|
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 |
United States41539 Posts
As has been explained to you countless times, you don’t have to support a candidate to vote for them. It’s absurd, naive, and childish to expect that a candidate representing 300m people agrees with your specific stances. And if they did then that would mean most other people wouldn’t find the candidate agreeing with them.
You keep repeating this fundamental misunderstanding of how simple plurality elections works. You keep accusing people of supporting Biden or agreeing with Biden just because they say we should vote for him. At a certain point it’s just a you problem. You don’t get how elections work. You should get it as a grown up living in America. And you should get it because it’s been explained to you. Either you’re mentally deficient or you’re choosing not to get it.
In any case your “demanding his voters support” is just as much of a miss this latest time as it was the last hundred. We don’t have the luxury of only voting for politicians we support. Grow the fuck up.
|
On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 04:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2024 19:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I think this is a reasonably good compromise, as it makes your voice heard during the primary without automatically helping Trump during the general election.
Not so much apparently. Voting "uncommitted" in Michigan's primary is actually a vote supporting Trump according to Michigan's Democrat Governor. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term." edition.cnn.comI'm increasingly believing the implied odds that give Biden just a ~33% chance of winning. Bad time for Democrats to have picked an avowed Zionist as their leader. That gambling website clearly can't be taken seriously. Looks at who's in third place, supposedly with a 14.3% chance of becoming president (despite it actually being a 0% chance). Michelle Obama. There's really a 1-in-7 chance that she wins the presidential election? Really? lol. Placing a bet on the November results, especially in February, doesn't mean that those odds actually comport with reality. The earliest polls seem to indicate a very slight lead for Trump over Biden, ranging around 1-5%, but even the polls are going to be inaccurate this early in the election cycle. (Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/ ) Maybe things progress to 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of Trump over time, or maybe Biden ends up with a respectable lead. We can speculate in a variety of different directions, using different criteria as our justifications. For example, Biden's primary victories were around 90%, whereas Trump's primary victories were only at around 60%. Those numbers certainly don't favor Trump. There are also pockets of Never-Trump Republicans saying they would either stay home or actually vote for Biden, if (when) Trump becomes the official Republican nominee. Additionally, we need to see the impact that Trump's continuous losses in the courts have on his supporters, over the next half-year. It may be the case that Trump loses more voters than Biden does. We really don't know how things are going to shake out. The site itself isn't really relevant, those are the ~implied odds across all gambling websites. It's true that the "true odds" are likely different, but still apparently favor Trump. As for polling, Biden's problem isn't just that he's 1-5% behind Trump (and has been for months), it's that he's 6-10+% behind where he was polling in 2020 nationally when he squeaked out a win. Perhaps more pressing than that, is that Biden is also ~ 10% behind his 2020 Michigan polling vs Trump, and Democrats need to win Michigan to win the presidency. Comparing their primary victories thus far is silly, For example, Trump got more votes in SC than Biden has in all his primaries combined (Nikki Haley almost did too). Biden got less than half as many primary votes in SC in 2024 compared to 2020. Hell, Biden barely got more votes in SC's 2024 primary than Bernie did in their 2020 primary. en.wikipedia.orgBiden still has higher disapproval than Trump had at this point in his presidency (no one has ever won with it so high) and Trump currently has better favorability than BidenIt's true we can't know how it will shake out with certainty (likely not until some time after election day really), but it's abundantly clear Biden's in worse shape than he was in 2020 vs Trump when he barely won. Hence Whitmer (and rank and file types like Sadist) trying to shame/threaten people for even considering voting "Uncommitted" in Michigan's primary. You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip. Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too.
2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state).
3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024.
|
On February 26 2024 11:48 KwarK wrote:
As has been explained to you countless times, you don’t have to support a candidate to vote for them. It’s absurd, naive, and childish to expect that a candidate representing 300m people agrees with your specific stances. And if they did then that would mean most other people wouldn’t find the candidate agreeing with them.
You keep repeating this fundamental misunderstanding of how simple plurality elections works. You keep accusing people of supporting Biden or agreeing with Biden just because they say we should vote for him. At a certain point it’s just a you problem. You don’t get how elections work. You should get it as a grown up living in America. And you should get it because it’s been explained to you. Either you’re mentally deficient or you’re choosing not to get it.
In any case your “demanding his voters support” is just as much of a miss this latest time as it was the last hundred. We don’t have the luxury of only voting for politicians we support. Grow the fuck up.
You're indignance at the notion that voting for someone is in fact supporting them should be aimed at the system that forces you to make such absurd contortions to rationalize it, rather than someone confronting you with this reality.
You know that our issue isn't that I don't know how US elections work. It's not even that we disagree that they lack the capacity to address problems that need to be addressed in a necessary timeline. It's that you've picked up your baton for the decimation of Palestinians and others
|
|
|
United States41539 Posts
On February 26 2024 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 11:48 KwarK wrote:
As has been explained to you countless times, you don’t have to support a candidate to vote for them. It’s absurd, naive, and childish to expect that a candidate representing 300m people agrees with your specific stances. And if they did then that would mean most other people wouldn’t find the candidate agreeing with them.
You keep repeating this fundamental misunderstanding of how simple plurality elections works. You keep accusing people of supporting Biden or agreeing with Biden just because they say we should vote for him. At a certain point it’s just a you problem. You don’t get how elections work. You should get it as a grown up living in America. And you should get it because it’s been explained to you. Either you’re mentally deficient or you’re choosing not to get it.
