|
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 |
United States24701 Posts
On February 24 2020 23:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2020 22:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Also independents in the US just means you’re not registered to a party. Nothing else. Also also, it tends to mean 1) ignorant/poorly informed and 2) people who still generally vote for the same party (when they do vote) but just don't like being labeled. Media talk about "independent" voters is highly overblown.
This seems unnecessarily insulting. Heck, I read every post in this very thread! I do not like either major party enough to register in them, though. Third parties are a separate issue.
|
|
|
On February 24 2020 23:33 LegalLord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
I suppose this was the risk of oversimplifying the way I did. I don’t think anything like “the other side is full of idiots!” I obviously have some disagreements with Republicans, but I don’t think they’re stupider on average than Democrats, and I certainly don’t think you have to be stupid to be a Republican. “Why do so many people disagree with you if you’re right” is a hard question for any ideology to answer, but I agree that “because all those people are stupid” is a lazy and bad answer to that question. I wouldn't say you said that either, but at least the next person to respond to you certainly got that message. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
But I do think most things Trump says are not just wrong, but facially idiotic - and that his success is often because of those idiotic things, not in spite of them. Part of that is a lack of specificity that allows you to map whatever you want onto what he says, and think you’re in agreement with him. Part of that is the appeal of “forbidden” opinions - by saying things that exasperate elites, the media, etc. he can come across as bold, refreshing, maybe even “honest” (even though the thing he’s saying is often demonstrably false).
But I’m just scratching the surface of the large and complex set of reasons why this kind of rhetoric appeals to people. My point was only that it does, and people underestimated the effectiveness of big, dumb, and boneheaded in 2016. Republicans used to spend their time talking about the evils of statism or fiscal irresponsibility or w/e, when all they really needed to say was “I will give everyone great, cheap healthcare” or “my opponent is a criminal who should be in jail.” Yes, being obtuse and over-the-top certainly does have an appeal to it. But I think the examples you gave aren't necessarily the best ones. I'd in fact go back to one you gave earlier, like "ban all Muslims" for one more worth analyzing. Keep in mind that the state of the art among Republican theorycraft was that they had lost the debate on immigration, and that they had to find a way to appeal to immigrants going forward. Then comes in Trump and spits in the face of all that in record time. What happens? You'll get the media playing on repeat, "look at this primitive idiot saying we need to ban all Muslims and build a wall!" Not only does that get the message out there, but it also gets people to stop and think, "hold on, this guy might have a point" - precisely because the opinions in opposition to the One Accepted Truth have been largely silenced. You definitely wouldn't get something like that if you tried to take a nuanced approach like saying "let's let immigrants in, but control it better" because you don't really differentiate yourself at all. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
Imo stuff like “he’ll put in the right judges” is just how people who were always going to vote Republican justify their vote without having to defend all the other stuff. It’s a deflection, not how the election was won or lost. Anybody who sincerely regrets the institutional damage or humanitarian abuses or stupid tweets w/e else, but is willing to look the other way to get conservative judges, was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. The moral justifications those people provide are interesting to me, but not because I think they’ll decide the election. But it's an important argument in the sense that it'll get people who hate the candidate to vote for him anyways. If Republicans who despise Trump had stayed home, he wouldn't have won in key areas where record turnout was all that saved him from the expected loss to Hillary. That, alongside the creation of a narrative that made Hillary truly unpalatable to the Repubican rank-and-file, makes a big difference. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
In short, I think you’re misreading me as saying the voters were idiots. The truth is considerably more ominous, I think: the rhetoric was idiotic, but the voters weren’t and they bought it anyway. It’s got a lot in common with conspiracy theories (and many of Trump’s positions are literally that): when you hear the beliefs, you might assume the people who believe them are idiots, but in fact they’re often quite smart. I think that’s much more disturbing than if they were just a bunch of idiots believing idiotic things. I'm sure there are a lot of takeaways one could take from that. The one that personally strikes me is this: in truth, the consensus among "intelligent" folks (i.e. those that implicitly or explicitly pose themselves as being the candidate for smart people) has a way of having some dangerous implicit censorship, where deviation from some dangerously self-serving positions is grounds for labeling the other group as idiots and disasters waiting to happen. Trump certainly got that treatment, and though he probably warranted it, most of what he did was honestly just more of the Bush-era standard Republican fare rather than going off the rails (and sometimes when he went off the rails, like with cancelling giant terrible trade deals, that wasn't all bad). He got tons of praise heaped onto him for things like massive corporate tax cuts and bombing Syria, after all. And Bernie has also consistently gotten that same treatment in 2016 and 2020, despite the fact that, as we analyzed, he's only really got one strong socialist position (universal healthcare) that's strongly out of norm with what Democrats look for. One might start to get the impression that what is perceived in the mainstream as "smart" is really just a cover for a corporatist agenda.
