|
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 July 16 2019 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 01:12 Jockmcplop wrote:
Unfortunately GH, I have seen this kind of problem first hand. Manchester in the UK has had a pretty massive homeless population for the size of the city for about 5 years now.
Reading the local papers and what the local authorities say about the situation, the biggest priority is getting them out of the way of 'ordinary' folk because they are such a nuisance. Anti-social behaviour is often the accusation, which is ironic because I would say its pretty fucking anti-social to design your society around the idea that one person can have 2000 empty houses and 2000 people can be homeless as a result.
In the UK we have people employed by the police (they usually work for G4S or some other similar private firm) whose main job is to move homeless people out of city center areas by force. We are currently battling local authorities over here who are now pushing for the ability to fine the homeless £100 for 'aggressive begging' or 'anti-social behaviour' (which includes sleeping rough outside a shop/refusing to move when asked by the police).
Also, I totally get what mohdoo is saying here. Unfortunately part of my solution would be to confiscate long-term unused housing for a start and using that as a way of stopping the problem getting worse before we work on fixing those with huge long term issues, and most people I know hate that idea (because they are living under the misguided notion that one day they will be able to buy 10 houses).
Yeah, I get where Mohdoo is coming from and know both homeless people and 6 figure folks that complain about having to see the human suffering their exploitative industries cause. Honestly, it makes my skin crawl just thinking about how disgusted I am by the inhumanity of it but I try to be as gracious with capitalists as I am with their victims (maybe to a fault).
Schizophrenic homeless people are some of the least exploited people in capitalist economies. No one wants to hire them so they can’t willingly sign up to be exploited for profit.
There have been mad homeless people for thousands of years. Let’s be a little more careful here with exactly what we mean by exploitation. This problem is not reducible to “capitalism.” Even Marx was not well disposed to the lumpenproletariat.
|
On July 16 2019 02:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 01:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
Honestly teaching kids mental health maintenance techniques in school would dramatically reduce mental health issues without having to forcibly check people every year. My wife is a grade 1 teacher and she has made a mindfulness program. There is also a lot more professional development workshops. Nothing mandatory at this point or anything directly in the curriculum here. But many teachers agree with you and are adding things themselves. There are many future benefits as you mentioned but also direct benifits in the classroom.
I agree with both of you, and I think it starts with educating the teachers and administrations first. Unfortunately, a lot of schools don't have the money to put towards training programs for faculty, or even the knowledge that this is such an important issue for children. It's astounding just how many adults think that mental health issues (and, relatedly, bullying) can and should be primarily overcome by the bullied students simply "manning up" and getting over their problems on their own merits. It's toxic victim blaming, it doesn't address underlying causes, and it perpetuates ignorance and hate.
|
On July 16 2019 01:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 01:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency. On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness". I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas. You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly. What is your proposed or preferential solution?
I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do:
Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse.
This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness.
|
|
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 16 2019 03:22 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 01:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 16 2019 01:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency. On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness". I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas. You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly. What is your proposed or preferential solution? I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do: Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse. This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness.
Why do you think liberalized housing laws will increase the supply of the kind of cheap and accessible housing people need? You’ll just get another sea of McMansions because that’s what makes developers money. The market has no interest in supplying the kind of dense communities with public transport and nearby amenities that the poor need because they’re poor.
|
|
|
On July 16 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2019 03:22 RvB wrote:On July 16 2019 01:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 16 2019 01:18 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
SF Homeless issue stuff: Based on my time there, there is no way to half ass that problem. If you haven't been in some of the worst areas of SF's homeless stuff, you can't understand. I didn't either. There is an enormous number of people who are mentally not quite right. These shelters give people food and water, but the people remain fundamentally broken and wreak havoc on the surrounding area. These people do not have their qualities of life improved by these shelters. All it does is serve as a meeting ground for people who literally throw their own bloody shit at people walking by.
Consider this: When I was in SF, I was walking by a bus that shuttles people to Facebook's campus. In this area, where FB people work, there were multiple homeless people who were straight up bad. A couple of them would sexually harass anyone woman who got near him. One of the dude's *ENTIRE LEGS WERE BOTH BLOODY* because he was scratching all the skin off of it. He was just sitting there DESTROYING the skin on his legs and it looked like he'd been doing it for days. Imagine watching a dude aggressively scratching flesh that is already bloody. Then there was actual human shit on the sidewalks. You needed to look down as you walk because you will otherwise very likely walk on poop. actual human poop.
