|
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 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.
The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies.
Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive.
The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is.
|
On February 12 2020 08:31 rope123 wrote: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.. 
Is it just me or has the AGW Doomsayer's drastically increased in the last year? The best thing you can do for "the other side" is continue to push that narrative with sweeping radical economic changes which...as France has shown with the yellow vests will completely destroy your political standing. Go ahead, massively raise energy prices and everything it touches. You know what will bring people to vote? Huge increases in utility bills, gas prices, food, etc.
People will tolerate banning small plastic bags (which is somewhere between doing nothing, and making things worse as people buy more sturdier and more environmentally "damaging" trash bags or way worse for the environment canvas bags), plastic straws, etc., but as soon as you go after big mama, watch out.
Anyways, at least I always get a chuckle out of the environmental armageddonists, just like I do the puritanical rapturists burn in hell.
|
On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is.
This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will.
|
To win an election requires a path to victory. I really don't see a victory for Democrats that don't have strong support from minorities. Bloomberg has no chance at strong support from minorities in a post "throw those kids up against a wall and frisk them" world.
|
Northern Ireland25264 Posts
On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will.
Why?
|
Canada8989 Posts
|
On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why?
His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances.
|
Northern Ireland25264 Posts
On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is.
I don’t think people particularly care about social issues as long as you’re not catastrophic on them, or they personally apply to them.
Be it Trump, be it Bernie or whoever, if you deliver what people want in terms of their economic status and their living standards, the other stuff isn’t a huge deal.
I mean I’d personally vote for a properly left wing party that wanted to get on with that program than a centrist party that was nice to trans people or whatever.
|
On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is.
I don't want him to be socially moderate, I'm just saying if you think a candidate is too "extreme" and doesn't appeal to centrists, this is what you should focus on based on the data.
Why doesn't it make that much sense that Sanders would take back those voters from Trump? Obama was running as economically progressive and he convinced them. Trump had some economically progressive lies in his campaign and he convinced them over Hillary who had nothing of the sort. Now it's Sanders. Seems like a fairly straightforward continuum. Obama wasn't a socially conservative economically moderate candidate.
For Clinton vs Trump I was refering to earlier than that, when the Clinton camp propped up Trump's campaign because they thought he would be super easy to beat by depicting him accurately as a racist/sexist/bad man. There is the same eagerness to run against a socialist in the other side of the establishment this time. Not making grand inferences, just pointing out that they were wrong then, and not much is different in the US between then and now.
|
On February 12 2020 10:04 Sermokala wrote:
To win an election requires a path to victory. I really don't see a victory for Democrats that don't have strong support from minorities. Bloomberg has no chance at strong support from minorities in a post "throw those kids up against a wall and frisk them" world.
Bloomberg seems to poll very well in particular among African-American working class. I don't think the law & order politics in large American cities are perceived as racist given that minorities were also primarily the targets of the crime. Same thing with Bill Clinton, he never seemed to have an issue convincing black voters in particular.
|
Everyone who gets less votes than based Klob needs to drop immediately.
|
On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances.
No they won’t. The stock market isn’t the whole economy. “Ruin the economy” is a bit much. Furthermore, considering the policies he is running on, if they damage the economy it is an implication that the economy is feeding off paying unlivable wages to workers, destroying the environment, getting away with what should be illegal tax breaks, and oligarchy.
In which case, yeah, ok good
|
On February 12 2020 10:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:04 Sermokala wrote:
To win an election requires a path to victory. I really don't see a victory for Democrats that don't have strong support from minorities. Bloomberg has no chance at strong support from minorities in a post "throw those kids up against a wall and frisk them" world. Bloomberg seems to poll very well in particular among African-American working class. I don't think the law & order politics in large American cities are perceived as racist given that minorities were also primarily the targets of the crime. Same thing with Bill Clinton, he never seemed to have an issue convincing black voters in particular.
Not sure if your explanation is accurate, though not denying it. It makes some sense but I don’t think it’s as impactful of a phenomenon as is
- Voter disenfranchisement (minorities with existing felonies, which the Bloomberg nypd made a lot of)
- News not reaching minority voters as effectively (some might say by design)
- Crushed morale and hopelessness (resulting in low minority turnout)
|
Warren and Biden will not get any delegates out of NH. They'll be split between Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Probably in that order.