I’ll forego responding point by point, partly because the chain is getting unwieldy and partly because I’m not sure how much we’re disagreeing. I think you’re maybe bristling when I use descriptions like “facially idiotic,” but then you go on to describe those same things in ways I don’t disagree with at all. It still feels like you’re responding to someone saying “only stupid people support Trump,” or trying to create a magisterium of “smart” beliefs that all right-thinking people are required to believe to be considered smart. I promise, that’s not me!
All I mean by “facially idiotic” or “big, dumb, and boneheaded” is that the statements are simple, loud, unnuanced, and anyone knowledgeable on the subject (and mostly anyone who isn’t) will hear it and think “that’s a dumb thing to say.” Calling your opponent a criminal who should be in jail seems dumb and obvious; and yet no one was doing it because they thought it wouldn’t work. It does. Since these were the examples you latched onto, “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” and “ban all Muslims” are clearly in this category! Are you kidding? You hear them and your first thought is something like “what the fuck, why would Mexico pay for the wall?” or “is that Constitutional? How are you even gonna know they’re Muslims?”
You started to get into hypothesizing mechanisms by which this rhetoric might be effective. I think that’s an interesting, but extremely complex question. There’s chicken-or-egg problems here that are nonobvious. Did people like the “ban all Muslims” thing because there was already a big undercurrent of anti-Muslim sentiment out there? Or is it statements like “ban all Muslims” that create that anti-Muslim sentiment? I’m probably inclined to favor the latter, and you the former, but it’s almost certainly a healthy portion of both (with a feedback loop as each such statement creates more fertile ground for the next).
I’ve heard it said about Alex Jones, “He’s just saying what everyone is thinking.” Alex Jones fans tend to nod their heads at an idea like that, but come on. Everyone was already thinking that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and the bereaved parents are “crisis actors?” Everybody was already thinking that John Kerry has Satanic sex rituals with mummies, and Hillary Clinton is an extradimensional demon? (Well, okay, you specifically might have been thinking that last one.)
These are fundamentally propagandistic exercises, and the mechanisms of propaganda are complex. But the whole reason people use propaganda is because of its power to create public opinion, not just tap into it. The reason this came up in the first place, and why I think it’s worth talking about now, is because any strategy for Democrats must address how they’re going to deal with Republican propaganda. One theory for John Kerry’s candidacy, for instance, was that Republicans were always trying to call Democrats unpatriotic or un-American. He’s a war hero! Surely his patriotism is beyond reproach?
Didn’t work. The propaganda isn’t fundamentally fact- or evidence-based, so starving it of supporting evidence is only minimally effective. They can call anyone and anything un-American if they want to, and they can probably sell it, too. So to bring it all back: what’s the Sanders strategy for combatting this type of propaganda?
|
A bad day for Buttigieg is a great day for the country. Happy to see him effectively eliminated since we all know how SC is going to go for him. Then Super Tuesday.
