|
If Biden wins all of the outstanding swing states, this'll be a landslide electorally but not popular vote wise. Somehow, I don't imagine that will be interpreted as a mandate by Conservatives, in spite of how they insist that only the EC matters.
|
The GOP has retained control of the Senate. McConnell won reelection, again thanks to Schumer not wanting to lose control of the party, he will kill every single House bill that Democrats send over.
|
On November 04 2020 23:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The GOP has retained control of the Senate. McConnell won reelection, again thanks to Schumer not wanting to lose control of the party, he will kill every single House bill that Democrats send over.
Not the austerity and increases in military spending
|
On November 04 2020 23:04 Simberto wrote:
What this elections tells me is that the US is lost at this point.
Your only chance was to slamdunk Trump into the dumpster. That was the only way your country had to normalize in some way. But you didn't. Despite horribly failing at his job in every possible way, and generally being about the most disgusting human being you can imagine, the election is still close, and Trump might actually still win. So you will keep getting Trumps, feelings over facts, and all that other bullshit. And your country doesn't care.
But even if he doesn't win, the best case scenario is a Biden president without a senate. So nothing happens for 4 years, then republicans blame Biden for nothing happening despite making sure that nothing happens. They somehow manage to find an even more disgusting asshole than Trump, and he gets elected.
You elected Bush twice. We though you learned your lesson afterwards, but instead you elect Trump. And even after this horror of a 4 year presidency, you still don't manage to beat him consistently, and he in fact somehow GAINED votes.
It is beyond my understanding what is going on in the US. But it really seems to be beyond salvation. It is only going to get worse from here on. Half your country is simply too stupid or insane.
To all the sane Americans, i can only advise you to somehow find a way to get out while you still can. The US is broken, and it doesn't want to be fixed. Half the country thinks that Donald Trump is a good choice for president.
Instead of thinking it's crazy maybe people should actually figure out why Donald Trump can garner so many votes. I mean doing it once is crazy enough but getting so many votes twice? People should really thinking about it instead of dismissing people who vote for Trump as stupid or insane.
|
On November 04 2020 23:13 Nevuk wrote:
If Biden wins all of the outstanding swing states, this'll be a landslide electorally but not popular vote wise. Somehow, I don't imagine that will be interpreted as a mandate by Conservatives, in spite of how they insist that only the EC matters.
An interesting note.
If Biden wins all of those states including GA and NC, he would win 321-217.
This is a bigger margin than Trump won by and is almost as big as Obama's second term margin.
Instead of thinking it's crazy maybe people should actually figure out why Donald Trump can garner so many votes. I mean doing it once is crazy enough but getting so many votes twice? People should really thinking about it instead of dismissing people who vote for Trump as stupid or insane.
This presupposes a baseline level of decency in the electorate as a whole.
What if that just isn't there? What if a huge chunk of the electorate is just stupid or insane?
|
On November 04 2020 23:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s. Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable. More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?)
The main "cost" in providing education services, that is, teacher salaries, went up by just as much.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_078.asp (from the site you linked)
Paying 100 teachers 1000 dollars in 1960, then paying the same 100 teachers 10000 dollars in 2010 (inflation adjusted) doesn't mean you're putting more effort into education.
Edit: yeah, my mistake, in real terms salary only went up 50%
|
On November 04 2020 23:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:53 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house. Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards. Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.” Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection. Aside from the fact that I repeatedly agreed with you that I'd like to see a more progressive/charismatic candidate, your analysis seems to be pretty shallow. First off, you've shifted the goalposts from "Dems should let progressives take the reigns" to "Dems should put up a charismatic leader with a clear message of change", omitting the "progressive" part. I can much more clearly agree on that second part (remember, we're talking about electoral chances, not our personal preference), but there are still concerns that you aren't taking into account. Obama was running against a message similar to Biden's current message. McCain was just an amorphous Republican trying to hold onto power when Republicans had nothing positive to hang their hats on in 2008. Conversely, Trump's message is just lies. Pure, verifiable lies. He is presenting an entire reality that is so divorced from fact that it is mind-blowing. Obama's message of change may have had significant challenges with this. The electorate and our political culture in general has changed significantly in the last dozen years, and I think your over-reliance on Obama comparisons doesn't take into account the unique challenges of a post-Trump political world. A huge swathe of America has revealed to us that they are willing to buy into and support downright lies. How does a message of hope and change combat that effectively? Show nested quote +The difference is clear.
