|
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 05 2025 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yes, she failed upwards by being the most popular candidate despite failing her presidential run in 2020.
She "failed upward" by being the most popular candidate. In an election.
I think this discussion has run its course.
Yeah, you can say that again. Usually this magnitude of brain damage is caused by alt-righters talking about shit like Jewish space lasers, so congrats on matching their wit.
|
GreenHorizons getting accused of opposing Kamala's undemocratic rise for racist reasons and DPB never knowing that Biden specifically promised to choose a female VP were not on my 2025 bingo card.
|
On June 05 2025 03:17 oBlade wrote:
GreenHorizons getting accused of opposing Kamala's undemocratic rise for racist reasons and DPB never knowing that Biden specifically promised to choose a female VP were not on my 2025 bingo card.
"Undemocratic rise", remind me where Pence and JD Vance ranked in the 2016 and 2024 Republican primaries respectively?
|
On June 05 2025 03:14 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yes, she failed upwards by being the most popular candidate despite failing her presidential run in 2020. She "failed upward" by being the most popular candidate. In an election. Yeah, you can say that again. Usually this magnitude of brain damage is caused by alt-righters talking about shit like Jewish space lasers, so congrats on matching their wit.
She literally failed upwards, everyone reading this knows it. They are letting the animosity toward me prevent them from correcting you.
EDIT: I should say that Trump has spent his whole life failing upwards, that didn't stop because he won the popular vote. Light's being ridiculous and you all know it. Have a little integrity people.
|
On June 05 2025 03:17 oBlade wrote:
GreenHorizons getting accused of opposing Kamala's undemocratic rise for racist reasons and DPB never knowing that Biden specifically promised to choose a female VP were not on my 2025 bingo card.
I know he promised that, but I didn't see any indication that the polls were created after that announcement, or that there would be no polls running a hypothetical "what if Biden changes his mind about having a female VP" scenario.
|
On June 05 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 03:14 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yes, she failed upwards by being the most popular candidate despite failing her presidential run in 2020. She "failed upward" by being the most popular candidate. In an election. I think this discussion has run its course. Yeah, you can say that again. Usually this magnitude of brain damage is caused by alt-righters talking about shit like Jewish space lasers, so congrats on matching their wit. She literally failed upwards, everyone reading this knows it. They are letting the animosity toward me prevent them from correcting you.
"Failing upwards" is a euphemism for someone in a corporation or other bureaucracy getting promoted because their current position is causing harm and their new position would be perceived as being less dangerous or inconvenient. Unless you're asserting that Kamala Harris was causing so many problems in the Senate that Biden perceived it to be least harmful to promote her to Vice President (who, funnily enough, happens to be also the President of the U.S. Senate) to get her out of there, what does that even mean?
Like even if you're misusing the euphemism, is your assertion that Biden was intentionally trying to lose the 2020 election by picking someone unpopular, despite polling in first among desired picks?
EDIT: I should say that Trump has spent his whole life failing upwards, that didn't stop because he won the popular vote. Light's being ridiculous and you all know it. Have a little integrity people.
Yeah, Trump did fail upwards, in the corporate world where he bankrupted his own assets multiple times and was saved by stupidly generous bankruptcy laws. (Edit: Though it would probably be more accurate to say he "failed sideways", since he didn't ascend into any higher positions or wealth as a businessman.) He did not fail upwards in democracy.
|
On June 05 2025 03:17 oBlade wrote:
GreenHorizons getting accused of opposing Kamala's undemocratic rise for racist reasons and DPB never knowing that Biden specifically promised to choose a female VP were not on my 2025 bingo card.