For those of you who stopped keeping track, Buttigieg dipped below 15%, now sitting at 13.9%
|
On February 25 2020 01:38 Mohdoo wrote:
A bad day for Buttigieg is a great day for the country. Happy to see him effectively eliminated since we all know how SC is going to go for him. Then Super Tuesday.
For those of you who stopped keeping track, Buttigieg dipped below 15%, now sitting at 13.9%
His numbers with minority demographics in the entrance polls in Nevada were disastrous too. 2% support among black voters and 10% among latinos is the final nail in the coffin for him. That's even worse than previous polling, which people initially thought were potentially underestimating his support among those two demographics.
The only demographic that appeared to support him in Nevada was older white moderates. That's it. He's under water in every other combination of demographics.
|
On February 25 2020 01:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2020 23:33 LegalLord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
I suppose this was the risk of oversimplifying the way I did. I don’t think anything like “the other side is full of idiots!” I obviously have some disagreements with Republicans, but I don’t think they’re stupider on average than Democrats, and I certainly don’t think you have to be stupid to be a Republican. “Why do so many people disagree with you if you’re right” is a hard question for any ideology to answer, but I agree that “because all those people are stupid” is a lazy and bad answer to that question. I wouldn't say you said that either, but at least the next person to respond to you certainly got that message. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
But I do think most things Trump says are not just wrong, but facially idiotic - and that his success is often because of those idiotic things, not in spite of them. Part of that is a lack of specificity that allows you to map whatever you want onto what he says, and think you’re in agreement with him. Part of that is the appeal of “forbidden” opinions - by saying things that exasperate elites, the media, etc. he can come across as bold, refreshing, maybe even “honest” (even though the thing he’s saying is often demonstrably false).
But I’m just scratching the surface of the large and complex set of reasons why this kind of rhetoric appeals to people. My point was only that it does, and people underestimated the effectiveness of big, dumb, and boneheaded in 2016. Republicans used to spend their time talking about the evils of statism or fiscal irresponsibility or w/e, when all they really needed to say was “I will give everyone great, cheap healthcare” or “my opponent is a criminal who should be in jail.” Yes, being obtuse and over-the-top certainly does have an appeal to it. But I think the examples you gave aren't necessarily the best ones. I'd in fact go back to one you gave earlier, like "ban all Muslims" for one more worth analyzing. Keep in mind that the state of the art among Republican theorycraft was that they had lost the debate on immigration, and that they had to find a way to appeal to immigrants going forward. Then comes in Trump and spits in the face of all that in record time. What happens? You'll get the media playing on repeat, "look at this primitive idiot saying we need to ban all Muslims and build a wall!" Not only does that get the message out there, but it also gets people to stop and think, "hold on, this guy might have a point" - precisely because the opinions in opposition to the One Accepted Truth have been largely silenced. You definitely wouldn't get something like that if you tried to take a nuanced approach like saying "let's let immigrants in, but control it better" because you don't really differentiate yourself at all. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
Imo stuff like “he’ll put in the right judges” is just how people who were always going to vote Republican justify their vote without having to defend all the other stuff. It’s a deflection, not how the election was won or lost. Anybody who sincerely regrets the institutional damage or humanitarian abuses or stupid tweets w/e else, but is willing to look the other way to get conservative judges, was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. The moral justifications those people provide are interesting to me, but not because I think they’ll decide the election. But it's an important argument in the sense that it'll get people who hate the candidate to vote for him anyways. If Republicans who despise Trump had stayed home, he wouldn't have won in key areas where record turnout was all that saved him from the expected loss to Hillary. That, alongside the creation of a narrative that made Hillary truly unpalatable to the Repubican rank-and-file, makes a big difference. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