The public want to feel like their president is going to make positive changes to the country. Trump gives his supporters that feeling, Biden doesn't and doesn't even try. This statement still implies that Biden doesn't have a bigger lead simply because he's not motivating Democrats. Turnout numbers show that this doesn't seem to be the case. Hate for Trump seems to have caused a massive turnout. The problem is that people actively support Trump. This is people trying to use the "low turnout" justification that they used with Clinton, except that turnout is significantly better this year.
The goalposts haven’t shifted, I’d argue they’re simply aligned, if you kick a field goal through a clearly communicated message of change you’re almost assuredly going to go through the progressives given what we see of the Democrats centrists.
In either case since people argue with the base premise I decided to strip the progressivism out of it for a bit to get at a baser point. Chiefly that the Democrats milquetoast centrists with no vision are not working and the last president we had won off of the kind of strategy Democrats have abandoned (and I’d say they’ve abandoned it because the strategy is a progressive one and they have real progressives to thwart instead of faux progressives like Obama to rely on.)
Again, why are we so resistant to try and learn and change? Why are we blaming voters and deciding there’s nothing we can do? Do you think we should just let the Republicans win forever because LUL Americans dumb and evil?
We don’t have an infinite sample size of presidential elections to draw from, we have to take what we know from what we have. Obama won, we’ve examined some reasons why he may have won. Why has Trump been so successful? What about the way he messages can we learn from to prevent this in the future? Simple easily understood messages?
Why are people so insistent on throwing their hands up and declaring that everything is different and it’s all hopeless and Americans are dumb and awful? I’m obviously a pretty despair ridden person but at the same time I at least think we can do better in some way even if it’s extremely difficult and unlikely.
|
On November 04 2020 23:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The GOP has retained control of the Senate. McConnell won reelection, again thanks to Schumer not wanting to lose control of the party, he will kill every single House bill that Democrats send over.
The midterm look amazing for democrats, and I believe there is a special election in Georgia or something?
|
good morning...i see wis and mich have started to to turn but both of them and nevada are insanely close now
|
On November 04 2020 23:17 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout.
At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016.
With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s. Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable. More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?) The main "cost" in providing education services, that is, teacher salaries, went up by just as much. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_078.asp (from the site you linked) Paying 100 teachers 1000 dollars in 1960, then paying the same 100 teachers 10000 dollars in 2010 (inflation adjusted) doesn't mean you're putting more effort into education
What? We paid teachers equivalent of 34-38k in 1960 and they were paid 53k in 2009 (last year of data). By every metric we've increased what we spend on pupils and what we pay teachers compared to 1960. In no way is the statement that education is being defunded or has been defunded since the "glory days" of the 50s and 60s true. It's Trump-esque hogwash.
|
On November 04 2020 23:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s. Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable. More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?)
https://www.epi.org/publication/books_wheremoneygone/
I don't need to bring up american "healthcare" to prove any point.
It's quite cute how you try to smoke screen the factual decrease in education by arguing "well spending increased tho". And real world impact? That's simple. Everything gets more expensive. If you don't adjust for that, the real world impact is that you get less.
As i said: this happened (and is happening) in the UK right now, where NHS staff had their wages increase, but not to the point where it outweighs the increase in living cost - leaving NHS staff poorer now than they were at a point in time where they earned factually less.
It's not rocket science and you know it.
|
In the event of a Biden presidency, I hope he still has his Senate negotiating skills he's renowned for, because a 48-52 or 49-51 Senate under McConnell is going to obstruct everything he wants to achieve. It makes 2022 even more vital to win if they want to pass legislature or anything close to discussing reforms to the Supreme Court. I'd also be very concerned about Breyer, who is the oldest Justice and if his spot is vacated, well, there's probably another SC seat gone.
|
On November 04 2020 23:19 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout.