I forget the name, but there was this 1 street where it was like all the super messed up homeless people took over in some weird dystopian madmax scenario. It was entirely not safe to walk through that area.
In SF, it is like these 2 entirely distinct populations living side by side. And there are so, so, so many of these people I am describing. It is NOTTTTTTTT some people down on their luck who happened to not quite pay rent, but also had no friends nearby, so here they are sleeping on a bench. No. These people need to be committed to a mental facility. I can't emphasize enough how completely past the point of return a LARGE number of these people were.
You know how in most cities, you see homeless people just kinda mumble to themselves as they look through trash cans, sometimes asking for money? Not in SF. In SF, it is a totally different world. And again: there are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many.
In order for SF to solve their homeless issue, it will require full on billion dollar facilities to house these people, commit them to years of therapy/medication, on-site job training, on-site job counseling, a fleet of psychologists and psychiatrists...there's nothing you can do that is less than that while still doing anything at all. It is so hopeless.
If someone proposed a $100/year tax on me to spend $10M building homeless shelters, I would vote no. If they proposed a $1000/year tax on me to spend $1B on some super-shelter that expects each resident to spend at least 2 years recovering/coping with their mental illnesses, I would vote yes. The current approaches to homelessness do not come close to being sufficient for SF. It is a totally different world. If you have homeless people where you live, the situation looks nothing like SF. Portland is getting pretty bad lately too, but SF was like an actual state of emergency. On July 16 2019 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Right, there basically 2 different groups:
1. Homeless without mental illness or drug addiction
2. Homeless people WITH mental illness or drug addiction
They need entirely different solutions. If someone has advanced schizophrenia, a bed, a meal, a temporary address and some job leads won't help. We need to have a solution for the people who are downright broken as humans. In Portland and SF, there are a ton of support networks for people who are down on their luck. We don't have ANY method of dealing with the people who are fundamentally non-functional as humans. We just give them some bread, socks and say "nice, I defeated homelessness". I think you're missing how your kind of "nice homeless" rummaging through trash cans without destructive or extremely noticeable mental illness aren't a separate creature from "SF and Portland homeless." It's social evolution and hard nights with the catalyst of their high population in certain inner cities. They're literally the same people at different stages of a growing homeless community, that you won't see transitioning unless the community gets large enough. I include access to drugs and development of a separate culture as more people stay away from the areas. You can see it in the expanding Skid Row areas of Los Angeles. Two years ago, there were a couple trendy areas with studios to 2bedroom apartments running for $3-5,000 a month. Now, there's lines of tents and tarps on the sidewalk for a half mile surrounding. Stench in the air, needles on the ground, trash everywhere. This second area a little ways away you see regular disinfecting crews in white hazmat outfits trying to manage the growing typhus and Hep a by spraying the areas down and carting away trash. I'll probably see them and vermin control somewhere in the city while driving at work today. There isn't a SF poop-everywhere stage right now, but it's getting there quickly. What is your proposed or preferential solution? I'm not danglers but here's what I'd do: Liberalise zoning laws to increase supply of housing. Levy a land value tax to encourage development and raise money. Legalise drug use and levy a pigouvian tax on it. Use the proceeds of both these taxes to increase mental health coverage, fundprogrammes to reduce homelessness (such as getting them into permanent housing until they can get on their feet again) and to treat substance abuse. This way you fight homelessness on multiple fronts. By increasing housing supply and development you make housing more affordable and by treating drug use, increasing mental health coverage and funding programmes you fix (some of) the root causes of homelessness. Why do you think liberalized housing laws will increase the supply of the kind of cheap and accessible housing people need? You’ll just get another sea of McMansions because that’s what makes developers money. The market has no interest in supplying the kind of dense communities with public transport and nearby amenities that the poor need because they’re poor.
Yep, liberalizing housing laws, whatever that actually means, without addressing the disastrous effects of real property serving as primo asset parking lots is a recipe for even further disaster.
|
|
|
Canada11173 Posts
Well, if you were liberalizing housing laws, couldn't you rather than just carte blanche on what you can build on the properties, zone specifically for high density?