In short, I think you’re misreading me as saying the voters were idiots. The truth is considerably more ominous, I think: the rhetoric was idiotic, but the voters weren’t and they bought it anyway. It’s got a lot in common with conspiracy theories (and many of Trump’s positions are literally that): when you hear the beliefs, you might assume the people who believe them are idiots, but in fact they’re often quite smart. I think that’s much more disturbing than if they were just a bunch of idiots believing idiotic things. I'm sure there are a lot of takeaways one could take from that. The one that personally strikes me is this: in truth, the consensus among "intelligent" folks (i.e. those that implicitly or explicitly pose themselves as being the candidate for smart people) has a way of having some dangerous implicit censorship, where deviation from some dangerously self-serving positions is grounds for labeling the other group as idiots and disasters waiting to happen. Trump certainly got that treatment, and though he probably warranted it, most of what he did was honestly just more of the Bush-era standard Republican fare rather than going off the rails (and sometimes when he went off the rails, like with cancelling giant terrible trade deals, that wasn't all bad). He got tons of praise heaped onto him for things like massive corporate tax cuts and bombing Syria, after all. And Bernie has also consistently gotten that same treatment in 2016 and 2020, despite the fact that, as we analyzed, he's only really got one strong socialist position (universal healthcare) that's strongly out of norm with what Democrats look for. One might start to get the impression that what is perceived in the mainstream as "smart" is really just a cover for a corporatist agenda. + Show Spoiler +I’ll forego responding point by point, partly because the chain is getting unwieldy and partly because I’m not sure how much we’re disagreeing. I think you’re maybe bristling when I use descriptions like “facially idiotic,” but then you go on to describe those same things in ways I don’t disagree with at all. It still feels like you’re responding to someone saying “only stupid people support Trump,” or trying to create a magisterium of “smart” beliefs that all right-thinking people are required to believe to be considered smart. I promise, that’s not me!
All I mean by “facially idiotic” or “big, dumb, and boneheaded” is that the statements are simple, loud, unnuanced, and anyone knowledgeable on the subject (and mostly anyone who isn’t) will hear it and think “that’s a dumb thing to say.” Calling your opponent a criminal who should be in jail seems dumb and obvious; and yet no one was doing it because they thought it wouldn’t work. It does. Since these were the examples you latched onto, “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” and “ban all Muslims” are clearly in this category! Are you kidding? You hear them and your first thought is something like “what the fuck, why would Mexico pay for the wall?” or “is that Constitutional? How are you even gonna know they’re Muslims?”
You started to get into hypothesizing mechanisms by which this rhetoric might be effective. I think that’s an interesting, but extremely complex question. There’s chicken-or-egg problems here that are nonobvious. Did people like the “ban all Muslims” thing because there was already a big undercurrent of anti-Muslim sentiment out there? Or is it statements like “ban all Muslims” that create that anti-Muslim sentiment? I’m probably inclined to favor the latter, and you the former, but it’s almost certainly a healthy portion of both (with a feedback loop as each such statement creates more fertile ground for the next).
I’ve heard it said about Alex Jones, “He’s just saying what everyone is thinking.” Alex Jones fans tend to nod their heads at an idea like that, but come on. Everyone was already thinking that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and the bereaved parents are “crisis actors?” Everybody was already thinking that John Kerry has Satanic sex rituals with mummies, and Hillary Clinton is an extradimensional demon? (Well, okay, you specifically might have been thinking that last one.)
These are fundamentally propagandistic exercises, and the mechanisms of propaganda are complex. But the whole reason people use propaganda is because of its power to create public opinion, not just tap into it. The reason this came up in the first place, and why I think it’s worth talking about now, is because any strategy for Democrats must address how they’re going to deal with Republican propaganda. One theory for John Kerry’s candidacy, for instance, was that Republicans were always trying to call Democrats unpatriotic or un-American. He’s a war hero! Surely his patriotism is beyond reproach? Didn’t work. The propaganda isn’t fundamentally fact- or evidence-based, so starving it of supporting evidence is only minimally effective. They can call anyone and anything un-American if they want to, and they can probably sell it, too. So to bring it all back: what’s the Sanders strategy for combatting this type of propaganda?