In any case your “demanding his voters support” is just as much of a miss this latest time as it was the last hundred. We don’t have the luxury of only voting for politicians we support. Grow the fuck up. You're indignance at the notion that voting for someone is in fact supporting them should be aimed at the system that forces you to make such absurd contortions to rationalize it, rather than someone confronting you with this reality. You know that our issue isn't that I don't know how US elections work. It's not even that we disagree that they lack the capacity to address problems that need to be addressed in a necessary timeline. It's that you've picked up your baton for the decimation of Palestinians and others
Voting isn’t supporting. If the choice was between reimposing chattel slavery on African Americans or holding a giant ham and pineapple pizza party you’d be withholding your vote because you want pepperoni and insisting that I love pineapple on pizza based on my vote.
You don’t get how this works and that causes you to misattribute views to people who don’t hold them.
|
Anyone use any online gambling sites? I would put some money on Biden at +225. I’d take Nikki Haley at +2000 and Gavin Newsom at +1100 too just in case these old guys have a medical event sometime soon
|
|
|
On February 26 2024 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 04:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Not so much apparently. Voting "uncommitted" in Michigan's primary is actually a vote supporting Trump according to Michigan's Democrat Governor. [quote] edition.cnn.comI'm increasingly believing the implied odds that give Biden just a ~33% chance of winning. Bad time for Democrats to have picked an avowed Zionist as their leader. That gambling website clearly can't be taken seriously. Looks at who's in third place, supposedly with a 14.3% chance of becoming president (despite it actually being a 0% chance). Michelle Obama. There's really a 1-in-7 chance that she wins the presidential election? Really? lol. Placing a bet on the November results, especially in February, doesn't mean that those odds actually comport with reality. The earliest polls seem to indicate a very slight lead for Trump over Biden, ranging around 1-5%, but even the polls are going to be inaccurate this early in the election cycle. (Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/ ) Maybe things progress to 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of Trump over time, or maybe Biden ends up with a respectable lead. We can speculate in a variety of different directions, using different criteria as our justifications. For example, Biden's primary victories were around 90%, whereas Trump's primary victories were only at around 60%. Those numbers certainly don't favor Trump. There are also pockets of Never-Trump Republicans saying they would either stay home or actually vote for Biden, if (when) Trump becomes the official Republican nominee. Additionally, we need to see the impact that Trump's continuous losses in the courts have on his supporters, over the next half-year. It may be the case that Trump loses more voters than Biden does. We really don't know how things are going to shake out. The site itself isn't really relevant, those are the ~implied odds across all gambling websites. It's true that the "true odds" are likely different, but still apparently favor Trump. As for polling, Biden's problem isn't just that he's 1-5% behind Trump (and has been for months), it's that he's 6-10+% behind where he was polling in 2020 nationally when he squeaked out a win. Perhaps more pressing than that, is that Biden is also ~ 10% behind his 2020 Michigan polling vs Trump, and Democrats need to win Michigan to win the presidency. Comparing their primary victories thus far is silly, For example, Trump got more votes in SC than Biden has in all his primaries combined (Nikki Haley almost did too). Biden got less than half as many primary votes in SC in 2024 compared to 2020. Hell, Biden barely got more votes in SC's 2024 primary than Bernie did in their 2020 primary. en.wikipedia.orgBiden still has higher disapproval than Trump had at this point in his presidency (no one has ever won with it so high) and Trump currently has better favorability than BidenIt's true we can't know how it will shake out with certainty (likely not until some time after election day really), but it's abundantly clear Biden's in worse shape than he was in 2020 vs Trump when he barely won. Hence Whitmer (and rank and file types like Sadist) trying to shame/threaten people for even considering voting "Uncommitted" in Michigan's primary. You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip. Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too. 2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state). 3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024.
2. What I'm saying is that it's basically the Democrat version of a dog whistle that allows the plausible deniability you're expressing and is heard by the Sadists of the party and evokes the intended reaction.
3. Hence the efforts to shame and blame the people advocating to vote uncommitted to show that it might be and pressure Biden to do more to stop the genocide (even if the vast majority will vote Biden with the gun to their head in November). Instead demanding voters to fall in line, even if it means their complicity in what they themselves identify as genocide. All with seemingly no consideration for the long-term and systemic ramifications of such compromises and contradictions.
Trump is also an effective heel (Biden not such a great babyface), but it's not like there's any Republican or Democrat in either party (except maybe Bernie EDIT: I suppose you could include some of "The Squad" too) that would change the calculus of those demanding voters fall in line behind the Democrat to prevent Trump. Trump being so obnoxiously abominable certainly makes it seem more reasonable though.
On February 26 2024 13:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 11:48 KwarK wrote:
As has been explained to you countless times, you don’t have to support a candidate to vote for them. It’s absurd, naive, and childish to expect that a candidate representing 300m people agrees with your specific stances. And if they did then that would mean most other people wouldn’t find the candidate agreeing with them.
You keep repeating this fundamental misunderstanding of how simple plurality elections works. You keep accusing people of supporting Biden or agreeing with Biden just because they say we should vote for him. At a certain point it’s just a you problem. You don’t get how elections work. You should get it as a grown up living in America. And you should get it because it’s been explained to you. Either you’re mentally deficient or you’re choosing not to get it.
