that more of both Warren and Sanders' supporters prefer Biden to each other (!?), and while more of Harris and Buttigieg's supporters would prefer Warren than Biden, Biden is still clearly in second place. https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ This supports my hope that if either Bernie or Warren lose a lot of the early states, they should endorse the other to guarantee GG vs Biden. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 02 2019 12:23 Mohdoo wrote: This supports my hope that if either Bernie or Warren lose a lot of the early states, they should endorse the other to guarantee GG vs Biden. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "supports" here. It seems to me that you need not only Sanders/Warren to endorse the other but also for that endorsement to make a large difference to where their supporters go, since at the moment their supporters would go more to Biden than to the alternative. (Though I admit not by a large margin, and who knows what the third choice is for those whose second choice is Harris/Buttigieg/whoever.) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15742 Posts
On October 02 2019 12:27 Aquanim wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "supports" here. It seems to me that you need not only Sanders/Warren to endorse the other but also for that endorsement to make a large difference to where their supporters go, since at the moment their supporters would go more to Biden than to the alternative. (Though I admit not by a large margin, and who knows what the third choice is for those whose second choice is Harris/Buttigieg/whoever.) LOL I read your post basically as the opposite. Never mind. I'll see myself out. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23713 Posts
Looking at the numbers when available it sure seems like they have some poorly representative samples as well. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4393 Posts
On October 02 2019 09:49 pmh wrote: oops nvm,i did read it wrong. Biden still has a good change at winning the democratic nomination,its between him and warren I think with both about equal odds. According to bookmakers warren has double the change of biden to become president (which would be very close to the odds of becoming the democratic nominee) For winning the general election Warren pays ~ 3 to 1,biden 6 to 1 and trump ~ 6 to 5. Warren should win but Biden is very strong with minority voters.Warren and Sanders are not.So I’m not going to totally write him off. | ||
| ||