Seems to me to be a multi-pronged strategy.
1. Still fight the fact/evidence based fight where applicable.
2. Focus on motivating the 10's of millions of people that mostly agree with you to participate rather than changing the minds of the couple million that are persuadable.
3.Offer a positive vision of what Republicans, billionaires, corporate interests, etc... are in the way of instead of a negative vision of what allowing Republicans to win portends.
As a strategy it addresses those that can be convinced, activating disaffected voters, and motivating them with a vision of what they get instead of what they are hoping to avoid.
|
|
|
On February 25 2020 01:54 JimmiC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 25 2020 01:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2020 23:33 LegalLord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
I suppose this was the risk of oversimplifying the way I did. I don’t think anything like “the other side is full of idiots!” I obviously have some disagreements with Republicans, but I don’t think they’re stupider on average than Democrats, and I certainly don’t think you have to be stupid to be a Republican. “Why do so many people disagree with you if you’re right” is a hard question for any ideology to answer, but I agree that “because all those people are stupid” is a lazy and bad answer to that question. I wouldn't say you said that either, but at least the next person to respond to you certainly got that message. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
But I do think most things Trump says are not just wrong, but facially idiotic - and that his success is often because of those idiotic things, not in spite of them. Part of that is a lack of specificity that allows you to map whatever you want onto what he says, and think you’re in agreement with him. Part of that is the appeal of “forbidden” opinions - by saying things that exasperate elites, the media, etc. he can come across as bold, refreshing, maybe even “honest” (even though the thing he’s saying is often demonstrably false).
But I’m just scratching the surface of the large and complex set of reasons why this kind of rhetoric appeals to people. My point was only that it does, and people underestimated the effectiveness of big, dumb, and boneheaded in 2016. Republicans used to spend their time talking about the evils of statism or fiscal irresponsibility or w/e, when all they really needed to say was “I will give everyone great, cheap healthcare” or “my opponent is a criminal who should be in jail.” Yes, being obtuse and over-the-top certainly does have an appeal to it. But I think the examples you gave aren't necessarily the best ones. I'd in fact go back to one you gave earlier, like "ban all Muslims" for one more worth analyzing. Keep in mind that the state of the art among Republican theorycraft was that they had lost the debate on immigration, and that they had to find a way to appeal to immigrants going forward. Then comes in Trump and spits in the face of all that in record time. What happens? You'll get the media playing on repeat, "look at this primitive idiot saying we need to ban all Muslims and build a wall!" Not only does that get the message out there, but it also gets people to stop and think, "hold on, this guy might have a point" - precisely because the opinions in opposition to the One Accepted Truth have been largely silenced. You definitely wouldn't get something like that if you tried to take a nuanced approach like saying "let's let immigrants in, but control it better" because you don't really differentiate yourself at all. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
Imo stuff like “he’ll put in the right judges” is just how people who were always going to vote Republican justify their vote without having to defend all the other stuff. It’s a deflection, not how the election was won or lost. Anybody who sincerely regrets the institutional damage or humanitarian abuses or stupid tweets w/e else, but is willing to look the other way to get conservative judges, was never going to vote for a Democrat anyway. The moral justifications those people provide are interesting to me, but not because I think they’ll decide the election. But it's an important argument in the sense that it'll get people who hate the candidate to vote for him anyways. If Republicans who despise Trump had stayed home, he wouldn't have won in key areas where record turnout was all that saved him from the expected loss to Hillary. That, alongside the creation of a narrative that made Hillary truly unpalatable to the Repubican rank-and-file, makes a big difference. On February 24 2020 14:35 ChristianS wrote:
In short, I think you’re misreading me as saying the voters were idiots. The truth is considerably more ominous, I think: the rhetoric was idiotic, but the voters weren’t and they bought it anyway. It’s got a lot in common with conspiracy theories (and many of Trump’s positions are literally that): when you hear the beliefs, you might assume the people who believe them are idiots, but in fact they’re often quite smart. I think that’s much more disturbing than if they were just a bunch of idiots believing idiotic things. I'm sure there are a lot of takeaways one could take from that. The one that personally strikes me is this: in truth, the consensus among "intelligent" folks (i.e. those that implicitly or explicitly pose themselves as being the candidate for smart people) has a way of having some dangerous implicit censorship, where deviation from some dangerously self-serving positions is grounds for labeling the other group as idiots and disasters waiting to happen. Trump certainly got that treatment, and though he probably warranted it, most of what he did was honestly just more of the Bush-era standard Republican fare rather than going off the rails (and sometimes when he went off the rails, like with cancelling giant terrible trade deals, that wasn't all bad). He got tons of praise heaped onto him for things like massive corporate tax cuts and bombing Syria, after all. And Bernie has also consistently gotten that same treatment in 2016 and 2020, despite the fact that, as we analyzed, he's only really got one strong socialist position (universal healthcare) that's strongly out of norm with what Democrats look for. One might start to get the impression that what is perceived in the mainstream as "smart" is really just a cover for a corporatist agenda. I’ll forego responding point by point, partly because the chain is getting unwieldy and partly because I’m not sure how much we’re disagreeing. I think you’re maybe bristling when I use descriptions like “facially idiotic,” but then you go on to describe those same things in ways I don’t disagree with at all. It still feels like you’re responding to someone saying “only stupid people support Trump,” or trying to create a magisterium of “smart” beliefs that all right-thinking people are required to believe to be considered smart. I promise, that’s not me! All I mean by “facially idiotic” or “big, dumb, and boneheaded” is that the statements are simple, loud, unnuanced, and anyone knowledgeable on the subject (and mostly anyone who isn’t) will hear it and think “that’s a dumb thing to say.” Calling your opponent a criminal who should be in jail seems dumb and obvious; and yet no one was doing it because they thought it wouldn’t work. It does. Since these were the examples you latched onto, “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” and “ban all Muslims” are clearly in this category! Are you kidding? You hear them and your first thought is something like “what the fuck, why would Mexico pay for the wall?” or “is that Constitutional? How are you even gonna know they’re Muslims?” You started to get into hypothesizing mechanisms by which this rhetoric might be effective. I think that’s an interesting, but extremely complex question. There’s chicken-or-egg problems here that are nonobvious. Did people like the “ban all Muslims” thing because there was already a big undercurrent of anti-Muslim sentiment out there? Or is it statements like “ban all Muslims” that create that anti-Muslim sentiment? I’m probably inclined to favor the latter, and you the former, but it’s almost certainly a healthy portion of both (with a feedback loop as each such statement creates more fertile ground for the next). I’ve heard it said about Alex Jones, “He’s just saying what everyone is thinking.” Alex Jones fans tend to nod their heads at an idea like that, but come on. Everyone was already thinking that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and the bereaved parents are “crisis actors?” Everybody was already thinking that John Kerry has Satanic sex rituals with mummies, and Hillary Clinton is an extradimensional demon? (Well, okay, you specifically might have been thinking that last one.) These are fundamentally propagandistic exercises, and the mechanisms of propaganda are complex. But the whole reason people use propaganda is because of its power to create public opinion, not just tap into it. The reason this came up in the first place, and why I think it’s worth talking about now, is because any strategy for Democrats must address how they’re going to deal with Republican propaganda. One theory for John Kerry’s candidacy, for instance, was that Republicans were always trying to call Democrats unpatriotic or un-American. He’s a war hero! Surely his patriotism is beyond reproach? Didn’t work. The propaganda isn’t fundamentally fact- or evidence-based, so starving it of supporting evidence is only minimally effective. They can call anyone and anything un-American if they want to, and they can probably sell it, too. So to bring it all back: what’s the Sanders strategy for combatting this type of propaganda? I think Sanders best strategy is staying out of the mud of arguing against that. instead focusing on the postive and enthusiastic part of his message. Because as Drone mentioned it much easier to rally behind a positive message. But also Bernie does not want the election to be about the issues Trump wants it to be about. He wants Trump arguing against his points not the other way around.
