|
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 June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November.
I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much.
Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma.
|
|
|
Yeah. I don't recall anyone having this kind of path to office anywhere: basically the least we see of Biden the better for him. That's paradoxical in an age of extreme exposure, and I guess it's really only linked to his opponent being both really good at being a bully, and really, really bad at looking good by himself. Trump without a target is a completely awful candidate.
I don't think there is room for a debate of idea anyway in the current climate. Politics is so ugly right now that all the punches can be expected to be below the belt, and nobody will listen to anything with an open mind.
|
On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma.
You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings.
If we are on the possible record turnout discussion, it's far too early to be making these guesses responsibly. But if the current polling snapshots are fairly consistent until November, I can see Biden winning the electoral college by a comfortable margin taking Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and maybe Ohio bolstered by his far superior performance compared to Hillary among seniors, independents, suburban residents, college-educated white women and drawing back some of the working class white voters in the Rust Belt. Biden can afford to shed one or two of these demographics, Trump really can't.
|
|
|
On June 21 2020 23:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 22:57 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings. If we are on the possible record turnout discussion, it's far too early to be making these guesses responsibly. But if the current polling snapshots are fairly consistent until November, I can see Biden winning the electoral college by a comfortable margin taking Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and maybe Ohio bolstered by his far superior performance compared to Hillary among seniors, independents, suburban residents, college-educated white women and drawing back some of the working class white workers in the Rust Belt. Biden can afford to shed one or two of these demographics, Trump really can't. Biden also made the big announcement that he was going to pick a female running mate. I'm pretty sure he is not going to pick a male republican senator. As funny as it would be to see Graham transform into a progressive environmentalist.
Yeah, I heard that a black woman was by far the most likely.
This Graham idea makes no sense considering who Biden is and absolutely no sense considering the type pf campaign Biden runs.
|
On June 21 2020 22:57 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings.
lol I'm aware of his short list. The bickering on twitter between Warren and Harris supporters about it has kept me pretty amused recently.
I'll go on record now that it's not a good cycle to pick a cop (the Black women you mentioned) as a running mate for obvious reasons.
|
There is an interesting piece about Biden in FiveThirtyEight. Essentially, Biden has always been exactly at the centre of the Democratic Party, and has never ventured further right or left than the 44th to 57th most liberal democratic senators.
So basically, he has always gone where the party went : quite on the right in the 1990s, quite on the left now.
I don't really like politicians who don't have a set ideology but that puts him in a good position to get everyone to work together. It also means that by pulling the party left, progressive have a chance to really make an impact.
Here is the piece:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pandemic-has-pushed-biden-to-the-left-how-far-will-he-go/
|
To be fair Lindsay is traditionally a girl’s name
|
On June 22 2020 03:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is an interesting piece about Biden in FiveThirtyEight. Essentially, Biden has always been exactly at the centre of the Democratic Party, and has never ventured further right or left than the 44th to 57th most liberal democratic senators. So basically, he has always gone where the party went : quite on the right in the 1990s, quite on the left now. I don't really like politicians who don't have a set ideology but that puts him in a good position to get everyone to work together. It also means that by pulling the party left, progressive have a chance to really make an impact. Here is the piece: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pandemic-has-pushed-biden-to-the-left-how-far-will-he-go/
Has any Democrat president governed to the left of where they campaigned in a primary?
|
On June 22 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2020 22:57 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings. lol I'm aware of his short list. The bickering on twitter between Warren and Harris supporters about it has kept me pretty amused recently. I'll go on record now that it's not a good cycle to pick a cop (the Black women you mentioned) as a running mate for obvious reasons.
Then I fail to see the purpose in bringing up Graham as a potential VP pick for Biden and not an impossibility if you are so abreast of the shortlist. Maybe a year ago sure, but whatever, I'll just take it as a joke about Graham being a Lindsey or Biden making a gaffe.
