EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2737
| 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 | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32754 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 12 2020 01:54 Mohdoo wrote: Biden not having a 20 year cultivated culture of hatred against him certainly lowers the % of undecided voters. So many people saw Trump and Clinton as untenable. Biden is totally fine for a lot more people. That and I think a lot of people are finding themselves saying "ok, Trump is having legitimately bad consequences, such as covid" I'd say there was more than a little cultivated hatred against Obama, and Biden is associated with him of course. But anyway I can't understand how Trump is even in the running with his handling of covid and the economy in the toilet. Hard to imagine how he could have handled the pandemic worse, and instead of correcting as time goes on he's getting even more belligerently ignorant and irresponsible. I guess a sizable amount of people still believe that covid is either fake or some mild disease being overblown by the liberals as some kind of power grab. Seriously considering looking for other countries to live in if Trump wins again. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 12 2020 02:41 PhoenixVoid wrote: I always remind myself that this thread's probable American demographic of university-educated males aged 18-40 living in major cities with overall progressive political views as a bunch are not the people that Biden really needs to charm over to win. Same with the very politically aware and vocal internet commentators on Twitter. While this thread largely views Biden as a settle choice or just another Democrat they can't vote for, it's women, seniors, older black Americans, middle-aged suburb residents and white working class men in the Midwest disillusioned with the Clintons who like and trust Biden more compared to Trump or Hillary, and so far it appears that the strategy is paying dividends, at least in the polls and fundraising. Playing as the safe, moderate, trustworthy and competently commanded ship in turbulent times against an incumbent viewed as incompetent and unhinged outside of his ~45% base has been quite an effective campaign. Without commenting on the electoral aspect of it, it's important to note courting those voters isn't policy neutral. Courting semi-affluent white suburbanite Trump voters instead of disaffected and marginalized BIPOC necessarily means the policy pitches will favor the former at the expense of the latter's interests. That's a significant part of how you get Biden running on more funding for police amid a national uprising against systemic and ongoing police brutality/abuse of people's rights, preserving the fracking industry while claiming to "listen to science", rejecting Medicare for all amid a pandemic and economic recession/depression, etc. What's worse is that even if he did support something like medicare for all we know Republicans/some Dems would never pass it, but they will pass increased funding for police, perpetuating fracking without protecting disproportionately negatively impacted BIPOC communities and 'affordable' healthcare/tax relief/aid packages for semi-affluent white suburbanites. EDIT: A lot of people are willing to trade: + Show Spoiler + more funding for police amid a national uprising against systemic and ongoing police brutality/abuse of people's rights, preserving the fracking industry while claiming to "listen to science", rejecting Medicare for all amid a pandemic and economic recession/depression for + Show Spoiler + affordable' healthcare/tax relief/aid packages for semi-affluent white/white club suburbanites Probably enough to win elections longer than is conducive to the survival of those most at risk from that trade for decades. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 12 2020 02:52 Starlightsun wrote: I'd say there was more than a little cultivated hatred against Obama, and Biden is associated with him of course. But anyway I can't understand how Trump is even in the running with his handling of covid and the economy in the toilet. Hard to imagine how he could have handled the pandemic worse, and instead of correcting as time goes on he's getting even more belligerently ignorant and irresponsible. I guess a sizable amount of people still believe that covid is either fake or some mild disease being overblown by the liberals as some kind of power grab. Seriously considering looking for other countries to live in if Trump wins again. Obama didn't even really exist on the national stage until not long before his presidential run. Clinton was a major national icon for a long time. And being one of the women who unapologetically said "get fucked, haters", she pissed off a lot of insecure men. A lot of it is also the time during which she was confrontational and what it meant to be confrontational as a woman. People decided to hate her at a time when it was pretty difficult to be a woman. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
On October 12 2020 03:15 JimmiC wrote: I know that people get behind the, "they hate her for being a strong women", and I believe that is part of it. But too a lot of women I have talked too she lost them when it came out so clearly that and without any doubt that Bill was a serial cheater and instead of admonishing him, leaving him, or whatever she more or less did the old "stand by your man". This took a lot of her strong women vibe away and made it seem more like she was a purely political animal who cared most about power. Fair or not I don't think her being a strong women is what pissed off a bunch of women in the US. It was her turning off the strong women when it would hurt her and Bill politically. I think that the women who had her on the pedestal knocked her off, and the ones that leaned more conservative were like "see". That moment cost her so much credibility with everyone. Ye that's probably true. I think Clinton got the worst of both worlds. She majorly pissed off male chauvinists by being tough as nail and having such authority, and feminists by being the wife of Bill and supporting him no natter what. I guess part of the image of insincerity that eventually destroyed her candidacy came partly from there. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 12 2020 03:15 JimmiC wrote: I know that people get behind the, "they hate her for being a strong women", and I believe that is part of it. But too a lot of women I have talked too she lost them when it came out so clearly that and without any doubt that Bill was a serial cheater and instead of admonishing him, leaving him, or whatever she more or less did the old "stand by your man". This took a lot of her strong women vibe away and made it seem more like she was a purely political animal who cared most about power. Fair or not I don't think her being a strong women is what pissed off a bunch of women in the US. It was her turning off the strong women when it would hurt her and Bill politically. I think that the women who had her on the pedestal knocked her off, and the ones that leaned more conservative were like "see". That moment cost her so much credibility with everyone. Different people disliked her for different reasons. Its also important to note that being a strong woman didn't make you labeled a "strong woman" it labeled you an "arrogant elitist". When a child speaks against an adult, the child is considered arrogant, but when an adult does it, it is more so just having a conversation/discussion/debate. The relative position of a person is a big part of how that person is judged. It is the same dynamic that makes Black People rioting considerably more reacted to than white nationalists storming a government building with guns. An uprising is only an uprising when you were considered weak to begin with. A sudden swell of power, or a refusal to be less than is framed entirely differently. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 12 2020 03:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: Ye that's probably true. I think Clinton got the worst of both worlds. She majorly pissed off male chauvinists by being tough as nail and having such authority, and feminists by being the wife of Bill and supporting him no natter what. I guess part of the image of insincerity that eventually destroyed her candidacy came partly from there. She also pissed off the demographic that doesn't like crooked candidates, which makes for a triple whammy of misfortune. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 12 2020 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote: Just to be clear, Clinton's chance to win this date in 2016 was 83.5% and rose to 86.9% on the 12th. If 538 thinks the data reflects a better chance for Biden to win this election than Hillary last election, it doesn't seem to show up in their probability calculation. That's really what I was curious about. If there's reliable data that shows Biden is notably more likely to win than Clinton, why wouldn't 538 be giving him a significantly better probability of winning compared to her at this time last year? As I understood the argument has been that Biden is polling better and far more favorable than Clinton was at this point and the 538 probability is based on polling data. The biggest difference is that Biden's lead has been a lot more stable. The highest lead that Clinton had was probably at about the point when the Access Hollywood tape came out and she had highly favorable debate performance, but then that lead started to slip in the last few weeks. The overall campaign had a lot more back-and-forth with results becoming more and less favorable over time. A definite weakness of this entire "predict election based on polls" approach is that it's all very volatile and new data can significantly change the chances of victory, but it's what we've got. Clinton's chance of winning dropped to under 70% by November, to the point that a surprisingly favorable performance in some key states made things work out in Trump's favor. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
On October 12 2020 04:11 LegalLord wrote: She also pissed off the demographic that doesn't like crooked candidates, which makes for a triple whammy of misfortune. Yeah, well that was also kind of a problem of image. She was seen as insincere before any scandal occurred. That was exploited to death by her opponents. It's telling that four years after yourself use Trump own schoolboy taunt to talk about it. Then again, take her biggest scandal, the one that sunk her: the email stuff. Can you just start to imagine how little fuck would be given (or have been given in 2016) if Trump had used a private server instead of a government one for his email? No one, literally no one, would even start caring. And to be honest, I think most politicians would have been just fine in that spot. It's just, Hillary was incredibly vulnerable when it came to lacking authenticity. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 12 2020 04:18 LegalLord wrote: The biggest difference is that Biden's lead has been a lot more stable. The highest lead that Clinton had was probably at about the point when the Access Hollywood tape came out and she had highly favorable debate performance, but then that lead started to slip in the last few weeks. The overall campaign had a lot more back-and-forth with results becoming more and less favorable over time. A definite weakness of this entire "predict election based on polls" approach is that it's all very volatile and new data can significantly change the chances of victory, but it's what we've got. Clinton's chance of winning dropped to under 70% by November, to the point that a surprisingly favorable performance in some key states made things work out in Trump's favor. I was just clarifying the data about 35% because it was wrong and how 538's prediction on this day compared to this day/week/month of 2016 because I thought it a more relevant comparison. Then wondered what in the modeling caused Biden's significantly and consistently better/steady polling/favorability to yield basically the same chance of winning as Hillary in 2016 on 538 at this point in the election. If people know Trump didn't have a 35% chance to win according to 538 on election day 2016. That looking at 538's prediction at this point in the election in 2016 had Hillary with basically the same chance of winning as Biden currently has. Then I can chew on 538's explanation and your/Nev's supplemental info for a while, and be satisfied. This + Show Spoiler + It is significantly worse this time, Trumps chances are half as good (14% to 29%) EDIT: Couple bits on polling comparisons. Biden's held a bigger lead longer with no ostensibly foreseeable gamechangers (other than catching Covid) so I don't know how exactly that's calculated in 538's modeling but knowing they have a variable to account for it generally (this isn't the "polls only model from 2016") means Trump's chance to win using 538's model is slightly worse unless you count "days till election" instead of the specific date 4 years ago. This is despite Biden's significantly better and more consistent polling/favorability. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