In any case your “demanding his voters support” is just as much of a miss this latest time as it was the last hundred. We don’t have the luxury of only voting for politicians we support. Grow the fuck up. You're indignance at the notion that voting for someone is in fact supporting them should be aimed at the system that forces you to make such absurd contortions to rationalize it, rather than someone confronting you with this reality. You know that our issue isn't that I don't know how US elections work. It's not even that we disagree that they lack the capacity to address problems that need to be addressed in a necessary timeline. It's that you've picked up your baton for the decimation of Palestinians and others Voting isn’t supporting. If the choice was between reimposing chattel slavery on African Americans or holding a giant ham and pineapple pizza party you’d be withholding your vote because you want pepperoni and insisting that I love pineapple on pizza based on my vote. You don’t get how this works and that causes you to misattribute views to people who don’t hold them.
No. I'd support a ham and pineapple pizza party with my vote, but genocide isn't a pizza party. Though for some I suppose it's somewhere between a child's birthday party and a carnival.
I do get how this works, you just want the same exemption as Trump voters that want to say they aren't supporting him or his bigotry with their vote and it's comparably ridiculous to me.
|
Northern Ireland22945 Posts
On February 26 2024 13:03 JimmiC wrote:
Is convincing people to not vote Democrat a good strategy for Putin. The far lefts views on major world issues now align with Russian interests basically perfectly. Some of the podcasts I have listened too have explained this as his propagandists have found a very effective way of messaging that appeals to people who believe that elitists are running things, anti establishment, distrust of main stream media. After effectively capturing the far right they have used the same tactics and basically the same message with just changing key buzz words, globalists to capitalists for example.
Here we notice that GH and nettles (picking who I guess is farthest left and right) aligning on most every big issue (and with Russian interests), think Ukraine and Israel. You would think that they would be opposing each other in most cases. With the right in America you have them both being right, but there should be massive opposition to Russia both because they are a competitor for a world of limited resources, long term enemy, and extremely controlling dictatorship. For the far left it is basically everything.
How effective will their propaganda efforts be in the next US election? If they have even half the effect on the American left as they had on the American right it could be a health blow to Bidens chances. Russia does not even need them to Vote Trump to instal their pawn/useful idiot, they just need enough of them to not vote at all.
Even just making Americans distrust their election systems is a huge win and very destabilizing.
I mean there is a cohort who have a particular blind spot on Russia, IMO from my general and frequent wanderings in far left circles it’s a minority that goes down that particular rabbithole, and quite a small one at that. I mean as a card-carrying far leftist meself, amongst others of my kind, those experiences won’t necessarily reflect reality 100%
I don’t think there’s a huge amount of alignment among the far left and far right spectrums on Israel outside of many not exactly being big fans of Israel/Israel policy anyway. The reasons (generally) are markedly different as to that opposition.
I really think the whole Russia thing is widely overstated, I mean they attempt and succeed in a ton of fuckery don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think they’re any kind of real driving force, they’re trying to capitalise on sentiments that have formed somewhat organically via various pathways.
If the far left aren’t voting Biden it’s because there’s few points of ideological alignment outside of ‘this other guy is worse’, which isn’t a massive motivator to many. Although some will still suck it up and vote Blue on specific points of worry, reproductive rights, the anti-trans sentiment that the GOP is stirring up etc.
|
On February 26 2024 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 04:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] That gambling website clearly can't be taken seriously. Looks at who's in third place, supposedly with a 14.3% chance of becoming president (despite it actually being a 0% chance). Michelle Obama. There's really a 1-in-7 chance that she wins the presidential election? Really? lol. Placing a bet on the November results, especially in February, doesn't mean that those odds actually comport with reality. The earliest polls seem to indicate a very slight lead for Trump over Biden, ranging around 1-5%, but even the polls are going to be inaccurate this early in the election cycle. (Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/ ) Maybe things progress to 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of Trump over time, or maybe Biden ends up with a respectable lead. We can speculate in a variety of different directions, using different criteria as our justifications. For example, Biden's primary victories were around 90%, whereas Trump's primary victories were only at around 60%. Those numbers certainly don't favor Trump. There are also pockets of Never-Trump Republicans saying they would either stay home or actually vote for Biden, if (when) Trump becomes the official Republican nominee. Additionally, we need to see the impact that Trump's continuous losses in the courts have on his supporters, over the next half-year. It may be the case that Trump loses more voters than Biden does. We really don't know how things are going to shake out. The site itself isn't really relevant, those are the ~implied odds across all gambling websites. It's true that the "true odds" are likely different, but still apparently favor Trump. As for polling, Biden's problem isn't just that he's 1-5% behind Trump (and has been for months), it's that he's 6-10+% behind where he was polling in 2020 nationally when he squeaked out a win. Perhaps more pressing than that, is that Biden is also ~ 10% behind his 2020 Michigan polling vs Trump, and Democrats need to win Michigan to win the presidency. Comparing their primary victories thus far is silly, For example, Trump got more votes in SC than Biden has in all his primaries combined (Nikki Haley almost did too). Biden got less than half as many primary votes in SC in 2024 compared to 2020. Hell, Biden barely got more votes in SC's 2024 primary than Bernie did in their 2020 primary. en.wikipedia.orgBiden still has higher disapproval than Trump had at this point in his presidency (no one has ever won with it so high) and Trump currently has better favorability than BidenIt's true we can't know how it will shake out with certainty (likely not until some time after election day really), but it's abundantly clear Biden's in worse shape than he was in 2020 vs Trump when he barely won. Hence Whitmer (and rank and file types like Sadist) trying to shame/threaten people for even considering voting "Uncommitted" in Michigan's primary. You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip. Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too. 2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state). 3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024. 2. What I'm saying is that it's basically the Democrat version of a dog whistle that allows the plausible deniability you're expressing and is heard by the Sadists of the party and evokes the intended reaction. 3. Hence the efforts to shame and blame the people advocating to vote uncommitted to show that it might be and pressure Biden to do more to stop the genocide (even if the vast majority will vote Biden with the gun to their head in November). Instead demanding voters to fall in line, even if it means their complicity in what they themselves identify as genocide. All with seemingly no consideration for the long-term and systemic ramifications of such compromises and contradictions. Trump is also an effective heel (Biden not such a great babyface), but it's not like there's any Republican or Democrat in either party (except maybe Bernie, if you count him) that would change the calculus of those demanding voters fall in line behind the Democrat to prevent Trump. Trump being so obnoxiously abominable certainly makes it seem more reasonable though.
