| 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 | ||
|
redlightdistrict
382 Posts
http://archive.ph/0tawM CBS News has learned that California Sen. Kamala Harris is parting ways with most of her staff in New Hampshire, closing three field offices; "she won't show up in person next week to file for the primary, a break with the norm," @edokeefe says cbsn.ws/36sNCQo pic.twitter.com/azNwJ50umV | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14060 Posts
On November 03 2019 12:52 Nebuchad wrote: In a healthy two party system, if such a thing exists, nobody should appeal to reactionaries. Conservatives and liberals are virtually the same group and is the group that the right should primarily be appealing to, while the left should be the group of people that want structural change (see the right as a defense of existing power structures and order, ergo liberalism, and the left as offering another vision). This then still relys on you arguing that the Republican party can now somehow appeal to liberals conservatives and moderates when it was impossible for dems to do this and yet have enough votes for the dems to be politically relevant. That's just not how elections work. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On November 04 2019 01:57 redlightdistrict wrote: Is Harris getting ready to withdraw? Seemed like she was peaking after the first debate, Gabbard torpedoed her, then she never regained momentum http://archive.ph/0tawM I don't think Gabbard has had any effect on Harris (or, really, anyone), but I wouldn't be surprised if Harris drops out soon, even though she and Buttigieg have been the only ones ever doing non-awful in the polling numbers over the past few months, after the Big Three (Biden, Sanders, Warren). Harris's polling numbers impressively shot up after the first debate because she had the best line(s) of the night (against Biden iirc), but that was a transient boost and now she's back to uninspiring levels of support. In fact, she's recently dropped even lower than before ( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/ ). It makes obvious sense for the Big Three to stay in the race, and there is an argument to be made about Buttigieg also sticking around because he's been making some waves with Iowa caucus polls, but everyone else (Harris and the other low-tier candidates) can drop out if they're only focusing on poll numbers and a chance of actually winning the primary. I suspect that a few other low-tier candidates (like Yang) might stick around a bit longer to continue pushing certain conversations (like UBI, automation, etc.) and to make themselves better known for 4 or 8 years from now, as long as they don't run out of funding just yet. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On November 04 2019 02:14 Sermokala wrote: This then still relys on you arguing that the Republican party can now somehow appeal to liberals conservatives and moderates when it was impossible for dems to do this and yet have enough votes for the dems to be politically relevant. That's just not how elections work. It is impossible for dems to do this because of the differences in ideology. It won't be as hard for the republicans at all, because the ideologies are similar. There is a different standard because the ideologies are different. | ||
|
pmh
1373 Posts
On November 03 2019 07:15 Nebuchad wrote: West Virginia hates liberalism. They vote conservative because they aren't liberals (or claim not to be). They also vote for Bernie over Hillary in the primary, overwhelmingly so, they're not picking the most rightwing choice every time, they're just going with non liberals. Understandably so, as liberalism has fucked them pretty hard. I have no idea how Manchin gets through given that he's pretty standard establishment, he must be super nice in person or something. The notion that going left of liberal decreases the chances of a politician in WV is absurd, and I don't think anyone actually believes that. Would it be enough to win the seat? I don't know, probably not in the near future. But it's still the sound strategy. Keep in mind that having a bold agenda is inspiring people everywhere. You might lose a few conservative democrats in red states, but most of the time the conservative democrat will just be replaced by a more progressive democrat. A lot of conservative democrats have deep blue constituencies, it's ridiculous. The bold agenda would also help the democrats running against republicans as they would be able to run on something completely within reach. When you run on things that people like, you get more seats. I have to agree with ren sc2. Most people in the usa do not want a progressive let alone in WV. Going bold I think is the wrong way to go for the democrats right now. Going bold did work for trump because people where largely unsatisfied with what was happening in Washington. Justified or not they wanted a big change,which they got. Right now I think most people are more or less happy with what is happening in Washington and with the economy,or at least give trump the benefit of the doubt. They don't want a big change and when people don't truly want a big change going bold is not the right strategy. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12377 Posts
On November 04 2019 04:51 pmh wrote: I have to agree with ren sc2. Most people in the usa do not want a progressive let alone in WV. Going bold I think is the wrong way to go for the democrats right now. Going bold did work for trump because people where largely unsatisfied with what was happening in Washington. Justified or not they wanted a big change,which they got. Right now I think most people are more or less happy with what is happening in Washington and with the economy,or at least give trump the benefit of the doubt. They don't want a big change and when people don't truly want a big change going bold is not the right strategy. There are a bunch of wrong assertions in this ("they wanted a big change, which they got" lol) but I want to focus on how the logic is not even internally consistent. Democrats offered no change, so the voters went with the other guy, now Democrats should offer the same thing that the voters rejected last time because the voters are happy with the changes that they got over said last time. Even if you could prove all of your assertions, the internal logic of your argument doesn't work. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
On November 04 2019 04:59 Mohdoo wrote: Considering Trump has been plundering aid money for his purposes since he got elected it might actually not?I'm sure Trump withholding aid to California has nothing to do with Pelosi or impeachment Probably is the case tho. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On November 04 2019 04:59 Mohdoo wrote: I'm sure Trump withholding aid to California has nothing to do with Pelosi or impeachment Maybe he was told that California was in Ukraine, or something? In all seriousness though, I don't understand why Trump is not just apathetic towards climate change activism, but actually contrarian to it - literally going out of his way to make the problems even worse (like rolling back funding for California wildfires, destroying the EPA, and even selling his own plastic straws just to ridicule climate change activism). I suppose it's unsurprising, given that he thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax, but I would happily settle for him just not touching anything until a real man (or woman) becomes president, rather than him purposely breaking everything he can get his hands on. | ||
