EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2739
| 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 | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On October 12 2020 23:43 JimmiC wrote: Traditional conservatives in NA would have hated him. People like my Grandfather would have basically hated everything he was and what he stood for. It was important to be polite, follow rules, join and support that military. What was hated was braggers, cheaters, adulatory, being loud and obnoxious, even interrupting was looked down upon. I actually have trouble seeing trump as "right" to me he is a xenophobic populist who plays to a evangelical Christian base. I mean he spends like crazy, is increasing red tape on trade, flip flops all over on the military. I really doubt people like Reagan or either bush would considering him a conservative or "right". I’m a pretty socially conservative fellow myself, in terms of things like decorum, base politeness, vulgarity and the likes of things you mentioned. Probably how I’ve straddled the two worlds of my parental lineage with socialists on one side and Christian conservatives on the other. I’m unsure how to square the circle on Trump on any other metric than he pisses off the left, and fear of the left trumps other ostensible values. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yFl13OF.png) | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On October 12 2020 22:27 WombaT wrote: If a duck’s quack doesn’t echo, what is their equivalent of an echo chamber? You know, Laurens brought up echo chambers and it seems to me that your reaction was to duck the question. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On October 12 2020 23:38 Arghmyliver wrote: Wait are people actually attempting to make political predictions based on "How many campaign signs I see in yards on my block"? By the way, for those foreigners wondering - no. No, you do not need to pass Statistics to graduate high school in this country. I read an interesting book on the mindset of a politician a while back. One of the topics he covers is that successful politicians tend to have very good reads on what positions and issues are important to their base, because they are constantly talking to people, and because of all the stuff that lands on their desk that they need to handle or (most likely) ignore/reroute. Regardless of what polls or campaigns or petitions that citizens themselves might start to demonstrate interest in an issue, the politician is almost always going to have a better sense of how important that thing is to the majority on election day. They are routinely sampling their potential votership on the issues that are important, because this helps them take positions that they feel will get them re-elected. And nothing is more important to a politician than being re-elected. My sense is this: If the bulk of the Republican party is somewhat visibly freaking out about their chances of getting re-elected, which it seems to me they are, they probably have a pretty good read on the situation. I know the Democrats probably appeared confident in 2016, which would indicate that this is not exactly a failproof signal, but I'll defer to you folks on that one because I wasn't paying much attention to that election. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
1) He is much farther ahead in the national popular vote. Not only is he up by a margin that is much larger than the margin of error, but he's consistently at or above the 50% mark (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/), which is historically a pretty damn good predictor of success. 2) There are a lot less undecided voters. 3) If you look at state polls (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/), Biden consistently has an above-the-margin-of-error lead in all of the swing states (those midwestern ones) that he needs to win, and his lead in several of them is quite comfortable. Not only that, recent polling shows a comfortable lead in Arizona and even a growing above-the-margin lead in Florida, which would just be icing on the cake. If either NC or Ohio break his way this would just be more padding to protect him from any surprises in other states. Another poster pointed out that it seems like 538's forecast is more conservative than last cycle since it takes more factors into account, but I think that the above three points have been downplayed along with the fact that 1) Biden is much more liked than Clinton overall and 2) This election is a referendum on Trump and not on a Democrat administration like the last one was. I think it's a bit contrarian or otherwise doomsday-ish to just brush off all of the different reasons that Biden is in a stronger position than Clinton was. Also, as mentioned, if Biden's position holds to election day (with almost nothing changing people's minds throughout the election cycle, this is a very real possibility), Trump will have a single-digit chance to win in 538's forecast. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 12 2020 19:26 BerserkSword wrote: There is some massive cope/bias in this topic (pretty much an echo chamber when you take the whole Overton window into consideration). Trump IS the incumbent. Props to posters like simberto and greenhorizons for keeping it real. I am interested to hear anecdotes from anyone living in the US. Just because Trump's fanbase is particularly loud and enthusiastic it doesn't mean they are the majority. I live in Hawaii where the Republican party almost doesn't exist yet there have been Trump caravans driving around and honking their horns. Trump's base is convinced that they are persecuted and under attack, and it seems many of them think they are quite literally at war, hence brandishing their flags and uniforms. Neither candidate has much yard signs since our state doesn't matter in the election. I also think it's wrong to call this place an echo chamber. That the Republicans fail to make substantive points or to show any moral consistency or honesty is not the fault of everyone else. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On October 13 2020 01:17 mikedebo wrote: I read an interesting book on the mindset of a politician a while back. One of the topics he covers is that successful politicians tend to have very good reads on what positions and issues are important to their base, because they are constantly talking to people, and because of all the stuff that lands on their desk that they need to handle or (most likely) ignore/reroute. Regardless of what polls or campaigns or petitions that citizens themselves might start to demonstrate interest in an issue, the politician is almost always going to have a better sense of how important that thing is to the majority on election day. They are routinely sampling their potential votership on the issues that are important, because this helps them take positions that they feel will get them re-elected. And nothing is more important to a politician than being re-elected. My sense is this: If the bulk of the Republican party is somewhat visibly freaking out about their chances of getting re-elected, which it seems to me they are, they probably have a pretty good read on the situation. I know the Democrats probably appeared confident in 2016, which would indicate that this is not exactly a failproof signal, but I'll defer to you folks on that one because I wasn't paying much attention to that election. I mean getting to know your constituency by polling a significant proportion of the population is probably statistically viable, whereas making generalizations about political outcomes based on the amount of signage in your immediate proximity is probably not. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On October 13 2020 02:38 Arghmyliver wrote: I mean getting to know your constituency by polling a significant proportion of the population is probably statistically viable, whereas making generalizations about political outcomes based on the amount of signage in your immediate proximity is probably not. I just want to be clear that I wasn't trying to refute your point with mine; I was taking what you said and taking it in a different direction. I agree with your view on signage. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On October 13 2020 01:09 mikedebo wrote: You know, Laurens brought up echo chambers and it seems to me that your reaction was to duck the question. Well played sir. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 13 2020 02:20 Starlightsun wrote: Just because Trump's fanbase is particularly loud and enthusiastic it doesn't mean they are the majority. I live in Hawaii where the Republican party almost doesn't exist yet there have been Trump caravans driving around and honking their horns. Trump's base is convinced that they are persecuted and under attack, and it seems many of them think they are quite literally at war, hence brandishing their flags and uniforms. Neither candidate has much yard signs since our state doesn't matter in the election. I also think it's wrong to call this place an echo chamber. That the Republicans fail to make substantive points or to show any moral consistency or honesty is not the fault of everyone else. A very handy thing of being at war is that all your actions can be framed as just reactions in defense against an aggressor that struck first. A Culture war example would be tearing down statues. Or Women's rights in general and especially abortion. This all is framed as an attack (on what but white privilege or toxic masculinity though?). And what do you do when attacked? Defend yourself. That the means of defense can be proportionate is conveniently ignored oftentimes. A just cause behind these imagined attacks notwithstanding, this framing provides the justification for disproportionate violence and rhetoric. It's a war. And this Culture war is fought with propaganda, lies, deception, terror, violence and weapons. | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
Turns out, women and older people seem to have higher standards. Us men are predictably trash and seem to actually see this as a positive, which is unsurprising because they’re also the last bastion of Trump support. Younger people probably finally know a candidate through TMZ and NY Post. So not only did the sexting scandal have no real negative impact for Cunningham, it might have actually done him some good with regards to male support and name recognition lmao. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
On October 13 2020 06:00 NewSunshine wrote: I have to roll my eyes at the whole situation, but what did conservatives think would happen when they raised it up as a "scandal", when they're all too happy to support Republicans who enjoy the same shitty dynamic. When you got "grab them by the pussy" trump leading the party any scandal seems tame by comparison. Tills is such strong supporter of Trump that really criticizing his opponents is going to ring hollow with trumps past with women. | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
If they voted for Trump because of the machismo and lavish lifestyle galavanting with Miss Universe and porn stars while married, they’d probably see this as a symbol of Cunningham’s sick pick up game. Even though those sexts should have lost him support based on how lame they were. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 13 2020 05:25 Mohdoo wrote: Is roe v wade generally considered more important than covid relief to republicans? seems pretty wild to be doing supreme court nominee clearly aimed at overturning roe v wade instead of covid. Or maybe WH and Pelosi not agreeing anyway so doesn't matter? Abortion is in some sense the binding glue that holds the republican party together. Many republicans are essentially one-issue voters who care about abortion more than everything. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 13 2020 06:15 IgnE wrote: Abortion is in some sense the binding glue that holds the republican party together. Many republicans are essentially one-issue voters who care about abortion more than everything. She’s very unlikely to be a deciding vote on a case (properly, Casey vs Planned Parenthood), because of justices like Kavanaugh and Robert’s. If you’re very worried about measures like requiring admitting privileges and health department inspections, then you have every right to be worried. The less partisan analysis reveals that she won’t legislate from the bench and won’t ignore religious liberties. Abortion going from legislators in robes to states isn’t a crucial Barrett support. I wonder if people are just going on the abortion line because they’re unfamiliar with state law and haven’t seen any neutral articles about her regarding her position at the University of Notre Dame Law School or writings. Pelosi can have massive unemployment benefits tomorrow if she didn’t consider it essential to also pass state bailouts and child care and marijuana subsidies. Since she considers it politically advantageous to hold everything hostage for a bigger spending bill, and perhaps she’s right to do it on that score, there’s no reason to pretend there’s a court or other trade off. | ||
| ||