At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016.
With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house. Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards. Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.” Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection. Aside from the fact that I repeatedly agreed with you that I'd like to see a more progressive/charismatic candidate, your analysis seems to be pretty shallow. First off, you've shifted the goalposts from "Dems should let progressives take the reigns" to "Dems should put up a charismatic leader with a clear message of change", omitting the "progressive" part. I can much more clearly agree on that second part (remember, we're talking about electoral chances, not our personal preference), but there are still concerns that you aren't taking into account. Obama was running against a message similar to Biden's current message. McCain was just an amorphous Republican trying to hold onto power when Republicans had nothing positive to hang their hats on in 2008. Conversely, Trump's message is just lies. Pure, verifiable lies. He is presenting an entire reality that is so divorced from fact that it is mind-blowing. Obama's message of change may have had significant challenges with this. The electorate and our political culture in general has changed significantly in the last dozen years, and I think your over-reliance on Obama comparisons doesn't take into account the unique challenges of a post-Trump political world. A huge swathe of America has revealed to us that they are willing to buy into and support downright lies. How does a message of hope and change combat that effectively? The difference is clear.
The public want to feel like their president is going to make positive changes to the country. Trump gives his supporters that feeling, Biden doesn't and doesn't even try. This statement still implies that Biden doesn't have a bigger lead simply because he's not motivating Democrats. Turnout numbers show that this doesn't seem to be the case. Hate for Trump seems to have caused a massive turnout. The problem is that people actively support Trump. This is people trying to use the "low turnout" justification that they used with Clinton, except that turnout is significantly better this year. The goalposts haven’t shifted, I’d argue they’re simply aligned, if you kick a field goal through a clearly communicated message of change you’re almost assuredly going to go through the progressives given what we see of the Democrats centrists. In either case since people argue with the base premise I decided to strip the progressivism out of it for a bit to get at a baser point. Chiefly that the Democrats milquetoast centrists with no vision are not working and the last president we had won off of the kind of strategy Democrats have abandoned (and I’d say they’ve abandoned it because the strategy is a progressive one and they have real progressives to thwart instead of faux progressives like Obama to rely on.) Again, why are we so resistant to try and learn and change? Why are we blaming voters and deciding there’s nothing we can do? Do you think we should just let the Republicans win forever because LUL Americans dumb and evil? We don’t have an infinite sample size of presidential elections to draw from, we have to take what we know from what we have. Obama won, we’ve examined some reasons why he may have won. Why has Trump been so successful? What about the way he messages can we learn from to prevent this in the future? Simple easily understood messages? Why are people so insistent on throwing their hands up and declaring that everything is different and it’s all hopeless and Americans are dumb and awful? I’m obviously a pretty despair ridden person but at the same time I at least think we can do better in some way even if it’s extremely difficult and unlikely.
I've said like four times now that I'm all aboard the Change Train with you.
My expectations of the outcome are just more pessimistic. I think that these election results are, in fact, a significant ethical indictment of a massive chunk of the American electorate.
Obviously, my view may change in the coming weeks, but my first impression is to question how one could be ethically comfortable with a population that so readily supports a verifiable racist and fascist for political office after they had 4 years to find out who he really is.
|
On November 04 2020 23:21 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout.
At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016.
With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s. Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable. More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?) https://www.epi.org/publication/books_wheremoneygone/I don't need to bring up american "healthcare" to prove any point. It's quite cute how you try to smoke screen the factual decrease in education by arguing "well spending increased tho". And real world impact? That's simple. Everything gets more expensive. If you don't adjust for that, the real world impact is that you get less. As i said: this happened (and is happening) in the UK right now, where NHS staff had their wages increase, but not to the point where it outweighs the increase in living cost - leaving NHS staff poorer now than they were at a point in time where they earned factually less. It's not rocket science and you know it.