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 16 2019 04:26 Falling wrote:
Well, if you were liberalizing housing laws, couldn't you rather than just carte blanche on what you can build on the properties, zone specifically for high density?
That’s the kind of logical thinking that got us to current housing laws. The government isn’t always filled with idiots.
|
A few months ago, I pointed out the numerous, obvious problems that AOC poses for the Democrat party. Predictably, most people here disagreed. Well now we have some polling showing that AOC is leading the Democrats to electoral disaster. In particular, AOC polls at only 22% favorability among swing voters. Omar is down at 9%, which is outright hilarious. And of course, socialism polling at 18% spells doom for Bernie.
Top Democrats are circulating a poll showing that one of the House's most progressive members — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — has become a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters.
Why it matters: These Democrats are sounding the alarm that swing voters know and dislike socialism, warning it could cost them the House and the presidency. The poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America.
"If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk," said a top Democrat who is involved in 2020 congressional races. "[S]he's getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races."
The poll — taken in May, before Speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and the three other liberal House freshmen known as "The Squad" — included 1,003 likely general-election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education.
These are the "white, non-college voters" who embraced Donald Trump in 2016 but are needed by Democrats in swing House districts.
The group that took the poll shared the results with Axios on the condition that it not be named, because the group has to work with all parts of the party.
The findings:
Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — another member of The Squad — was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.
Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%.
Capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.
"Socialism is toxic to these voters," said the top Democrat.
Between the lines: Dems are performing better with these voters than in 2016 (although still not as well as in 2018). So party leaders will continue to try to define themselves around more mainstream members.
The other side: Three members of The Squad — Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts — defended their approach while appearing in Philadelphia yesterday on a panel at the annual Netroots Nation conference, AP's Juana Summers reports:
"We never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead," Omar said, adding later that there's a "constant struggle oftentimes with people who have power about sharing that power."
Source.
|
What i love about this tread0 is, that i could fight with Kwark about issues but it never ever gets into the issues becsuse we are locked in to our positions due to right wing madness.
|
On July 16 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:A few months ago, I pointed out the numerous, obvious problems that AOC poses for the Democrat party. Predictably, most people here disagreed. Well now we have some polling showing that AOC is leading the Democrats to electoral disaster. In particular, AOC polls at only 22% favorability among swing voters. Omar is down at 9%, which is outright hilarious. And of course, socialism polling at 18% spells doom for Bernie. Show nested quote +Top Democrats are circulating a poll showing that one of the House's most progressive members — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — has become a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters.
Why it matters: These Democrats are sounding the alarm that swing voters know and dislike socialism, warning it could cost them the House and the presidency. The poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America.
"If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk," said a top Democrat who is involved in 2020 congressional races. "[S]he's getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races."
The poll — taken in May, before Speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and the three other liberal House freshmen known as "The Squad" — included 1,003 likely general-election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education.
These are the "white, non-college voters" who embraced Donald Trump in 2016 but are needed by Democrats in swing House districts.
The group that took the poll shared the results with Axios on the condition that it not be named, because the group has to work with all parts of the party.
The findings:
Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — another member of The Squad — was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.
Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%.
Capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.
"Socialism is toxic to these voters," said the top Democrat.
Between the lines: Dems are performing better with these voters than in 2016 (although still not as well as in 2018). So party leaders will continue to try to define themselves around more mainstream members.
The other side: Three members of The Squad — Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts — defended their approach while appearing in Philadelphia yesterday on a panel at the annual Netroots Nation conference, AP's Juana Summers reports:
"We never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead," Omar said, adding later that there's a "constant struggle oftentimes with people who have power about sharing that power." Source.
National polls are silly in the US for Congress because we are a deeply divided country with almost nothing in common. Oregon Democrats want $20/hr min wage whereas Tennessee Democrats don't mind black people as long as they don't marry into the family.
We are less homogeneous than the EU
|
lol Omar is probably my favorite from "The squad" I haven't seen any reporting on it yet but watching their response to Trump live and they are giving Trump a thorough dragging.
Just hilarious seeing people recoil at someone simply repeating things Trump says.
|
That entire poll seems predicated on a lie that these people are important swing voters that want moderate voices. They're the same swing voters that everyone was convinced would vote for Hillary. It's hilarious to conduct a poll on "whites only" and call it newsworthy.
