|
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 |
On February 12 2020 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
for what it's worth I don't mind heated back and forth and I've been posting here for years but this thread looked like more fun when there were still a bunch of more conservative Americans around, and I don't even necessarily think I said anything that was super controversial
I don't think your take is controversial, I think your take is incorrect. Trump right now is very tough to beat, he's the incumbent, he has an economy with good liberal markers, he just defeated impeachment which makes him look strong (record approval rating for him, right?). "We don't like him" is hardly a successful message against this, especially not since you've been saying it for four years and the voters see mostly no difference.
Now let's talk political strategy. We need to win back some states, what are our best options? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, fairly clearly. What was up with these states not voting for Hillary? Those states went for Bernie in the primary (except for Pennsylvania which was a closed primary), it's fairly obvious that they weren't too fond of the neoliberal economic policy that Hillary offered, but they seemed okay with something more radical. Good to know.
As usual, the most important bit of political strategy that is forgotten in this analysis is that the center of the US is not where you think it is. This study that I keep posting in the wind shows that. The centrist in America is not someone who thinks trans people are awesome and it's great that the 1% is hoarding all the wealth, it's someone who is concerned with income inequality but not quite woke on social issues. When taking that into account, it makes perfect sense that Trump is viewed as more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, as you said: on the graph, she campaigned bottom right where very few people are, and he campaigned somewhere in the upper center left, way closer to the true center of american politics.
The republican strategists salivating at the thought of running against socialist Sanders are the mirror image of the democratic strategists who were salivating at the thought of running against racist, sexist Trump. Is it impossible that they win? No, of course, Trump still has a decent shot. But from the data that we have and the objectives that we should aim for, one strategy makes way more logical sense than the other. On top of being the right thing to do for the long term wellbeing of the country.
|
Nyxistos electability argument is bogus. Assessing electability a priori is borderline impossible (even 538 agrees: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/youll-never-know-which-candidate-is-electable/) especially in a country as dynamic, torn and complicated in its political beliefs as the US. The claim that it is a solidly centrist country is very much unfounded (its governmental structure and its media are firmly neoliberal of course).
Just a quick reminder: 5 years ago there was almost universal consensus among the centrist pundits and political experts that Trump was the very definition of unelectable. A brash, self-aggrandizing, rude reality TV star?
If anything in the few universal metrics for electability "authenticity, likeability, honesty" Bernie does extremely well.
So ye, do not tell me Bernie can't win, because you just do not know. And in the absence of certainty maybe fight for the candidate not compromised by a corrupt political system and the candidate willing to actually try to step on the brakes before this current economic systems commits environmental suicide in the next 60 years.
Edit: Nebuchad already more or less said what I wanted to.. 
|
The midwest has always had a more socialist core than people on the coasts remember them to have. The Minnesota farm and labor party only exists beacuse it was a socialist offshoot of the democratic party. Agriculture subsidies unions and various farmer coops still exist up and down midwest states. Proposing hemp as the third major industrial crop and solving the milk industry issues would go large distances to winning back the midwest.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
for what it's worth I don't mind heated back and forth and I've been posting here for years but this thread looked like more fun when there were still a bunch of more conservative Americans around, and I don't even necessarily think I said anything that was super controversial I don't think your take is controversial, I think your take is incorrect. Trump right now is very tough to beat, he's the incumbent, he has an economy with good liberal markers, he just defeated impeachment which makes him look strong (record approval rating for him, right?). "We don't like him" is hardly a successful message against this, especially not since you've been saying it for four years and the voters see mostly no difference. Now let's talk political strategy. We need to win back some states, what are our best options? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, fairly clearly. What was up with these states not voting for Hillary? Those states went for Bernie in the primary (except for Pennsylvania which was a closed primary), it's fairly obvious that they weren't too fond of the neoliberal economic policy that Hillary offered, but they seemed okay with something more radical. Good to know. As usual, the most important bit of political strategy that is forgotten in this analysis is that the center of the US is not where you think it is. This study that I keep posting in the wind shows that. The centrist in America is not someone who thinks trans people are awesome and it's great that the 1% is hoarding all the wealth, it's someone who is concerned with income inequality but not quite woke on social issues. When taking that into account, it makes perfect sense that Trump is viewed as more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, as you said: on the graph, she campaigned bottom right where very few people are, and he campaigned somewhere in the upper center left, way closer to the true center of american politics. The republican strategists salivating at the thought of running against socialist Sanders are the mirror image of the democratic strategists who were salivating at the thought of running against racist, sexist Trump. Is it impossible that they win? No, of course, Trump still has a decent shot. But from the data that we have and the objectives that we should aim for, one strategy makes way more logical sense than the other. On top of being the right thing to do for the long term wellbeing of the country.
Yeah I think there’s been a rather flawed interpretation of where the ‘centre’ is, or what people’s issues actually are, as well as how those issues are hierarchically weighted.
Trump’s advocacy for protectionism played well in certain areas, likewise Bernie’s platform did as well.
While the candidates are miles apart there’s still some convergence in rejecting some elements of the continuation of the neo-liberal status quo that Clinton so clearly represented.