This is like the tenth time this has come up. Every time it gets pointed out that Biden was the one bragging about choosing Kamala for her diversity and every time DPB insists this is a MAGA talking point. Some things never change.
|
On June 05 2025 03:27 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2025 03:14 LightSpectra wrote:On June 05 2025 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yes, she failed upwards by being the most popular candidate despite failing her presidential run in 2020. She "failed upward" by being the most popular candidate. In an election. I think this discussion has run its course. Yeah, you can say that again. Usually this magnitude of brain damage is caused by alt-righters talking about shit like Jewish space lasers, so congrats on matching their wit. She literally failed upwards, everyone reading this knows it. They are letting the animosity toward me prevent them from correcting you. "Failing upwards" is a euphemism for someone in a corporation or other bureaucracy getting promoted because their current position is causing harm and their new position would be perceived as being less dangerous or inconvenient. Unless you're asserting that Kamala Harris was causing so many problems in the Senate that Biden perceived it to be least harmful to promote her to Vice President (who, funnily enough, happens to be also the President of the U.S. Senate) to get her out of there, what does that even mean? Like even if you're misusing the euphemism, is your assertion that Biden was intentionally trying to lose the 2020 election by picking someone unpopular, despite polling in first among desired picks? Show nested quote +EDIT: I should say that Trump has spent his whole life failing upwards, that didn't stop because he won the popular vote. Light's being ridiculous and you all know it. Have a little integrity people. Yeah, Trump did fail upwards, in the corporate world where he bankrupted his own assets multiple times and was saved by stupidly generous bankruptcy laws. He did not fail upwards in democracy.
Okay, I mean it the "failing at what they were trying to accomplish and getting a better job opportunity anyway" sort of way.
It's what Google AI response says for me:
"Failing upwards" is an idiom describing a situation where someone advances in their career despite, or even as a result of, failing or making mistakes. It suggests that a person may land successively better jobs or promotions even if they have been mediocre or made missteps in their previous roles.
Trump getting reelected is what I understood "failing upwards" to mean in this context (though I have heard it used the way you're describing too).
|
Okay, I mean it the "failing at what they were trying to accomplish and getting a better job opportunity anyway" sort of way.
Okay, so what did she fail at? Because the only thing you've mentioned so far is that she polled poorly in the 2020 primary (when, as I pointed out, Biden and Sanders were already perceived as the frontrunners before she even announced her candidacy), while ignoring that she was at the top of the polls for VP pick.
Trump getting reelected is what I understood "failing upwards" to mean in this context (though I have heard it used the way you're describing too).
It's true that being elected is what saved him from going to prison for somewhere between 34 to 91 felonies. It's also likely true that getting elected may have saved him from paying back debts he was unable to. But he didn't "fail upwards" in terms of democracy by winning an election. Nobody would describe it like that. His one and only skill is lying his ass off with absolute confidence, and he's admittedly extremely good at it.
|
On June 05 2025 03:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 03:17 oBlade wrote:
GreenHorizons getting accused of opposing Kamala's undemocratic rise for racist reasons and DPB never knowing that Biden specifically promised to choose a female VP were not on my 2025 bingo card. This is like the tenth time this has come up. Every time it gets pointed out that Biden was the one bragging about choosing Kamala for her diversity and every time DPB insists this is a MAGA talking point. Some things never change.
I'm not interested in re-re-re-re-re-explaining to you how black women, such as KH and KBJ, can be both qualified *and* diverse in identity, and how MAGA calling her a diversity/DEI hire is not the same as what DEI academically, truly refers to.
My question about the polls simply stems from the surprise that zero polls ran with the hypothetical scenario where Biden might change his mind and run with a non-female runningmate.
|
You're being too attached to the failing upwards phrase, its pretty common to understand it as "being bad at your job but being promoted anyways" and Kamala Harris polled like shit and did not look particularly great or popular when her major political debut happened in the 2020 primary, she wasnt even poised to win her home state which is never a good sign of how popular you are.
