EPTThe question has always been whether a bernie tilt can bring in enough nonvoters on the left that it offsets the centrists he loses to his right. I don't think anyone knows how to predict this objectively, but it's probably at least 50/50 by now.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2143
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
The question has always been whether a bernie tilt can bring in enough nonvoters on the left that it offsets the centrists he loses to his right. I don't think anyone knows how to predict this objectively, but it's probably at least 50/50 by now. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:25 Belisarius wrote: It's obviously never been about how many democrats will vote for Trump, but how many centrists might be unenthused by bernie's policies and decide to stay home. There's also a subset of republicans who might be induced to flip by someone like bloomberg. Those groups obviously exists, it's pure fluff to pretend they don't. The question has always been whether a bernie tilt can bring in enough nonvoters on the left that it offsets the centrists he loses to his right. I don't think anyone knows how to predict this objectively, but it's probably at least 50/50 by now. Look at Trump's approval rating among Republicans in 2014. Compare it to the day before the Republican convention. Transformative candidates, well, transform. Trump has a 90 freaking percent approval rating among republicans. It used to be more around 30%. Remember how the republicans we all know in love @ TL appreciated Romney, then considered him a filthy traitor like...a year later? Romney Republicans became Trump Republicans. I've met well educated people who managed to become a Trumper after being entirely dignified people before that. Simply put, you aren't considering what happens when someone seizes the party. $15/hour minimum wage was *OUTRAGEOUS* in 2015, even for democrats. $15 min wage is currently the minimum to even be a democrat. The world is changing! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:22 Mohdoo wrote: 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. 1. You can do both, indeed I guess ‘we are spending 2x what comparable universal healthcare systems are costing’ is both a defence and attack. 2. Unacceptable, I demand you retract your incorrect data. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:34 Wombat_NI wrote: 1. You can do both, indeed I guess ‘we are spending 2x what comparable universal healthcare systems are costing’ is both a defence and attack. 2. Unacceptable, I demand you retract your incorrect data. You can do both, but I do believe defense is rarely better than offense. Everyone agrees shit sucks. People start to bail when you describe a solution they don't like. Don't propose a solution, just say shit sucks and people eat it up. I apologize and retract my previous data | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:48 Mohdoo wrote: You can do both, but I do believe defense is rarely better than offense. Everyone agrees shit sucks. People start to bail when you describe a solution they don't like. Don't propose a solution, just say shit sucks and people eat it up. I apologize and retract my previous data In my opinion he was the one that misconstrued your clearly defined intent, that only he messed up on, and should apologize for asserting something you didn't say and reread it again. /s | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:48 Mohdoo wrote: You can do both, but I do believe defense is rarely better than offense. Everyone agrees shit sucks. People start to bail when you describe a solution they don't like. Don't propose a solution, just say shit sucks and people eat it up. I apologize and retract my previous data It’s fertile ground indeed for both attack and defence, current system sucks, here’s a better system, also said system won’t bankrupt the nation despite the attacks of my opponents and here’s why. Much appreciated, I shall sleep more soundly knowing someone has corrected. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24382 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:25 Belisarius wrote: It's obviously never been about how many democrats will vote for Trump, but how many centrists might be unenthused by bernie's policies and decide to stay home. There's also a subset of republicans who might be induced to flip by someone like bloomberg. Those groups obviously exists, it's pure fluff to pretend they don't. The question has always been whether a bernie tilt can bring in enough nonvoters on the left that it offsets the centrists he loses to his right. I don't think anyone knows how to predict this objectively, but it's probably at least 50/50 by now. There was some interesting data out recently that suggested there's about 5-8% of 'adults' that think Sanders is too liberal but Biden or Bloomberg isn't, while there are about 20% that think Sanders is too conservative. Similarly, about a third of all adults call Sanders "too liberal," compared with about a quarter who say the same of Biden or Bloomberg. That said, 20% call Sanders too conservative. www.langerresearch.com | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 25 2020 09:34 Mohdoo wrote: Look at Trump's approval rating among Republicans in 2014. Compare it to the day before the Republican convention. Transformative candidates, well, transform. Trump has a 90 freaking percent approval rating among republicans. It used to be more around 30%. Remember how the republicans we all know in love @ TL appreciated Romney, then considered him a filthy traitor like...a year later? Romney Republicans became Trump Republicans. I've met well educated people who managed to become a Trumper after being entirely dignified people before that. Simply put, you aren't considering what happens when someone seizes the party. $15/hour minimum wage was *OUTRAGEOUS* in 2015, even for democrats. $15 min wage is currently the minimum to even be a democrat. The world is changing! My question is whether Bernie can win the votes needed in certain swing states from moderate and suburban voters, when he is proposing to transform the economy even though the economy is doing well right now (by a lot of measures at least). Those moderates and suburbans who are doing alright right now might not want to change everything. Especially if that change includes decriminalizing border crossings and granting free healthcare to everyone who makes the trek. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 10:56 Doodsmack wrote: My question is whether Bernie can win the votes needed in certain swing states from moderate and suburban voters, when he is proposing to transform the economy even though the economy is doing well right now (by a lot of measures at least). Those moderates and suburbans who are doing alright right now might not want to change everything. Especially if that change includes decriminalizing border crossings and granting free healthcare to everyone who makes the trek. The economy is not doing well. People making $25/hr are not doing well on West coast. If I were to guess, I'd say the workers of swing states are doing just as well as on other states. People look at the stock market and say "nice", but did they get a raise? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On February 25 2020 10:56 Doodsmack wrote: My question is whether Bernie can win the votes needed in certain swing states from moderate and suburban voters, when he is proposing to transform the economy even though the economy is doing well right now (by a lot of measures at least). Those moderates and suburbans who are doing alright right now might not want to change everything. Especially if that change includes decriminalizing border crossings and granting free healthcare to everyone who makes the trek. Perhaps, who’s it doing well for? ‘The economy’ didn’t help Remain make their case over here, many different factors come into play there of course. It’s doing well in the unemployment rate and in the stock market. The former doesn’t really (or shouldn’t) resonate particularly well with the ‘Im working full time why am I struggling?’ crowd, and the stock market and investment is so far beyond even countenancing for a lot of the working class that it’s completely irrelevant Trump is relatively strong on these historically important metrics I will concede, but not beyond reproach either. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On February 25 2020 11:04 Mohdoo wrote: The economy is not doing well. People making $25/hr are not doing well on West coast. If I were to guess, I'd say the workers of swing states are doing just as well as on other states. People look at the stock market and say "nice", but did they get a raise? Gonna add on to this. How the stock market is doing matter *only* if you have stock. The middle class and working poor generally don't own stock. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
| ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Sanders 24 Biden 9 Buttigieg 3 Warren's campaign is over. Bets if she blames sexism in her speech? | ||
Nakajin
Canada8991 Posts
On February 25 2020 13:01 Mohdoo wrote: Final delegate counts Sanders 24 Biden 9 Buttigieg 3 Warren's campaign is over. Bets if she blames sexism in her speech? Well she wouldn't be entirely wrong in the grand scheme of things. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 13:37 Nakajin wrote: Well she wouldn't be entirely wrong in the grand scheme of things. A greater than 0 contribution, but the defining reason people backed Sanders over her as the voice of progressives? | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 25 2020 14:16 Mohdoo wrote: A greater than 0 contribution, but the defining reason people backed Sanders over her as the voice of progressives? No, but don’t you get how people rolling their eyes every time a woman opens her mouth and saying “I bet she’s gonna talk about sexism again” kinda sucks? Not unlike mocking a black person for “playing the race card,” it legitimizes discrimination and delegitimizes calling it out. Maybe there’s a more nuanced way to talk about Warren and sexism? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 14:50 ChristianS wrote: No, but don’t you get how people rolling their eyes every time a woman opens her mouth and saying “I bet she’s gonna talk about sexism again” kinda sucks? Not unlike mocking a black person for “playing the race card,” it legitimizes discrimination and delegitimizes calling it out. Maybe there’s a more nuanced way to talk about Warren and sexism? She recently tried to call Bernie a sexist. It's not out of nowhere. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 25 2020 15:04 Mohdoo wrote: She recently tried to call Bernie a sexist. It's not out of nowhere. Sort of, I remember. But even if I grant that she maliciously fabricated that story herself as a cynical attempt to take down Bernie (not my read of that situation, but it doesn’t matter much by now so whatever), we’re still preemptively dismissing what the woman says because we disagreed with one time she tried to call out discrimination so now she’s “lost her privileges” or something. Still kinda feels like the race card thing to me, ya know? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 25 2020 15:10 ChristianS wrote: Sort of, I remember. But even if I grant that she maliciously fabricated that story herself as a cynical attempt to take down Bernie (not my read of that situation, but it doesn’t matter much by now so whatever), we’re still preemptively dismissing what the woman says because we disagreed with one time she tried to call out discrimination so now she’s “lost her privileges” or something. Still kinda feels like the race card thing to me, ya know? If it is assumed she tried to either misconstrue, fabricate or whatever a sexist attack, yes, any other accusations should mean nothing. Not disagreed, I'm assuming malicious intent. When I look at the many positions Bernie holds pertaining to empowering the weak, the idea that he would not only be sexist but tell a woman a woman can't be president is insane. There is no conceivable way that Bernie said or meant anything remotely close to what Warren described. I can only assume her story is malicious. But it seems we just disagree on that point. We agree on what conclusion should be reached based on which assumption is true. | ||
| ||