2. Can you please elaborate on what the dog whistle is? Do you believe that it's something like "It's not really a big deal if Palestinians are being genocided because you need to vote for Biden no matter what"? I mean, if the Democratic primary (or the general election) were between Biden-as-is vs. Biden-except-he's-more-assertive-in-dealing-with-Israel, I would opt for the latter, but that choice doesn't exist for the 2024 election. I don't think that's necessarily "plausible deniability" as much as it is being practical based on who's actually running for president.
3. My general philosophy is "primary = vote with your heart; general = vote with your head". If someone wants to vote "uncommitted" in the primary - especially during a primary where we already know the winner - I won't hold it against them. I just wouldn't want them voting "uncommitted" during the general election (especially in a swing state). If voting for Biden is enabling genocide, then voting for Trump is necessarily enabling that same genocide plus other bad things too. Trump might even enable a worse version of the Palestinian genocide.
|
On February 26 2024 14:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] The site itself isn't really relevant, those are the ~implied odds across all gambling websites. It's true that the "true odds" are likely different, but still apparently favor Trump. As for polling, Biden's problem isn't just that he's 1-5% behind Trump (and has been for months), it's that he's 6-10+% behind where he was polling in 2020 nationally when he squeaked out a win. Perhaps more pressing than that, is that Biden is also ~ 10% behind his 2020 Michigan polling vs Trump, and Democrats need to win Michigan to win the presidency. Comparing their primary victories thus far is silly, For example, Trump got more votes in SC than Biden has in all his primaries combined (Nikki Haley almost did too). Biden got less than half as many primary votes in SC in 2024 compared to 2020. Hell, Biden barely got more votes in SC's 2024 primary than Bernie did in their 2020 primary. en.wikipedia.orgBiden still has higher disapproval than Trump had at this point in his presidency (no one has ever won with it so high) and Trump currently has better favorability than BidenIt's true we can't know how it will shake out with certainty (likely not until some time after election day really), but it's abundantly clear Biden's in worse shape than he was in 2020 vs Trump when he barely won. Hence Whitmer (and rank and file types like Sadist) trying to shame/threaten people for even considering voting "Uncommitted" in Michigan's primary. You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip. Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too. 2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state). 3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024. 2. What I'm saying is that it's basically the Democrat version of a dog whistle that allows the plausible deniability you're expressing and is heard by the Sadists of the party and evokes the intended reaction. 3. Hence the efforts to shame and blame the people advocating to vote uncommitted to show that it might be and pressure Biden to do more to stop the genocide (even if the vast majority will vote Biden with the gun to their head in November). Instead demanding voters to fall in line, even if it means their complicity in what they themselves identify as genocide. All with seemingly no consideration for the long-term and systemic ramifications of such compromises and contradictions. Trump is also an effective heel (Biden not such a great babyface), but it's not like there's any Republican or Democrat in either party (except maybe Bernie, if you count him) that would change the calculus of those demanding voters fall in line behind the Democrat to prevent Trump. Trump being so obnoxiously abominable certainly makes it seem more reasonable though. 2. Can you please elaborate on what the dog whistle is? Do you believe that it's something like "It's not really a big deal if Palestinians are being genocided because you need to vote for Biden no matter what"? I mean, if the Democratic primary (or the general election) were between Biden-as-is vs. Biden-except-he's-more-assertive-in-dealing-with-Israel, I would opt for the latter, but that choice doesn't exist for the 2024 election. I don't think that's necessarily "plausible deniability" as much as it is being practical based on who's actually running for president. 3. My general philosophy is "primary = vote with your heart; general = vote with your head". If someone wants to vote "uncommitted" in the primary - especially during a primary where we already know the winner - I won't hold it against them. I just wouldn't want them voting "uncommitted" during the general election (especially in a swing state). If voting for Biden is enabling genocide, then voting for Trump is necessarily enabling that same genocide plus other bad things too.Trump might even enable a worse version of the Palestinian genocide.
2. Whitmer's comments are the dog whistle, Sadist's reaction is the "dog" response and your interpretation is the "I didn't hear anything?"
3. Do you want to vote 'uncommitted' during the primary as a demonstration of your dissatisfaction with Biden's role in Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestinians (albeit non-disqualifying in your view)?
|
On February 26 2024 15:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 14:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip.
Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too. 2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state). 3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024. 2. What I'm saying is that it's basically the Democrat version of a dog whistle that allows the plausible deniability you're expressing and is heard by the Sadists of the party and evokes the intended reaction. 3. Hence the efforts to shame and blame the people advocating to vote uncommitted to show that it might be and pressure Biden to do more to stop the genocide (even if the vast majority will vote Biden with the gun to their head in November). Instead demanding voters to fall in line, even if it means their complicity in what they themselves identify as genocide. All with seemingly no consideration for the long-term and systemic ramifications of such compromises and contradictions. Trump is also an effective heel (Biden not such a great babyface), but it's not like there's any Republican or Democrat in either party (except maybe Bernie, if you count him) that would change the calculus of those demanding voters fall in line behind the Democrat to prevent Trump. Trump being so obnoxiously abominable certainly makes it seem more reasonable though. 2. Can you please elaborate on what the dog whistle is? Do you believe that it's something like "It's not really a big deal if Palestinians are being genocided because you need to vote for Biden no matter what"? I mean, if the Democratic primary (or the general election) were between Biden-as-is vs. Biden-except-he's-more-assertive-in-dealing-with-Israel, I would opt for the latter, but that choice doesn't exist for the 2024 election. I don't think that's necessarily "plausible deniability" as much as it is being practical based on who's actually running for president. 3. My general philosophy is "primary = vote with your heart; general = vote with your head". If someone wants to vote "uncommitted" in the primary - especially during a primary where we already know the winner - I won't hold it against them. I just wouldn't want them voting "uncommitted" during the general election (especially in a swing state). If voting for Biden is enabling genocide, then voting for Trump is necessarily enabling that same genocide plus other bad things too.Trump might even enable a worse version of the Palestinian genocide. 2. Whitmer's comments are the dog whistle, Sadist's reaction is the "dog" response and your interpretation is the "I didn't hear anything?" 3. Do you want to vote 'uncommitted' during the primary as a demonstration of your dissatisfaction with Biden's role in Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestinians (albeit non-disqualifying in your view)?
I might, if New Jersey even bothers to have a primary where Biden is basically running unopposed. That's not until June 4th though.
|
On February 26 2024 15:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 14:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 09:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 26 2024 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You're not making accurate comparisons with those links either. You're comparing February 2024 (half a year before the election) to October/November 2020 (right before the election). Feb 2020 is just as irrelevant as Feb 2024, and just because there happened to be consistency from Feb 2020 to Nov 2020 doesn't mean 2024 will have the same consistency. As I said before, we need to see how the next few months play out, so that we can compare October/November 2024 to October/November 2020. If Biden in Oct/Nov 2024 is polling significantly worse than Oct/Nov 2020, then the comparison will be justified. We can't know yet if this election's final polling will put Biden ahead, equal to, or behind last election's final polling for Biden - and we also know that polling doesn't guarantee an outcome. Last election, Biden polled ahead of Trump by a few points right before the vote, and he won. This election, Biden could poll behind Trump and still win, or ahead of Trump and still lose. Last election was pretty close to a coinflip, and 55-45 or even 60-40 in either direction for this election is still practically a coinflip.
Also, I think if you consider the populations of the states that have voted in the primaries so far, and just how deep red South Carolina is, you won't be surprised at the SC data you cited. South Carolina isn't even a swing state, but it may be interesting to see how the Republican primary plays out in swing states (if Haley stays around that long). But either way, a lot can happen in the spring, summer, and fall of 2024 to affect the November vote. Well, I'm comparing Biden vs.Trump in Feb 2024 with Biden vs Trump in Feb 2020. It says: " This Day In History: February 25, 2020: Biden +4.3" to make the point that he's inarguably in worse shape now than he was at this point in the race in 2020, particularly in Michigan where " This Day in History: February 25, 2020: Biden +5.2" but today Trump is +4.6. Things can certainly change between now and the election, but Biden's clearly struggling against Trump compared to 2020 where he barely squeaked out a win with much more favorable polling (including favorability/approval). As I said before, comparing Feb 2020 to Feb 2024 is comparing an irrelevant data point from last election to an irrelevant data point from this election. You're right that Biden is doing worse right now than he did at the same point in time last election, but such a comparison doesn't legitimize either one as having predictive power. We should be patient instead of rushing to conclusions based on premature information (or gambling odds). Polling is not irrelevant . For example, decisions about how and where to spend campaign resources and political capital is in part based on contemporary and historic polling. If Democrats treat the polls as irrelevant, they can't strategize a reasonable path to 270 and apply their efforts accordingly. The notion that Biden is just as likely to win 2024 as he was at this point to win in 2020, or that him being so far behind his 2020 position at this point is irrelevant (nevermind no president ever being reelected with so high a disapproval rating), is dangerously oblivious imo. While I appreciate your perspective on the odds and polling, what I was interested in was your take on the assertion from Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) that what we thought was a reasonable compromise for a primary voter opposed to genocide, she says is actually supporting Trump. Do you mean this excerpt from the article you posted: "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tells CNN's Dana Bash "I understand the pain that people are feeling" over the war in Gaza but warns that "any vote that's not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term."" https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/25/sotu-whitmer-on-michigan-primary.cnn Here are my thoughts about that quote: 1. I think it's important for her to not be dismissive of the concerns of voters, including how people feel about Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. After watching the entire 2.5-minute video clip from that article, she seems to be a little more sensitive to the situation than that quote suggests. 