Democrats are dog shit at picking candidates, they attempt to manufacture popularity rather than actually picking or cultivating people who are genuinely popular or charismatic. Democrats are known for pushing seniority over actual positive traits which is why we see so many ancient Democrat cancer patients in positions of power.
|
On June 05 2025 03:51 Zambrah wrote:
You're being too attached to the failing upwards phrase, its pretty common to understand it as "being bad at your job but being promoted anyways" and Kamala Harris polled like shit and did not look particularly great or popular when her major political debut happened in the 2020 primary, she wasnt even poised to win her home state which is never a good sign of how popular you are.
As I've already pointed out: she didn't poll poorly because she was viewed unfavorably. She polled poorly because there were already two perceived frontrunners in a FPTP race, so the only angle she could run on is being a compromise between Biden and Sanders, but Buttigieg and Warren were already trying to win that demographic themselves.
She was the single most popular candidate when voters were asked "who do you want Biden to pick as VP candidate?" out of the dozen realistic options, though, so what's the problem?
Democrats are dog shit at picking candidates, they attempt to manufacture popularity rather than actually picking or cultivating people who are genuinely popular or charismatic. Democrats are known for pushing seniority over actual positive traits which is why we see so many ancient Democrat cancer patients in positions of power.
The old guys keep winning because old guys are the ones that turn out the most to vote. Gerry Connolly, who is the archetype of the kind of person you're talking about (died in office last month at the age of 75 of esophageal cancer), won his 2024 House re-election with 67% in the general and 86% in the primary.
Now, if you want to say "the DNC should start telling the incumbent boomers to step down and start mentoring younger candidates", yeah I'd agree with that 100%. But that's a risky strategy that needs to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. If they take a heavy hand and are perceived as trying to shove out popular locals because of ageism that would backfire, hard.
|
As I've already pointed out: she didn't poll poorly because she was viewed unfavorably. She polled poorly because there were already two perceived frontrunners in a FPTP race, so the only angle she could run on is being a compromise between Biden and Sanders, but Buttigieg and Warren were already trying to win that demographic themselves.
She was the single most popular candidate when voters were asked "who do you want Biden to pick as VP candidate?" out of the dozen realistic options, though, so what's the problem?
If she is not polling well against others, then she is less popular and they are more popular, thats just how it works. She has displayed no serious charisma, no serious indicators of any real potential to be actually popular, her popularity is basically manufactured through Democrats pushing her, and her being a VP. She wasnt a charismatic or impactful VP, either. Shes another Hillary Clinton, just barely a little better. Nothing about her popularity is natural or implicit to her qualities or policies.
The old guys keep winning because old guys are the ones that turn out the most to vote. Gerry Connolly, who is the archetype of the kind of person you're talking about (died in office last month at the age of 75 of esophageal cancer), won his 2024 House re-election with 67% in the general and 86% in the primary.
Stop giving important committee positions and other positions of power to elderly hospice care patients. Its hard to tell if the DNC skipped AOC for that position because they hate the left or because they hate the young though, so I dunno.
Now, if you want to say "the DNC should start telling the incumbent boomers to step down and start mentoring younger candidates", yeah I'd agree with that 100%. But that's a risky strategy that needs to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. If they take a heavy hand and are perceived as trying to shove out popular locals because of ageism that would backfire, hard.
The only reason this would be risky right now is because the DNC has made just about no effort to cultivate a new generation of talent, so they dont have anyone likeable or popular to replace their old people with. If it was a passing the torch moment to a young, charismatic candidate that would probably be more inspirational than it would be detrimental.
Of course we dont have that because old fucks cling to power like its literally going to prolong their lives.
Democrats need to push popular policy, find and cultivate young, charismatic talent, and start retiring when theyre too old, demented, and dying to actually do their fucking jobs, I mean jesus christ, Dianne Feinstein? The only Bernie the DNC seems willing to give any real power to is whoever theyre currently Weekend at Bernie'ing.
|
On June 05 2025 04:44 Zambrah wrote:
If she is not polling well against others, then she is less popular and they are more popular, thats just how it works.