I think bernie would have a very successful campaign if he never addressed costs and whatnot for his plans. If he instead says "you're gonna tell me there's no money, when Jeff Bezoz bought a $165M mansion? The money is there, its just being used negligently"
If his campaign is entirely about "fuck the system", it can work.
|
I feel Sanders will have a pretty easy time dealing with that kind of propaganda since he is already used to it. He already knows how to respond to the obvious accusations of being un-american or a communist, he's been doing that for his entire political life.
The regular things Trump wants to use are easily countered. Try to pin Sanders as a Washington elite? The establishment is far more afraid of Sanders than they are of Trump.
Sanders needs to make Trump respond to his points by asking ordinary people if they feel their lives have improved. Republicans will push the economy doing great (unless it suddenly tanks but then they have lost either way) but lots of people won't have that impression. Keep asking people how they are doing, then give them examples on what his policies aims to achieve. If Trump wants to respond to those points he has to leave the mud and go into an arena which Sanders have been in for a life time. I don't think that will end to well.
|
It’s helpful to remember that, despite his lengthy time in Vermont, Bernie is fundamentally a Brooklynite. Thus, stereotype or not, he very much comes from a background that will have equipped him well to argue with someone like Trump (and Bloomberg, for that matter).
|
On February 25 2020 02:30 farvacola wrote:
It’s helpful to remember that, despite his lengthy time in Vermont, Bernie is fundamentally a Brooklynite. Thus, stereotype or not, he very much comes from a background that will have equipped him well to argue with someone like Trump (and Bloomberg, for that matter).
This is seen when Bernie replies to a question by basically saying "oh shut up, that's stupid, here's a better question to answer"
|
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate.
|
On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate.
How many defenses of criticisms did Trump "present well" against Clinton? He ignored them and said she was a shitbag. It worked. The key is to not even address the criticisms as legitimate.
"Your plan would raise taxes"
"My plan makes sure no one goes bankrupt from medical bills. Your plan lines the pockets of billionaire insurance executives."
|
On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate.
I genuinely think that Bernie’s admittedly tepid responses to some of the primary debate questions are the result of his general reluctance to shit talk potential allies. Once we’re in the general, he doesn’t need to tiptoe around anything.
|
On February 25 2020 05:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate. I genuinely think that Bernie’s admittedly tepid responses to some of the primary debate questions are the result of his general reluctance to shit talk potential allies. Once we’re in the general, he doesn’t need to tiptoe around anything.
Bernie is far more polite than even the other Democrats when it comes to that (despite him and his supporters being painted as the worst).
I think people don't recognize that because Bernie isn't trying to defend insurance profiteering while arguing for his healthcare plans, or banks profiting from student loans when he's talking about free college, or whatever, him not being bound by neoliberal orthodoxy gives him far more latitude to counter Trump than someone like Hillary who had to focus more on his personality.
|
On February 25 2020 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate. How many defenses of criticisms did Trump "present well" against Clinton? He ignored them and said she was a shitbag. It worked. The key is to not even address the criticisms as legitimate. "Your plan would raise taxes" "My plan makes sure no one goes bankrupt from medical bills. Your plan lines the pockets of billionaire insurance executives."
1) I'm a bit skeptical of Bernie being sharp enough in the debate to present that kind of deflection well.