2. I think her message is probably aimed for the general election, as the primary is essentially decided already (Biden vs. Trump, unless one of them dies or is forcibly removed). 3. I think it's important to note that Trump would be worse than Biden for Palestinians, and so hopefully voters are keeping in mind the big picture (Biden vs. Trump in regards to Palestine, and Biden vs. Trump in regards to everything else domestic and foreign) when they're deciding who they'll vote for in November. 1. Not really. 2. She literally said "any vote that isn't for Joe Biden" in response to and the context of a question about people voting uncommitted in the primary. A sentiment/threat that was immediately recognized and echoed/amplified by Sadist. 3. ~ Half of Joe Biden's voters believe Israel is committing genocide. Their problem isn't that they don't know Trump is even more genocidal. One of my overarching points: There are a variety of ways for Biden/Democrats and their supporters to win in November. But doing anything they can to avoid demanding Biden be better and instead focusing on demanding his voters support what they themselves identify as genocide is deplorable. EDIT: More than deplorable, I genuinely believe it can be systemically catastrophic, not just domestically but globally too. 2. What I'm saying is that she answered a question about the primary with a response more relevant to the general election, since obviously Trump isn't part of the Democratic primary (and so "not voting Biden = helping Trump" makes a lot more sense in the context of the general election, especially for a swing state). 3. I think that 50% statistic misses the point I was trying to make: Believing (as you and I both do) that Israel is committing genocide, does not necessarily equate to disqualifying Biden from being elected president over Trump for another term. It's disqualifying for you, but not for me, and I haven't seen any data suggesting that those 50% of Biden voters in the poll blame Biden so much so that they would prefer Trump to handle things in 2024. 2. What I'm saying is that it's basically the Democrat version of a dog whistle that allows the plausible deniability you're expressing and is heard by the Sadists of the party and evokes the intended reaction. 3. Hence the efforts to shame and blame the people advocating to vote uncommitted to show that it might be and pressure Biden to do more to stop the genocide (even if the vast majority will vote Biden with the gun to their head in November). Instead demanding voters to fall in line, even if it means their complicity in what they themselves identify as genocide. All with seemingly no consideration for the long-term and systemic ramifications of such compromises and contradictions. Trump is also an effective heel (Biden not such a great babyface), but it's not like there's any Republican or Democrat in either party (except maybe Bernie, if you count him) that would change the calculus of those demanding voters fall in line behind the Democrat to prevent Trump. Trump being so obnoxiously abominable certainly makes it seem more reasonable though. 2. Can you please elaborate on what the dog whistle is? Do you believe that it's something like "It's not really a big deal if Palestinians are being genocided because you need to vote for Biden no matter what"? I mean, if the Democratic primary (or the general election) were between Biden-as-is vs. Biden-except-he's-more-assertive-in-dealing-with-Israel, I would opt for the latter, but that choice doesn't exist for the 2024 election. I don't think that's necessarily "plausible deniability" as much as it is being practical based on who's actually running for president. 3. My general philosophy is "primary = vote with your heart; general = vote with your head". If someone wants to vote "uncommitted" in the primary - especially during a primary where we already know the winner - I won't hold it against them. I just wouldn't want them voting "uncommitted" during the general election (especially in a swing state). If voting for Biden is enabling genocide, then voting for Trump is necessarily enabling that same genocide plus other bad things too.Trump might even enable a worse version of the Palestinian genocide. 2. Whitmer's comments are the dog whistle, Sadist's reaction is the "dog" response and your interpretation is the "I didn't hear anything?" 3. Do you want to vote 'uncommitted' during the primary as a demonstration of your dissatisfaction with Biden's role in Israel's genocidal campaign against Palestinians (albeit non-disqualifying in your view)?
Its not a dog whistle. Vote for Biden or dont, who gives a shit.
Im all for trying to lurch the party to a direction in primaries, I just hope people arent little bitches who stay home on election day if they lose/dont get their way. Thats my concern.
This feels a lot like the 2016 election to me with people on the left trying to lob grenades and blame "the party" when in all actuality their ideas arent that popular.
Its very frustrating when people try to gamble and get something instead of preventing the off chance of facism.
This thread is awful btw. There needs to be a mute button.
|
|
|
|
|
On February 27 2024 02:12 JimmiC wrote:There has been lots talk about how Biden is not doing great for the Dems but this article goes into detail about how poorly Trump is actually doing in his primaries. And how the MSM is not covering that the way they would if Biden was barely getting 60% of the votes. Show nested quote + A party incumbent who’s running for reelection has a huge advantage over anyone who might want to challenge him. He’s not only the head of the party; he has control over the party machinery.