A Warren VP pick would probably satisfy the most from what I recall about internal surveying from the Biden campaign or the Democrats. There was heavy pressure for a black VP after the Floyd protests, but as you said, it may not be the right optics to choose an overzealous state AG or a police officer. But Harris' and Demings' relative youth is an advantage they have over a Biden-Warren ticket for people concerned about them being too elderly for the job.
|
On June 22 2020 04:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 22:57 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings. lol I'm aware of his short list. The bickering on twitter between Warren and Harris supporters about it has kept me pretty amused recently. I'll go on record now that it's not a good cycle to pick a cop (the Black women you mentioned) as a running mate for obvious reasons. Then I fail to see the purpose in bringing up Graham as a potential VP pick for Biden and not an impossibility if you are so abreast of the shortlist. Maybe a year ago sure, but whatever, I'll just take it as a joke about Graham being a Lindsey or Biden making a gaffe. A Warren VP pick would probably satisfy the most from what I recall about internal surveying from the Biden campaign or the Democrats. There was heavy pressure for a black VP after the Floyd protests, but as you said, it may not be the right optics to choose an overzealous state AG or a police officer. But Harris' and Demings' relative youth is an advantage they have over a Biden-Warren ticket for people concerned about them being too elderly for the job. He brought up Graham because to GH Biden is practically a Republican.
|
On June 22 2020 04:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 04:05 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 22 2020 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 22:57 PhoenixVoid wrote:On June 21 2020 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:28 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 18:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 21 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2020 17:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth noting that 2018 increased turnout was primarily driven by a dramatic rise in voter participation among voters under 29, not a group inspired by either candidate. And why would <29 not be inspired to vote by seeing the shitshow of the Trump administration? Lots of reasons they aren't inspired by Biden. A handful that come to mind. 1. The candidate they overwhelmingly preferred isn't on the ballot. 2. Democrats ignored their votes being suppressed on campuses and in places like Chicago. 3. Hiding and hoping the other guy makes you look acceptable by comparison is cynical, pathetic, and uninspiring. 4. He's literally said "nothing will fundamentally change" and campaigned on "restoring" a US they've never liked. That overlaps with the standard reasons people don't vote in general. This is hardly the place I would think people need to be convinced relying on voters under 29 is less than ideal though. I agree you shouldn't rely on them but I also don't think the improved turnout in 2018 was because of Bernie. Don't underestimate people willingness to go out and vote when they see the current situation as a bad thing. (And before you bring up the many social/economic bad things going on constantly, most people simply don't give a shit, sad as that may be). Either way its all speculation, we will see what the numbers say in November. I'm in the "no chance he gets more votes than Obama in 08" camp. I agree that a "change" candidate is generally well positioned if the current situation is bad (like Obama despite not running against an incumbent). A "nothing will fundamentally change" candidate against an incumbent with high voter enthusiasm and systemic voter suppression amid a pandemic (Republicans barely think is real), not so much. Biden's probably going to lose in my book, but it'll be interesting to see how his VP pick goes. All I know is if he picks Lindsey Graham I'm going to laugh myself into a coma. You must really be out of the loop if you actually think Graham is on a shortlist of VP picks for Biden. It's heavily tilting to Harris, Warren or Demings. lol I'm aware of his short list. The bickering on twitter between Warren and Harris supporters about it has kept me pretty amused recently. I'll go on record now that it's not a good cycle to pick a cop (the Black women you mentioned) as a running mate for obvious reasons. Then I fail to see the purpose in bringing up Graham as a potential VP pick for Biden and not an impossibility if you are so abreast of the shortlist. Maybe a year ago sure, but whatever, I'll just take it as a joke about Graham being a Lindsey or Biden making a gaffe. A Warren VP pick would probably satisfy the most from what I recall about internal surveying from the Biden campaign or the Democrats. There was heavy pressure for a black VP after the Floyd protests, but as you said, it may not be the right optics to choose an overzealous state AG or a police officer. But Harris' and Demings' relative youth is an advantage they have over a Biden-Warren ticket for people concerned about them being too elderly for the job. He brought up Graham because to GH Biden is practically a Republican.