I know of quite a few individuals who switched from supporting Bernie to voting Trump in the eventual election, which doesn’t make a huge amount of sense unless one looks at it through that kind of lens.
|
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them"
|
On February 12 2020 08:44 Sermokala wrote:
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them"
Honestly I do think this is enough to tank his campaign. This is completely unacceptable for a Democrat. I think people will assume the racism is exaggerated, then read the quote and be like "oh yikes. Ok yeah that's bad"
|
Just a reminder that there are lines like this in various places so even after all polls close there will be more people still voting for hours.
On Bloomberg I'm not sure it will be as disqualifying in the Dem party as people would hope.
|
On February 12 2020 08:44 Sermokala wrote:
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them"
i think if bloomberg somehow won the democratic nomination he’d beat trump. never trumper and moderate reublicans would vote for him
|
On February 12 2020 08:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 08:44 Sermokala wrote:
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them" Honestly I do think this is enough to tank his campaign. This is completely unacceptable for a Democrat. I think people will assume the racism is exaggerated, then read the quote and be like "oh yikes. Ok yeah that's bad"
outside of the city coasts and the very young those quotes just read as pragmatic law enforcement. i think 75ish% of voters in this country would just nod their heads
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On February 12 2020 08:44 Sermokala wrote:
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them"
How does Trump run counter to that kind of rhetoric given his own previous statements of various kinds?
Perhaps I’m being overly pessimistic, I’m not sure how unpopular profiling actually is when it comes down to what people actually think rather than what they say they think.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Bloomberg quotes make him an option for boomers who don't like Trump but feel they have no choice. Damage comes from disavowal damage control.
|
Early results show Sanders will probably get ~30% and Klobuchar will overperform expectations. Biden and Warren will be battling for 4th with Biden's chances looking (closer to Tulsi than Warren)
|
On February 12 2020 09:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 08:44 Sermokala wrote:
Bloomburg is going to take it in the balls over these stop and frisk quotes. Trump will run those sound bites day after day on TV and put up Billboards of it in any minority neighborhood if he wins the nomination.
For those that haven't seen the breaking news this is from 2015
"ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one MO. You can just take the discription xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15-25"
"we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. yes thats true. why do we do it? beacuse thats were all the crime is."
"and the way you get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them" i think if bloomberg somehow won the democratic nomination he’d beat trump. never trumper and moderate reublicans would vote for him I think your seriously underestimating Republican loyalty.
|
On February 12 2020 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Early results show Sanders will probably get ~30% and Klobuchar will overperform expectations. Biden and Warren will be battling for 4th with Biden's chances looking (closer to Tulsi than Warren)
Do you have links?
|
On February 12 2020 09:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Early results show Sanders will probably get ~30% and Klobuchar will overperform expectations. Biden and Warren will be battling for 4th with Biden's chances looking (closer to Tulsi than Warren) Do you have links?
I found this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-hampshire-results-democratic-primary-2020-live-vote-counts
Adblock on.
Also, Klobuchar has 6 votes in a district with 18 votes total. Not exactly what I'd call a winning strategy at the moment. Mostly a lot of second and 3rd places elsewhere
|
On February 12 2020 09:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Early results show Sanders will probably get ~30% and Klobuchar will overperform expectations. Biden and Warren will be battling for 4th with Biden's chances looking (closer to Tulsi than Warren) Do you have links?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/new-hampshire-primary-2020/
This was the best site I found for the Iowa results / analysis. Every minute or so there are good in depth updates.
|
On February 12 2020 09:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 09:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Early results show Sanders will probably get ~30% and Klobuchar will overperform expectations. Biden and Warren will be battling for 4th with Biden's chances looking (closer to Tulsi than Warren) Do you have links?
Watching on "cable" but you can watch chuck todd with the board on MSNBC's official stream on youtube or get creative with your search on youtube (live filter helps). Twitter probably has some sort of live stream that's pretty easy to find too.
They should call it for Sanders when the polls close (or within about 15 minutes of it).
EDIT: Looks like turnout is slightly up as well
|
Speaking purely anecdotally, the Bloomberg support in my midwestern neck of the woods is of discouraging character. There's a certain brand of urban Ohio Democrat that clings to local city support while the expansive rural surrounding area votes in paleo-conservative state politicians that slowly, but very effectively chip away at the policies of city liberals. Think Ohio Dem city political sophisticates and bosses.