That Trump has done as badly notwithstanding is (or should be) the big news. Show nested quote + In the New Hampshire primary, Trump got 54.3 percent of the vote; Haley, 43.2 percent. In Iowa, Trump got just 56,260 votes. There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Hence, fewer than 3 percent of Iowans voted for him. Show nested quote + And according to AP VoteCast, a bit over 1 in 5 Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they would not vote for Trump in November if he is the party’s nominee https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/look-closer-trump-s-reelection-campaign-is-in-dire-straits-opinion/ar-BB1iTYqi?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c1d1d2264b874ae9a6377bb9f6b0228e&ei=8
That may be true, but just emphasizes how pathetic both parties are. It's really miserable that the choice for almost everyone is to stay home, or hold their nose and vote for someone they are very far from enthusiastic about. And let's face it, Trump's core of fanatic MAGAs are more numerous and louder than people who really like Biden (e.g. DPB).
|
On February 27 2024 02:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2024 02:12 JimmiC wrote:There has been lots talk about how Biden is not doing great for the Dems but this article goes into detail about how poorly Trump is actually doing in his primaries. And how the MSM is not covering that the way they would if Biden was barely getting 60% of the votes. A party incumbent who’s running for reelection has a huge advantage over anyone who might want to challenge him. He’s not only the head of the party; he has control over the party machinery.
That Trump has done as badly notwithstanding is (or should be) the big news. In the New Hampshire primary, Trump got 54.3 percent of the vote; Haley, 43.2 percent. In Iowa, Trump got just 56,260 votes. There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Hence, fewer than 3 percent of Iowans voted for him. And according to AP VoteCast, a bit over 1 in 5 Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they would not vote for Trump in November if he is the party’s nominee https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/look-closer-trump-s-reelection-campaign-is-in-dire-straits-opinion/ar-BB1iTYqi?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c1d1d2264b874ae9a6377bb9f6b0228e&ei=8 That may be true, but just emphasizes how pathetic both parties are. It's really miserable that the choice for almost everyone is to stay home, or hold their nose and vote for someone they are very far from enthusiastic about. And let's face it, Trump's core of fanatic MAGAs are more numerous and louder than people who really like Biden (e.g. DPB).
Given that I'm your example for someone really liking Biden, I'm also happy to say that I don't think he's God's gift to mankind. I think he's done a pretty good job as president, as I've outlined in the past, but I definitely don't own memorabilia or bumper stickers or lawn signs with his face or name on it. I'm simply impressed with how much he's managed to accomplish, despite a conservative Supreme Court sometimes ruling against him and Congressional Republicans absolutely hating him. Of course, there's definitely still a lot more I would have loved to see from him, and maybe he can get more done next term. He's probably a decent human being too, whereas Trump is definitely a piece of... non-decent-human-being. I definitely agree with you that Trump supporters are essentially cultists, and such a thing really doesn't exist for Biden.
|
On February 27 2024 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2024 02:46 Acrofales wrote:On February 27 2024 02:12 JimmiC wrote:There has been lots talk about how Biden is not doing great for the Dems but this article goes into detail about how poorly Trump is actually doing in his primaries. And how the MSM is not covering that the way they would if Biden was barely getting 60% of the votes. A party incumbent who’s running for reelection has a huge advantage over anyone who might want to challenge him. He’s not only the head of the party; he has control over the party machinery.
That Trump has done as badly notwithstanding is (or should be) the big news. In the New Hampshire primary, Trump got 54.3 percent of the vote; Haley, 43.2 percent. In Iowa, Trump got just 56,260 votes. There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Hence, fewer than 3 percent of Iowans voted for him. And according to AP VoteCast, a bit over 1 in 5 Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they would not vote for Trump in November if he is the party’s nominee https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/look-closer-trump-s-reelection-campaign-is-in-dire-straits-opinion/ar-BB1iTYqi?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c1d1d2264b874ae9a6377bb9f6b0228e&ei=8 That may be true, but just emphasizes how pathetic both parties are. It's really miserable that the choice for almost everyone is to stay home, or hold their nose and vote for someone they are very far from enthusiastic about. And let's face it, Trump's core of fanatic MAGAs are more numerous and louder than people who really like Biden (e.g. DPB). Given that I'm your example for someone really liking Biden, I'm also happy to say that I don't think he's God's gift to mankind. I think he's done a pretty good job as president, as I've outlined in the past, but I definitely don't own memorabilia or bumper stickers or lawn signs with his face or name on it. I'm simply impressed with how much he's managed to accomplish, despite a conservative Supreme Court sometimes ruling against him and Congressional Republicans absolutely hating him. Of course, there's definitely still a lot more I would have loved to see from him, and maybe he can get more done next term. He's probably a decent human being too, whereas Trump is definitely a piece of... non-decent-human-being. I definitely agree with you that Trump supporters are essentially cultists, and such a thing really doesn't exist for Biden.
My read was that this is the point! I don't think it was meant as a dig at you.
You did your research and found info and your conclusion was a "Hey, actually..." and a lukewarm thumbs-up for Biden.
That's legitimately probably the most enthusiastic support we've seen for Biden, and I'd hope that says a lot more about Biden than it does you. It also doesn't bode well as a driving force for voters.
|
Northern Ireland22945 Posts
On February 27 2024 01:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2024 13:57 WombaT wrote:On February 26 2024 13:03 JimmiC wrote:
Is convincing people to not vote Democrat a good strategy for Putin. The far lefts views on major world issues now align with Russian interests basically perfectly. Some of the podcasts I have listened too have explained this as his propagandists have found a very effective way of messaging that appeals to people who believe that elitists are running things, anti establishment, distrust of main stream media. After effectively capturing the far right they have used the same tactics and basically the same message with just changing key buzz words, globalists to capitalists for example.
Here we notice that GH and nettles (picking who I guess is farthest left and right) aligning on most every big issue (and with Russian interests), think Ukraine and Israel. You would think that they would be opposing each other in most cases. With the right in America you have them both being right, but there should be massive opposition to Russia both because they are a competitor for a world of limited resources, long term enemy, and extremely controlling dictatorship. For the far left it is basically everything.