The poll is suspicously leaked without hard data:
The group that took the poll shared the results with Axios on the condition that it not be named, because the group has to work with all parts of the party.
Which seems most likely to mean it was intentionally leaked by the more moderate/establishment side of the party at a time when the progressive part of the party has taken on increasing influence in US discourse and politics, but the party establishment has shown increased unwillingness to move in the direction that is popular with Americans.
The poll, as far as we know. Just asked people "Captialism? Socialism?" Which has always polled poorly for socialism, but "Socialism" polls very well if you ask people about specific policies.
This reads like a totally transparent hit job just to justify being moderate because that's what is more profitable to Democrat donors (and thus the politicians they like).
|
Here's what I would do:
1. We could acknowledge that as humans, we are predisposed to associate with and "like" people that are the same as us. IE white people sympathize with white people, black people sympathize with black people, etc etc etc. Recognize this and consider it when there is a disagreement.
2. Stop being shitheads to each other. If in doubt, consider point number 1.
Problems solved.
|
On July 16 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:A few months ago, I pointed out the numerous, obvious problems that AOC poses for the Democrat party. Predictably, most people here disagreed. Well now we have some polling showing that AOC is leading the Democrats to electoral disaster. In particular, AOC polls at only 22% favorability among swing voters. Omar is down at 9%, which is outright hilarious. And of course, socialism polling at 18% spells doom for Bernie. Show nested quote +Top Democrats are circulating a poll showing that one of the House's most progressive members — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — has become a definitional face for the party with a crucial group of swing voters.
Why it matters: These Democrats are sounding the alarm that swing voters know and dislike socialism, warning it could cost them the House and the presidency. The poll is making the rounds of some of the most influential Democrats in America.
"If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk," said a top Democrat who is involved in 2020 congressional races. "[S]he's getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races."
The poll — taken in May, before Speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and the three other liberal House freshmen known as "The Squad" — included 1,003 likely general-election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education.
These are the "white, non-college voters" who embraced Donald Trump in 2016 but are needed by Democrats in swing House districts.
The group that took the poll shared the results with Axios on the condition that it not be named, because the group has to work with all parts of the party.
The findings:
Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — another member of The Squad — was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.
Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%.
Capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.
"Socialism is toxic to these voters," said the top Democrat.
Between the lines: Dems are performing better with these voters than in 2016 (although still not as well as in 2018). So party leaders will continue to try to define themselves around more mainstream members.
The other side: Three members of The Squad — Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts — defended their approach while appearing in Philadelphia yesterday on a panel at the annual Netroots Nation conference, AP's Juana Summers reports:
"We never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead," Omar said, adding later that there's a "constant struggle oftentimes with people who have power about sharing that power." Source.
Polling also said Trump was going to lose the Presidential race.
|
On July 16 2019 06:31 Logo wrote:That entire poll seems predicated on a lie that these people are important swing voters that want moderate voices. They're the same swing voters that everyone was convinced would vote for Hillary. It's hilarious to conduct a poll on "whites only" and call it newsworthy. The poll is suspicously leaked without hard data: Show nested quote +
The group that took the poll shared the results with Axios on the condition that it not be named, because the group has to work with all parts of the party.
Which seems most likely to mean it was intentionally leaked by the more moderate/establishment side of the party at a time when the progressive part of the party has taken on increasing influence in US discourse and politics, but the party establishment has shown increased unwillingness to move in the direction that is popular with Americans. The poll, as far as we know. Just asked people "Captialism? Socialism?" Which has always polled poorly for socialism, but "Socialism" polls very well if you ask people about specific policies. This reads like a totally transparent hit job just to justify being moderate because that's what is more profitable to Democrat donors (and thus the politicians they like).
Ask a baby boomer how they feel about socialism
Then ask them if they think it is important to fund social security
The whole poll is hilariously bad/dumb. Ask someone in Ohio if they are less likely to vote for their representative because of something AOC said on TV. Specifically say "Are you less likely to vote for ____ because AOC?"
Willllldly different results. And that's the whole point of having state-specific politics. Can you imagine Doug Jones running for senate in Oregon? Doug Jones would be a republican in Oregon. Sandoval would be a a straight up socialist in Mississippi.
|
Democrats want "the squad" to act as a foil for Trump but push their lame neoliberal policy and so far it looks like neither side is backing down and the progressive wing and the policy they support is getting increasingly popular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