Geez. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 12 2020 05:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: lol I said 35 top of my head from memory, you gotta relax with that. It was 6 points lower we got it. That makes zero difference for what my point was. Geez. While I thought correcting the 35% to ~28% was important if it was going to be used for reference, I thought the comparison troublesome otherwise. Should be October 11 2016 (for the record he was at 20.1% on "polls plus" instead of 16.5 on "polls only") to October 11 2020 14% OR x days away (13.4% [po] 16.9[pp] in 2016 vs 14% [pp] in 2020) from the election in each cycle. People think Biden's chances are significantly better right now than Hillary's in 2016 at the same point in the election and that's not what 538's probability model says right now (despite Biden's much better polling and favorability) was what I was getting at. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
On October 12 2020 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote: While I thought correcting the 35% to ~28% was important if it was going to be used for reference, I thought the comparison troublesome otherwise. Should be October 11 2016 (for the record he was at 20.1% on "polls plus" instead of 16.5 on "polls only") to October 11 2020 14% OR x days away (13.4% [po] 16.9[pp] in 2016 vs 14% [pp] in 2020) from the election in each cycle. People think Biden's chances are significantly better right now than Hillary's in 2016 at the same point in the election and that's not what 538's probability model says right now (despite Biden's much better polling and favorability) was what I was getting at. People don't assume that the last four weeks of the campaign will be a train wreck like it happened for Hillary. Unless they are wrong, Biden is indeed in a much better postire than she was. | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
Joe Biden's polling better than any challenger since 1936 https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/11/politics/biden-best-position-challenger/index.html There is still 3 weeks though and as we have seen with Clinton it is possible to throw a strong lead. The missteps that Biden would have to make to throw the lead that he has built would have to be so massive though that they are just hard to imagine. Edit Also the early voting treads that we are seeing should be horrifying to republicans, they are looking at bloodbath of epic portions if trends keep up. The fact they are having to fight so hard to suppress the vote in texas of all places should tell you all you need. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 12 2020 16:22 Shingi11 wrote: Here is good article on why Biden is in such a stronger position then Clinton. And you have to go back quite while to find someone that is in a stronger position then him. There is still 3 weeks though and as we have seen with Clinton it is possible to throw a strong lead. The missteps that Biden would have to make to throw the lead that he has built would have to be so massive though that they are just hard to imagine. Edit Also the early voting treads that we are seeing should be horrifying to republicans, they are looking at bloodbath of epic portions if trends keep up. The fact they are having to fight so hard to suppress the vote in texas of all places should tell you all you need. I think Biden should be and is in a better position than Clinton was. Part of what spurred all that was my curiosity as to why that doesn't appear to be the case reflected in 538's prediction model. Clinton peaked at a 85% chance on October 17th. As late as October 26th Clinton had a 83% chance to win compared to Biden's 86% right now (the best chance he's seen to date). Something significant is at play to make both "Joe Biden's polling better than any challenger since 1936" and "He has 1% better chance at this stage of the election compared to Hillary in 2016 according to the best prediction model." simultaneously true. Presumably if we could see the "Polls only" version from 2016 it would give Biden a significantly bigger advantage. Whatever is doing the work to take the polls only chance of winning to what the polls plus model is currently showing would seem to be a bigger story to me than has been let on (from 538 anyway) thus far. Or his polling/other advantages aren't as strong for his actual electoral chances as they would traditionally lead us to believe. Or Hillary's chances to win at this point in 2016 were overestimated by their model (so Biden is more likely to win than Hillary in 2016 at this point, but because a more accurate number for Hillary in 2016 would have been lower). or some combination of the above | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22492 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 12 2020 18:26 Gorsameth wrote: Clinton wasn't a challenger tho, there was no incumbent because Obama had finished his 2 terms. So when you talk about Biden as the best polling of any challenger there is no reason to look at Clinton as a comparison. Other than it's the only other presidential election for which we have easy access to 538 model's predictions. Also they mentioned her campaign in the article: This also continues to mark a massive difference with the 2016 campaign. Which is what I'm talking about with Biden having much better polling but basically the same chances of Clinton at this point in 2016. Even if every undecided or current third party voter went to Trump now, he'd still be down about 5 to 6 points nationally. That's never been the case with an incumbent since 1936 at this point. That's a notable advantage that seems to not give him a significant edge over their prediction of Hillary's chances at this point (which was 85% chance to win). So I have media and posters telling me Biden's chances to win are much better than Hillary at this point and the best predictive model for US elections telling me that works out to ~1% more likely to win at this stage of the election. For some reason being curious about that is making people's brain melt it seems. | ||
| ||