That isn't how it works in a FPTP primary and it's never worked that way. The #1 thing on everyone's mind was "can X beat Trump," not "do I personally like X," and they saw that Sanders and Biden were polling the highest among independents, so they naturally gravitated to be the obvious frontrunners.
Stop giving important committee positions and other positions of power to elderly hospice care patients. Its hard to tell if the DNC skipped AOC for that position because they hate the left or because they hate the young though, so I dunno.
Agree on that one. There clearly was some backroom deal, which is normal, but the optics of it was terrible.
|
That isn't how it works in a FPTP primary and it's never worked that way. The #1 thing on everyone's mind was "can X beat Trump," not "do I personally like X," and they saw that Sanders and Biden were polling the highest among independents, so they naturally gravitated to be the obvious frontrunners.
Democrats dont have a great record at beating Trump, so I have to say the way they think it works probably isnt necessarily how it works.
|
Harris under performed electorally in her CA races as well, she has always been below replacement level quality but was boosted for the same reasons Biden boosted her. Also helped that California doesn't have a lot of what people think to be "retail politics", it's too big for door to door campaigning to matter and even being a good public speaker is not as important when you can just run ads as a Democrat and win. Kamala aptly demonstrated that multiple times during her time in national politics. Never forget the hype she had going into 2020. It's not that she was crowded out, it's that she did worse the more people knew about her. Similar to 2024 as well, although I think her spike in popularity after Biden dropped out was probably a mirage+dems rallying around their candidate.
|
On June 05 2025 05:05 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +That isn't how it works in a FPTP primary and it's never worked that way. The #1 thing on everyone's mind was "can X beat Trump," not "do I personally like X," and they saw that Sanders and Biden were polling the highest among independents, so they naturally gravitated to be the obvious frontrunners.
Democrats dont have a great record at beating Trump, so I have to say the way they think it works probably isnt necessarily how it works.
That's not accurate. They have the only record of beating Trump. They have a stronger record than Republicans of beating Trump.
What you say could be true but it doesn't exactly follow from the cited facts. Hikaru doesn't have no idea how chess works just because he can't beat Magnus consistently. And even Superman has kryptonite.
|
On June 05 2025 04:04 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 03:51 Zambrah wrote:
You're being too attached to the failing upwards phrase, its pretty common to understand it as "being bad at your job but being promoted anyways" and Kamala Harris polled like shit and did not look particularly great or popular when her major political debut happened in the 2020 primary, she wasnt even poised to win her home state which is never a good sign of how popular you are. As I've already pointed out: she didn't poll poorly because she was viewed unfavorably. She polled poorly because there were already two perceived frontrunners in a FPTP race, so the only angle she could run on is being a compromise between Biden and Sanders, but Buttigieg and Warren were already trying to win that demographic themselves.
It seems unusual to give more weight to the poll of “who should Biden pick as VP?” than the ones that grade Kamala directly. The obvious interpretation is that the people answering the “who should Biden pick as VP” poll were also giving consideration to balancing the ticket and a diverse woman checked enough boxes to balance out the old white man.
|
The dumb thing about this discussion is the only reason VPs are picked never has anything to do with competency. Walz was picked because he was an old white guy from the midwest to help with that vote. Pence was picked because he could bring the hard core Christians, Vance was picked for his age and because they could pretend he like the independents. Harris was picked to bring in the black and female vote.
They are all DEI. What makes the Harris thing unique is people (well certain groups of people) only complain when its a person of colour or woman. And the reason for that is clear to everyone who is not them.
|
Biden: I'm going to select a woman as my VP
Biden: I'm going to select a black woman for SCOTUS
Newsom: I'm going to select a black woman to fill Feinstein's vacant seat
The unique thing is liberals politicians thinking it's a good thing to publicly announce they are going to use sex/race/whatever as a criteria. They open the conversation and then whine when conservatives join it. It's a stupid self-own that could be avoided if they just kept their mouth shut but they can't because they want the credit for picking a minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