|
pmh
1373 Posts
On November 04 2019 05:00 Nebuchad wrote: There are a bunch of wrong assertions in this ("they wanted a big change, which they got" lol) but I want to focus on how the logic is not even internally consistent. Democrats offered no change, so the voters went with the other guy, now Democrats should offer the same thing that the voters rejected last time because the voters are happy with the changes that they got over said last time. Even if you could prove all of your assertions, the internal logic of your argument doesn't work. I find it difficult to understand why my logic is internally flawed,i don't see it. But I will try respond. Democrats offered no change, so the voters went with the other guy -yes that was one of the reasons. The old party elite vs a guy who would drain the swamp. That he didn't drain the swamp in the end,only made it worse,doesnt even really matter. As long as he has the image the people will go with it. Trump certainly has the image,if only because he is so very different from all the presidents before. He is a change (if only in antics) and for now that is good enough for the voters. now Democrats should offer the same thing that the voters rejected last time because the voters are happy with the changes that they got over said last time. -Yes more or less. It is not so much that the voters are happy with the changes they got,It is more so that they are happy with the situation as it is now (and that could very well be the case even if NOTHING has really changed,because the voters themselves change in what they want). I don't really see an inconsistency. Going bold now I think is a bad way to go,because people overall are not largely unhappy with the trump presidency. Sanders will be seen as a huge risk by many voters,someone who will change to much when for now people want give current policys a bit more time to prove themselves. But yes this is just my impression,which could very well be wrong. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11691 Posts
On November 04 2019 05:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Maybe he was told that California was in Ukraine, or something? In all seriousness though, I don't understand why Trump is not just apathetic towards climate change activism, but actually contrarian to it - literally going out of his way to make the problems even worse (like rolling back funding for California wildfires, destroying the EPA, and even selling his own plastic straws just to ridicule climate change activism). I suppose it's unsurprising, given that he thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax, but I would happily settle for him just not touching anything until a real man (or woman) becomes president, rather than him purposely breaking everything he can get his hands on. But that would mean that he isn't a big strong man who knows all the things. A big strong man who can see through the chinese hoaxes and liberal stupid ideas. Also, notice how mad it makes the libs. Must be the right to do if it makes them mad. After all, owning libs is one of his major stances in this. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45182 Posts
On November 04 2019 05:56 Simberto wrote: But that would mean that he isn't a big strong man who knows all the things. A big strong man who can see through the chinese hoaxes and liberal stupid ideas. Also, notice how mad it makes the libs. Must be the right to do if it makes them mad. After all, owning libs is one of his major stances in this. That's a good point... So many American voters would happily vote for someone who pisses off "the other side" with rhetoric, even if the candidate doesn't promote anything else. Sadly, victories are defined by a leader having the preferred D or R next to their name, rather than actually helping the American people during their tenure. | ||
|
pmh
1373 Posts
Now the moment is gone,going bold now will result in a loss against trump and at the same time ruin any prospects for a more progressive democratic party. Then its like "well we tried and it didnt work,the people dont want it so we go back to what we always have been doing" For progressives the best candidate would be biden,he would lose and then maybe progressives get a real shot inside the democratic party and even the presidency after trump no doubt messes up his 2nd term. Then its like "well this clearly doesnt work anymore,we have to try something else" Its all about the long term. My "fear" is that if say sanders becomes the candidate and loses,that the democratic party will turn towards the right to compete with trump while moving away from any progressive movement. But yes i am an exception with this vieuw i realize that. I hope i am wrong as well. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
It'll be a consequential year to say the least I imagine. Let's hope for the best. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
| ||
|
redlightdistrict
382 Posts
http://archive.ph/O3NC1 Since mentions are basically free publicity and advertising for the candidate, it looks like biden is leading the pack with over 700,000 more mentions tha Sanders who is second. Interestingly enough Gabbard is in 5th with 1 million while Pete is down to 8th place with 389k. Putting this into consideration, Biden has a size ably greater online presence over the other candidates giving him a distinct advantage over the field. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 05 2019 01:15 redlightdistrict wrote: Since social media will play a bigger role in the election than the last, ive looked up the total amount of online interactions voters are having with the candidates http://archive.ph/O3NC1 Since mentions are basically free publicity and advertising for the candidate, it looks like biden is leading the pack with over 700,000 more mentions tha Sanders who is second. Interestingly enough Gabbard is in 5th with 1 million while Pete is down to 8th place with 389k. Putting this into consideration, Biden has a size ably greater online presence over the other candidates giving him a distinct advantage over the field. I don't think you can put stock into those numbers without having something to account for bots, and looking at the whole picture (like Sanders has 10mil Twitter follower's to Biden's 4mil). There's also something to be said for positive vs negative interactions, though it's hard to say how much negative ones hurt. Then on top of that the calendar range given (week of Oct 27th) also is likely unusually high for Biden because of the Hunter Biden scandal. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
On November 05 2019 02:40 Mohdoo wrote: Trump's taxes seem poised for the supreme court. Should be interesting. I wonder if they'll even consider it. I’d guess they refuse to hear the appeal, which affirms the lower court’s decisions. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On November 05 2019 03:13 farvacola wrote: I’d guess they refuse to hear the appeal, which affirms the lower court’s decisions. So you don't think this is the sort of thing Kav could be the deciding saving vote for Trump? You'd expect most conservatives on the court to reject this? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