More poking fun at the absurd superficiality of the veepstakes, while lamenting the bastardization of intersectionality and identity politics.
|
On June 22 2020 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 03:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is an interesting piece about Biden in FiveThirtyEight. Essentially, Biden has always been exactly at the centre of the Democratic Party, and has never ventured further right or left than the 44th to 57th most liberal democratic senators. So basically, he has always gone where the party went : quite on the right in the 1990s, quite on the left now. I don't really like politicians who don't have a set ideology but that puts him in a good position to get everyone to work together. It also means that by pulling the party left, progressive have a chance to really make an impact. Here is the piece: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pandemic-has-pushed-biden-to-the-left-how-far-will-he-go/ Has any Democrat president governed to the left of where they campaigned in a primary?
Depends how far back you go. Maybe LBJ. Before him they were a different party, and after him centrist Dems won every nomination. Clinton started out governing to the left of his run but the 94 midterms killed healthcare reform and he went way to the right of his run after that.
|
From the covid thread:
On June 22 2020 04:14 Amui wrote:
Yeah I don't get it.
Research at this point has shown that wearing masks in public(sick or not) can reduce the infection rate below 1 (eg. it'll slowly die out on it's own).
Trump will never do it because he's got the brain of a wilted pea, but if you look at the asian countries that have it under control - heavy mask usage, good contact tracing protocols, and they can reduce it to tens of cases per day. It isn't magic, it's fucking hard work and smart decisions.
I don't think there's any scenario where killing off a percentage point of the population, and crippling several times that for the rest of their lives isn't going to cause more economic damage than listening to experts.
That is because it isn't a rational strategy. It is just kind of ignoring the problem and going for feelings over facts.
When people turn stuff like wearing masks into a political thing for some left vs right war they feel needs to be pervasive in every thing, you can't expect rational reactions.
What is happening in the US right now with regards to covid19 is the culmination of post-factual politics. Everything needs to be a tribal battle. If the other side says X, you HAVE to say Y instead. Facts don't matter, sense doesn't matter, only winning. And you win by not doing what the other side says you should do.
|
On June 22 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:From the covid thread: Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 04:14 Amui wrote:
Yeah I don't get it.
Research at this point has shown that wearing masks in public(sick or not) can reduce the infection rate below 1 (eg. it'll slowly die out on it's own).
Trump will never do it because he's got the brain of a wilted pea, but if you look at the asian countries that have it under control - heavy mask usage, good contact tracing protocols, and they can reduce it to tens of cases per day. It isn't magic, it's fucking hard work and smart decisions.
I don't think there's any scenario where killing off a percentage point of the population, and crippling several times that for the rest of their lives isn't going to cause more economic damage than listening to experts. That is because it isn't a rational strategy. It is just kind of ignoring the problem and going for feelings over facts. When people turn stuff like wearing masks into a political thing for some left vs right war they feel needs to be pervasive in every thing, you can't expect rational reactions. What is happening in the US right now with regards to covid19 is the culmination of post-factual politics. Everything needs to be a tribal battle. If the other side says X, you HAVE to say Y instead. Facts don't matter, sense doesn't matter, only winning. And you win by not doing what the other side says you should do.
I agree with this analysis. Right now it feels like Florida and Texas are "owning libs" by spreading infection. I wonder if there will be a point where people are like "oh shit big mistake"
|
On June 22 2020 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:From the covid thread: On June 22 2020 04:14 Amui wrote:
Yeah I don't get it.
Research at this point has shown that wearing masks in public(sick or not) can reduce the infection rate below 1 (eg. it'll slowly die out on it's own).
Trump will never do it because he's got the brain of a wilted pea, but if you look at the asian countries that have it under control - heavy mask usage, good contact tracing protocols, and they can reduce it to tens of cases per day. It isn't magic, it's fucking hard work and smart decisions.