How effective will their propaganda efforts be in the next US election? If they have even half the effect on the American left as they had on the American right it could be a health blow to Bidens chances. Russia does not even need them to Vote Trump to instal their pawn/useful idiot, they just need enough of them to not vote at all.
Even just making Americans distrust their election systems is a huge win and very destabilizing.
I mean there is a cohort who have a particular blind spot on Russia, IMO from my general and frequent wanderings in far left circles it’s a minority that goes down that particular rabbithole, and quite a small one at that. I mean as a card-carrying far leftist meself, amongst others of my kind, those experiences won’t necessarily reflect reality 100% I don’t think there’s a huge amount of alignment among the far left and far right spectrums on Israel outside of many not exactly being big fans of Israel/Israel policy anyway. The reasons (generally) are markedly different as to that opposition. I really think the whole Russia thing is widely overstated, I mean they attempt and succeed in a ton of fuckery don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think they’re any kind of real driving force, they’re trying to capitalise on sentiments that have formed somewhat organically via various pathways. If the far left aren’t voting Biden it’s because there’s few points of ideological alignment outside of ‘this other guy is worse’, which isn’t a massive motivator to many. Although some will still suck it up and vote Blue on specific points of worry, reproductive rights, the anti-trans sentiment that the GOP is stirring up etc. I don’t think the Russia thing is overstated. Propaganda has always been effective and all of us think it only others that are affected but we all are. And people who use social media, which is most of the world at this point, and even more vulnerable because it is perfectly designed to group people and send them the specific message that works to sell them something, whether that is a product or an ideology. I think of the study done on the moderators who had to look at and get rid of as much of the propaganda as they could, they knew it was propaganda and not true, and they were still influenced. We think we are immune or it is not a big deal but that is completely wrong. The far left in the US probably never voted Biden but they are such a small insignificant group in the US it is really not a big deal. The regular left (not the best name, but I can’t think of a better one) do matter especially in the swing states and any that can be convinced to not vote do matter. Russia is aware of this and that is why they target both groups. And I mean they target everyone with the “democracy doesn’t matter” message as believing in one’s democracy is one of the biggest factors on how stable the system is.
For the first time in thread history I feel I’ll go with a tortuous and barely (if even) applicable analogy. I view Russia as kind of like that ‘BFF’ your partner has who’s obviously in love with them and will talk smack about you at any given opportunity to try and realise that goal.
It’s only really a problem rather than a mild irritation/amusingly pathetic if that lovestruck Grima Wormtongue routine, either through mendacity or having some level of basis in actual dissatisfaction starts working for the guy.
If democratic structures, the wider media and popular discourse were rock solid, Russia don’t have any kind of in in the first place.
I can’t stress enough that by no means do I absolve Russia of its various crimes and misdeeds but it’s just as often some boogeyman to deflect from other collective failures.
Oh noes it’s Russian propoganda that’s to blame for x, misinformation is the scourge of our age etc. How does such propaganda usually spread most effectively? Oh, on various social and entertainment services run by American companies? Will we meaningfully regulate some of these sectors in any way? Nope.
Is it a big deal or isn’t it? I personally feel that it is, hence my past advocacy for actually regulating some aspects of the sector. I start to get skeptical when those of positions of actual power to get that ball rolling keep saying it’s this huge problem and then proceed to do nout about it.
What’s more is ‘AI’ is going to be an even bigger shitshow with huge, obvious opportunities for malicious actors and propagandists and it’s a completely unregulated free-for-all too!
Hm, went a bit more ranty and incoherent than I’d initially planned.
|
On February 27 2024 02:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2024 02:12 JimmiC wrote:There has been lots talk about how Biden is not doing great for the Dems but this article goes into detail about how poorly Trump is actually doing in his primaries. And how the MSM is not covering that the way they would if Biden was barely getting 60% of the votes. A party incumbent who’s running for reelection has a huge advantage over anyone who might want to challenge him. He’s not only the head of the party; he has control over the party machinery.
That Trump has done as badly notwithstanding is (or should be) the big news. In the New Hampshire primary, Trump got 54.3 percent of the vote; Haley, 43.2 percent. In Iowa, Trump got just 56,260 votes. There are 2,083,979 registered voters in Iowa. Hence, fewer than 3 percent of Iowans voted for him. And according to AP VoteCast, a bit over 1 in 5 Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they would not vote for Trump in November if he is the party’s nominee https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/look-closer-trump-s-reelection-campaign-is-in-dire-straits-opinion/ar-BB1iTYqi?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c1d1d2264b874ae9a6377bb9f6b0228e&ei=8 That may be true, but just emphasizes how pathetic both parties are. It's really miserable that the choice for almost everyone is to stay home, or hold their nose and vote for someone they are very far from enthusiastic about. And let's face it, Trump's core of fanatic MAGAs are more numerous and louder than people who really like Biden (e.g. DPB).
Trump isn't doing poorly (electorally speaking anyway). The opinion piece is thick with copium. A cursory look at those primaries tells you Trump got a larger share and more votes than any Republican has before in those primaries/caucus (including himself when he won the presidency).
538 did a podcast where the host tries to make some of these points and pretty much gets shut down and laughed at. ~10:00 and ~14:00 are where you'll see what I'm talking about.
abcnews.go.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