Dude, you realize the Government figures are inflation adjusted and based on CPI? Like...why do I even bother. The reason I brought up the common criticism from EU posters about US healthcare is precisely that we pay more and get worse outcomes but you solution for education is just throwing money at the problem and expecting better outcomes. You have an a priori assertion that has no basis in fact. Money =/= outcomes (sans reductio ad absurdum, of course 0$ public spending will result in no public education outcomes, etc., but the fact that spending has increased since the 50s and outcomes have went down is relevant).
|
On November 04 2020 23:21 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:17 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 04 2020 23:07 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history.
This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s. Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable. More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?) The main "cost" in providing education services, that is, teacher salaries, went up by just as much. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_078.asp (from the site you linked) Paying 100 teachers 1000 dollars in 1960, then paying the same 100 teachers 10000 dollars in 2010 (inflation adjusted) doesn't mean you're putting more effort into education What? We paid teachers equivalent of 34-38k in 1960 and they were paid 53k in 2009 (last year of data). By every metric we've increased what we spend on pupils and what we pay teachers compared to 1960. In no way is the statement that education is being defunded or has been defunded since the "glory days" of the 50s and 60s true. It's Trump-esque hogwash.
Yeah, I noticed but didn't edit in time, I'll return the post so it doesn't look weird.
|
Neither of us expect good things out of the American electorate but given how often people here have complained at people who don’t believe electoralism is viable in America this newfound lack of faith bothers me.
I’ll freely admit Americans are stupid, but concentrating on them as the reason for blame is pulling a Hillary Clinton and we should aspire to better than that even if we’re likely doomed to fail...
EDIT: also rioting. We should riot way more, and preferably at the residence of Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc.
|
In other news Oregon has decriminalized hard drugs so we will have a Portugal experiment going on in the west coast.
The DSA won 26 out of the 30 races they were in.
Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to $15.
|
I hear Mississippi (!!!!!) legalized marijuana too. Democrats should rethink that aspect of their platform maybe, lol
|
On November 04 2020 23:25 Zambrah wrote:
Neither of us expect good things out of the American electorate but given how often people here have complained at people who don’t believe electoralism is viable in America this newfound lack of faith bothers me.
I’ll freely admit Americans are stupid, but concentrating on them as the reason for blame is pulling a Hillary Clinton and we should aspire to better than that even if we’re likely doomed to fail...
EDIT: also rioting. We should riot way more, and preferably at the residence of Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc.
Protesting. We should be protesting more and more aggressively.
Riots end up with random people's lives or livelihoods ruined, as well as innocents injured or dead.
Let's not advocate for that, please.
Also another thing that I didn't get to mention:
Calls of "nothing will change with Biden!" (and calling for more rioting) are big red flags for someone that is extremely privileged and insulated from many of the everyday workings of government. As Farv said, simply electing Biden over Trump, even if the Senate stays with Republicans, will massively shift how the executive branch operates, which will significantly affect the lives of millions of people. There are countless tedious, policy-level decisions and actions that affect people's everyday lives in far more ways than legislation does but aren't very popular to follow.
Topics that can change with only a change in the executive branch include:
-Enforcement of "religious liberty" rules allowing employers (or employees) to discriminate based on religion
-How funding for schools is used
-Enforcement of numerous rules in education, including sexual assault rules, the role of charter schools, etc.
-Net neutrality
-Enforcement of environmental standards
-Our participation in things like the Paris Climate Accords
-All of our foreign policy conduct
-The policies and conduct of federal law enforcement throughout the country
-Enforcement of immigration policy
-Everything surrounding policies concerning the military. This includes how funding is spent, how sexual assault is handled, how environmental regulations are followed on bases, how military family access to housing, childcare, and healthcare pans out, etc. etc. etc.
Getting rid of Trump alone is still an extremely important step in improving many people's lives.
|
Protests are easily ignored, the threat of riots is what keeps things in check. If no violence occurs then nothing is at risk and politicians can safely wait them out and do nothing.
The threat of riots is instrumental in forcing change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