I don't think there's any scenario where killing off a percentage point of the population, and crippling several times that for the rest of their lives isn't going to cause more economic damage than listening to experts. That is because it isn't a rational strategy. It is just kind of ignoring the problem and going for feelings over facts. When people turn stuff like wearing masks into a political thing for some left vs right war they feel needs to be pervasive in every thing, you can't expect rational reactions. What is happening in the US right now with regards to covid19 is the culmination of post-factual politics. Everything needs to be a tribal battle. If the other side says X, you HAVE to say Y instead. Facts don't matter, sense doesn't matter, only winning. And you win by not doing what the other side says you should do. I agree with this analysis. Right now it feels like Florida and Texas are "owning libs" by spreading infection. I wonder if there will be a point where people are like "oh shit big mistake"
Nah, you heard Trump, he inherited a mess! The cupboards were empty! Obama didn't even leave a vaccine for a virus that came out 3 years later. Can't believe how the democrats let all those people die. If Hillary's swamp wasn't so deep Trump would not have to disband the pandemic response unit. This was all Osama bin Laden's plan when he supported Biden. And if we didn't start testing so much then we would not have so many cases!
Maybe add a wireless 5G meme somewhere in between but I think this is the accurate response from those types.
|
On June 22 2020 04:34 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2020 03:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is an interesting piece about Biden in FiveThirtyEight. Essentially, Biden has always been exactly at the centre of the Democratic Party, and has never ventured further right or left than the 44th to 57th most liberal democratic senators. So basically, he has always gone where the party went : quite on the right in the 1990s, quite on the left now. I don't really like politicians who don't have a set ideology but that puts him in a good position to get everyone to work together. It also means that by pulling the party left, progressive have a chance to really make an impact. Here is the piece: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pandemic-has-pushed-biden-to-the-left-how-far-will-he-go/ Has any Democrat president governed to the left of where they campaigned in a primary? Depends how far back you go. Maybe LBJ. Before him they were a different party, and after him centrist Dems won every nomination. Clinton started out governing to the left of his run but the 94 midterms killed healthcare reform and he went way to the right of his run after that.
I'd argue this is a "no", and thinking Biden will is naive at best.
|
On June 22 2020 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2020 04:37 Simberto wrote:From the covid thread: On June 22 2020 04:14 Amui wrote:
Yeah I don't get it.
Research at this point has shown that wearing masks in public(sick or not) can reduce the infection rate below 1 (eg. it'll slowly die out on it's own).
Trump will never do it because he's got the brain of a wilted pea, but if you look at the asian countries that have it under control - heavy mask usage, good contact tracing protocols, and they can reduce it to tens of cases per day. It isn't magic, it's fucking hard work and smart decisions.
I don't think there's any scenario where killing off a percentage point of the population, and crippling several times that for the rest of their lives isn't going to cause more economic damage than listening to experts. That is because it isn't a rational strategy. It is just kind of ignoring the problem and going for feelings over facts. When people turn stuff like wearing masks into a political thing for some left vs right war they feel needs to be pervasive in every thing, you can't expect rational reactions. What is happening in the US right now with regards to covid19 is the culmination of post-factual politics. Everything needs to be a tribal battle. If the other side says X, you HAVE to say Y instead. Facts don't matter, sense doesn't matter, only winning. And you win by not doing what the other side says you should do. I agree with this analysis. Right now it feels like Florida and Texas are "owning libs" by spreading infection. I wonder if there will be a point where people are like "oh shit big mistake"
"Notice how only Republican states are getting sick? COVID is a deep state/DemocRAT bio weapon they're using against the Bigliest Leader!"
|
Bolton saying he'll vote for Biden because he's seen the Trump sausage factory up close and was not pleased. Come on, you laughed a bit reading this news. The idea you can have legendary New Left intellectuals like Chomsky and practically every Dubya administration member still in the public square opposed to Trump like this is the stuff you imagine in a fever dream in 2010.
https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-biden-trump-b216371a-5134-4d09-96af-76ad0fd74cca.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
On June 22 2020 20:11 OmniEulogy wrote:Before making Bolton seem too reasonable the exact quote from the article is, "I don't think he's a conservative Republican. I'm not going to vote for him in November — certainly not going to vote for Joe Biden either," Bolton said, per ABC News. "I'm going to figure out a conservative Republican to vote in." so he's not quite going as far as voting for Biden, he just claims he wont vote for Trump.
Unless I am a very poor reader or am going insane, I remember the article saying that Bolton was voting for Biden, but it appears it was denied by a spokesperson and the original source got it wrong, so it was re-written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