Those are the runaway Bloomberg fans, and why not, his relatively plain to see organizational competence has a lot of basic appeal in these parts, but Dems have been running on basic appeal here for decades now and that strategy loses ground year by year, a phenomena that hit its zenith when otherwise reliable blue collar labor-friendly Dems voted for Trump. I would guess that the local folks who are "up for grabs" either wanna give Trump another 4 years or are unwilling to trade one New Yorker for another.
|
On February 12 2020 07:26 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 07:09 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. So if I point out that letting people be uninsured directly leads to people dying and that the deaths are preventable, is that mean? Isn't it mean to tell someone their views directly lead to deaths? There are giant issues in our world and a lot of really bad things are currently happening. While people who already have a billion dollars think to themselves "how can I have more?", we have single moms working multiple jobs, choosing to not seek medical treatment, ending up with larger bills and ultimately being unable to provide for their children. Those impacts splinter and make society worse and worse, costing billions when you consider all externalities. When I point out that choosing to not support "profitable" social programs harms the lives of millions, isn't that mean? We're not just arguing details here. There are giant issues with giant solutions. We aren't talking about 3 vs 4% taxes. You're perfectly right. I also hold those beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't try to analyse the situation. If you want me to be perfectly clear, that the major part of the population in the US doesn't support a government that would help it, but hacks, is a major issue, and due to a lot of things, that look completely foreign to me, and non-understandable. However we are starting to have the same kind of gullible idiots here as well, so I can finally relate in my anger. Again, it's still possible to be analytical and realistic in the dispositions of the voting population, notwithstanding what we both believe to be the correct way forward. If "berniebros" are being this aggressive towards other democrats, more or less left-wing, it IS a recipe for disaster in the general election. My priority (I can't vote of course), is booting Trump. I'd gladly vote for Bernie if I was american. But alienating your own side, by calling other candidates thieves for example (what the heck is with the dissing of Buttigieg here for the past week ?? Because he hired a company, that other candidates also hired, and that also was hired by the IDP to the result we know? This means he stole something ?) means that one is putting everything at risk, for zero potential gain. I hate that. It's self destructive, and can lead to amplifying the issues you are rightfully pointing out, for what ? Pride ? "All can burn if my best-case solution doesn't happen" ? I respectfully disagree, and that's why I'm pointing out what this thread has become. Engage with people who think differently to convert them to your opinion instead of just dissing others and reducing the chance the best (less worse) future happens. Blind beliefs are dangerous, from all sides, keep your head on your shoulders, and discuss shortcomings and possible issues, even after the primaries. Trumpworld WILL attack whoever the nominee is, with lies and bullshit. Better be ready and prepared. On February 12 2020 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 06:47 Nouar wrote:On February 12 2020 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2020 06:43 Belisarius wrote:
This thread has been wall to wall Bernie for a while. All the people who seriously disagreed got bored of having every conversation railroaded by GH, and stopped bothering.
It's annoying but it is what it is. So what's the solution? Be able to post an opinion without being quoted by someone who disagrees? It is entirely unclear what you are proposing as a solution. Should people view it kinda like a Tweet, where people are just here to put their views out, not necessarily wanting discussion? When is it ok to reply to someone? By replying without insulting ? Doesn't look really hard to me. For example I don't mind GH's answers as though sometimes annoying, sometimes borderline condescending, he is expressing his answers in an articulate manner, backed with arguments to further his point. That looks acceptable to me. It makes for a debate, not a slur-hurling contest. You might not have been here for 2016 but it was way worse in favor of Hillary against both Trump and Bernie supporters. iirc Nyx was part of that. I was not during the primaries because it didn't look that crazy to me until the last few weeks before Trump actually won. I mean, I thought the worst was done with Bush's second term, Obama meant normality again, and the majority of americans couldn't be THAT dumb to do even worse. How wrong I was. edit : welp. Three prosecutors left the Stone trial. I believe they did NOT take kindly to the presidential and DOJ intervention. Can't career officials strike or something ? (Frenchie inside) I agree that people should be entirely civil, especially on TL. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that fundamental disagreements will be very offensive to some people. If someone uses the bible as evidence they are right and I tell them their belief that the bible is factual hurts their credibility, isn't that offensive? Some disagreements are fundamentally offensive and that is ok. But you are right that we ought to be as kind to each other as we can. *** With regards to stone, someone please explain to me why these people resign rather than force Barr to fire them. Why resign? Because they might be people of integrity and this is their way of protesting against undue interference ? What can they do otherwise, stay in a job where your boss is against you and publicly dissing you ? While I don't like the consequences (more hacks hired), I can only respect the courage. Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 07:22 TentativePanda wrote:
People cryin because BeRnIe BrOs were mean to them, aka are passionate about humanistic goals for our country that others and the candidates they support are blatantly trying to curb? Nobody was mean to me, thank you, I'm complaining to get civil discussion, which has been the trademark of TL since I've been here around 2006. If you are passionate about your goal, try to reach them. That includes listening to diverging opinions, which might be held by voters, instead of dissing them. You need them to reach these goals. It won't work if the convention is won with 30% of delegates, but you antagonised every other voter on the way. Don't let pride and beliefs hide the final objective.
Don’t worry I was half joking about the frustration Bernie supporters have, and rightfully so, about the whole Bernie Bro narrative.
I understand your view and respect it
|
CNN in New Hampshire: Bernie is winning in this primary site, but pay attention to the margin *points at the screen showing a significant edge over 2nd place*
CNN in Iowa: Buttigieg wins! *Points at the error riddled report showing Pete with a .1% lead in the arbitrary SDE count and 6000 behind in the popular vote*
At least they are being less blatant about it. Or is that more dangerous? Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