That should give Sanders a delegate lead he is extremely unlikely to lose it from here.
You can't manifest the type of organizational structures it takes to get the turnout it takes to stop Bernie from here. The only option is if Bloomberg and Buttigieg (recently been talking about balancing the budget) join forces to stop Bernie which makes clear the Democrats are going to try to run to the right of Obama against Trump which I think is a losing strategy.
They lose more to the left of Obama than they gain to the right for a multitude of reasons.
Klobuchar's one silver lining is she's got room for big donors to come in and prop up her fundraising numbers and such, but she simply can't compete nationally.
|
Warren needs to endorse Bernie ASAP if she actually believes in what she is campaigning on. If she waits too long and the centrists start endorsing each other, this will get bad quick.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 12 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone who gets less votes than based Klob needs to drop immediately.
That rally for Klob is actually quite impressive, to be honest. Not entirely sure how to explain it; she did do surprisingly well last debate but was that really enough to push a double-digit rise in poll results?
Biden's campaign looks like pain, though. When he ran straight to SC rather than finish the night in NH I pretty much knew it was going to be a brutal loss for him. Looks like 5th at this point, rofl.
|
On February 12 2020 10:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:23 Mohdoo wrote:
Everyone who gets less votes than based Klob needs to drop immediately. That rally for Klob is actually quite impressive, to be honest. Not entirely sure how to explain it; she did do surprisingly well last debate but was that really enough to push a double-digit rise in poll results? Biden's campaign looks like pain, though. When he ran straight to SC rather than finish the night in NH I pretty much knew it was going to be a brutal loss for him. Looks like 5th at this point, rofl.
Basically with Biden's support evaporating she benefited from people deciding the last minute and her debate performance fresh in their mind. There's no way this goes beyond NH. The establishment politicos prefer Buttigieg and/or Bloomberg.
|
Trump tweets about unfair sentencing recommendation for his pal Roger Stone, and DoJ just overrules the prosecutors working the case a day later, reducing sentencing recommendation from 9 to 3 years, leading all four of the prosecutors to resign. Seems like everything is going downhill fast.
We can talk about the Democratic candidates but will Trump even give up power if he loses?
|
On February 12 2020 10:08 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:06 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 10:03 Wegandi wrote:On February 12 2020 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 12 2020 08:22 Nebuchad wrote: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. The only thing that Sanders has going for him in regards to the rustbelt voters is his anti-establishment brand. Bernie isn't socially moderate. In addition to his economic policies he's also running on abolishing the ICE, providing healthcare to illegal immigrants, etc.. he runs just as woke of a program as the progressive wing of the party in addition to his left-wing economic policies. Why would people who go from Obama to Trump or from Clinton to Trump go from Trump to Sanders? It just doesn't make that much sense. If you want to win the rustbelt run a socially conservative economically moderate candidate, not a progressive. The idea that people who think bernie can't win are akin to people who think Trump couldn't win isn't great because the democrats were always borderline delusional about the fact that half of the country is very right-wing. Trump never trailed Clinton by that much, and urban liberals thought racism is too off-putting for the average voter. Which is wrong. However half of polled people say they aren't going to vote for a socialist. The Republican strategists happen to be right with the claim that the US is much more right-wing than progressives think it is. This is an anecdote of one. I abhorr Trump, but if Bernie is the (D) nominee I will sprint to the polls to vote for Trump. Take that as you will. Why? His economic policies for the most part. He would ruin the country, even if I happen to agree with some of his other stances.
Fucking Trump ballooned your deficit by a 500 billion dollars a year and you get less done now. You could've had universal healthcare for less money.
|
On February 12 2020 11:16 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Trump tweets about unfair sentencing recommendation for his pal Roger Stone, and DoJ just overrules the prosecutors working the case a day later, reducing sentencing recommendation from 9 to 3 years, leading all four of the prosecutors to resign. Seems like everything is going downhill fast.
We can talk about the Democratic candidates but will Trump even give up power if he loses?
Been saying it for a while now, but Trump will to try to cancel the election or mess it with somehow. Do you really think he'll allow a fair and secure election to take place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