2) We all know that the rules are different for conservatives and progressives and how they act. I'm not entirely sure that playing the same game that Trump does will go well for the Democratic nominee.
|
On February 25 2020 08:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2020 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate. How many defenses of criticisms did Trump "present well" against Clinton? He ignored them and said she was a shitbag. It worked. The key is to not even address the criticisms as legitimate. "Your plan would raise taxes" "My plan makes sure no one goes bankrupt from medical bills. Your plan lines the pockets of billionaire insurance executives." 1) I'm a bit skeptical of Bernie being sharp enough in the debate to present that kind of deflection well. 2) We all know that the rules are different for conservatives and progressives and how they act. I'm not entirely sure that playing the same game that Trump does will go well for the Democratic nominee.
1: prep solves everything. Defend nothing. Attack everything.
2: how many Democrats do you think will vote for Trump because Bernie was too obnoxious? 4? Maybe 6?
|
On February 25 2020 00:08 JimmiC wrote:
Independent's are the hardest to categorize because they may think neither party is Left or Right enough. They may sit in the middle. They may just not care enough to vote. They also may basically support one party or the other but don't want it public, or like to feel like they have choice. In each party you have a pretty wide breadth of people, in the independent category you have an even wider group than both the parties combined. I don't think there is anyway to sum them up as they can be just about anyone. I mean in this thread we have Wegandi, GH, Beserk Sword and Micronesia in this thread this morning who all identify as independents and I don't know anyway that we could group them all together other than were/are all starcraft fans.
There's also an issue of maybe they're slightly right(American speaking), but decidedly anti-authoritarian, which puts them in an area where neither of the big parties caters to them.
|
Northern Ireland25658 Posts
On February 25 2020 08:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2020 08:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2020 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate. How many defenses of criticisms did Trump "present well" against Clinton? He ignored them and said she was a shitbag. It worked. The key is to not even address the criticisms as legitimate. "Your plan would raise taxes" "My plan makes sure no one goes bankrupt from medical bills. Your plan lines the pockets of billionaire insurance executives." 1) I'm a bit skeptical of Bernie being sharp enough in the debate to present that kind of deflection well. 2) We all know that the rules are different for conservatives and progressives and how they act. I'm not entirely sure that playing the same game that Trump does will go well for the Democratic nominee. 1: prep solves everything. Defend nothing. Attack everything. 2: how many Democrats do you think will vote for Trump because Bernie was too obnoxious? 4? Maybe 6?
1. I’d mostly attack personally, I would defend stuff like costing universal healthcare really vigorously.
2. Absolutely fucking ridiculous statement, that number is obviously in the 8-13 range and I’m sickened you could be so wrong.
|
On February 25 2020 09:18 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2020 08:55 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2020 08:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 25 2020 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2020 04:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Im actually a but skeptical because I think Bernie is a rather poor debater.
There are a lot of really strong defenses that he could bring to Trump's criticisms, but I don't know if he'll be able to present them well in a live debate. How many defenses of criticisms did Trump "present well" against Clinton? He ignored them and said she was a shitbag. It worked. The key is to not even address the criticisms as legitimate. "Your plan would raise taxes" "My plan makes sure no one goes bankrupt from medical bills. Your plan lines the pockets of billionaire insurance executives." 1) I'm a bit skeptical of Bernie being sharp enough in the debate to present that kind of deflection well. 2) We all know that the rules are different for conservatives and progressives and how they act. I'm not entirely sure that playing the same game that Trump does will go well for the Democratic nominee. 1: prep solves everything. Defend nothing. Attack everything. 2: how many Democrats do you think will vote for Trump because Bernie was too obnoxious? 4? Maybe 6? 1. I’d mostly attack personally, I would defend stuff like costing universal healthcare really vigorously. 2. Absolutely fucking ridiculous statement, that number is obviously in the 8-13 range and I’m sickened you could be so wrong.
1: You don't need to defend universal healthcare. Rather, attack the fact that thousands of Americans die every year from insufficient healthcare and many other go bankrupt. There is no reason to defend your solution when you can instead explain why a solution is necessary.
2: lol ok ok I was being hyperbolic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
