U.S. Election - Because we know better than you do

[zelticgar]

I feel bad for the pope here. He was on a decent path until he started chirping about politics. Someone must have forgot to remind him that the Vatican is surrounded by a wall. I hate to say it but every time he even dips his toe into politics all i can think of is how all those bishops and cardinals who acted as pimps for the clergy pedophiles all those years were allowed to retire into cushy Vatican positions with the hopes that people would forget what the church has been up to for all these years. Clean up your own mess and we will worry about ours.

Say what you will about Trump but from a PR perspective the guy moves at lightning speed. He responded to the Popes comments in about 5 seconds. I think that speedy reaction gives him a cover from his inconsistencies. He moves from one exchange to another so quickly it does not give anyone time to digest what is happening before he is on to the next confrontation.

 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

I feel bad for the pope here. He was on a decent path until he started chirping about politics. Someone must have forgot to remind him that the Vatican is surrounded by a wall. I hate to say it but every time he even dips his toe into politics all i can think of is how all those bishops and cardinals who acted as pimps for the clergy pedophiles all those years were allowed to retire into cushy Vatican positions with the hopes that people would forget what the church has been up to for all these years. Clean up your own mess and we will worry about ours.

When you put it like that, he and Trump seem like they should be natural allies.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Notone said:

Anyway, what annoys me about Clinton trying to mount this feminist horse to ride on it to the white house, is not just the blatant self-promotion, but it taps into an idea, that a female President would mean the end of sexism. Or at the very least change perception of women in every day life. Like the election of Obama ended racism...

Nobody has advanced these positions. Just like nobody has said that, for example, female Republican voters should be voting for Hilary solely because she is a woman, nobody has said that electing Hilary would end sexism, or electing Obama would end racism.

Why put forward these straw men? Because, presumably, arguing against the facts is harder. Electing a woman or a black person to the Presidency does break down a barrier in the fight against sexism or racism, and that is just a fact. It doesn't solve everything, but you know what it does solve? It does solve the fact that there has never been a female or black President. And it contributes towards solving underrepresentation in other walks of life, because it further disproves notions like 'society is not ready for this'.

2 hours ago, Notone said:

By the very same logic a President Bachman/Palin/Fiorina would achieve the same thing for feminist as a President Hillary Clinton.

I think they would, but the trouble is, they'd then destroy many other gains by their policies, so the net effect would be negative. (And if one believes the same about Hilary, that's a valid reason not to vote for her.)

1 hour ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

This is where you are wrong though.

I'd say rather it's where I've expressed myself badly, because as Terra points out that's not what I meant. Apologies if it's misleading. But I meant that even the Jindal remark is in line with this, because it's not actually endorsing the idea that progressives should vote for Jindal, as you initially suggested.

I think my position is otherwise clear and has been stated many times, so apologies if this caused any confusion.

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

As much as I detest Trump, I detest the Pope more. He should shut the fuck up about American politics.

I'm going to agree with Notone and disagree with Terra here. (Mark your calendars. This is a rare day.) The Pope is absolutely entitled to make a public statement about the claims of any politician to exemplify the Christian faith. Particularly those, like Trump, who appear to embrace it purely as a flag of convenience.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I'm not sure if you're even disagreeing with me but, I agree with this- it's why I said "No one is going to invade the United States any time soon."

 Colonel Andy Tanner would like a word...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think at least some of that is Sanders supporters saying they won't support Clinton but would end up coming around if she is the nominee. Similarly to how Clinton supporters in 2008 said they wouldn't support Obama but ended up coming around.

Back in February and March 2008, McCain was usually ahead of Obama (and Clinton) in the polls.

>95% of Democrats supporting Sanders would vote for Clinton should she be the nominee. The question is how will the people who aren't Democrats who support Sanders vote. And the same goes for the new voters on the Republican side who support Trump.

[lokisnow]

Actually he did not get involved. He explicitly did not give an endorsement of any kind. He made a general statement whether building a wall is a "Christian thing to do." And the Pontifex Maximus true to his name said, Christian mindset is building Bridges not walls.

If you consider that an involvement in US politics, then you might reevaluate the point of seperation between Church and State. And whether you believe politics should not involved religious beliefs.

*shrug*

That's splitting hair. You think Pope Francis would have made that comment if Trump were not proposing to build a wall to ward off the invading hordes of rapist Mexicans, who are quite significantly Catholic? The context is clear and it's no mistaking that the comment was directed at Trump and people who think like Trump does.

Also, the Pope speaks for Catholics, not all Christians. Jerry Falwell and the late Fred Phelps are every bit as Christian as the Pope is. The Pointiff does not get the authority to declare what is Christian and what is not.

Also, Jesus built a wall around heaven to keep out rapist Mexicans et al. So not a bridge builder, best I can tell.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

Nobody has advanced these positions. Just like nobody has said that, for example, female Republican voters should be voting for Hilary solely because she is a woman, nobody has said that electing Hilary would end sexism, or electing Obama would end racism.

Well, that's not entirely true. 

Madeleine Albright did clearly suggest that women who don't vote for Hillary have a special place in Hell reserved for them because Hillary is a woman and women who don't support other women have a special place in Hell reserved for them and Hillary Clinton is upholding her end of the bargain by helping other women. Presumably, Republican women are still women. And presumably, avoidance of Hell is a good reason to vote for someone. 

[Ice Queen]

5 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, that's not entirely true. 

Madeleine Albright did clearly suggest that women who don't vote for Hillary have a special place in Hell reserved for them because Hillary is a woman and women who don't support other women have a special place in Hell reserved for them and Hillary Clinton is upholding her end of the bargain by helping other women. Presumably, Republican women are still women. And presumably, avoidance of Hell is a good reason to vote for someone. 

Well, Madeleine Albright is older and of a different mindset but what she said was a slap in the face and an insult to all women. It's the age gap and experience thing. Young women had the road paved for them by women like Albright who went through hell and back to be taken seriously as women and as professionals. Our daughters, while still experiencing discrimination, haven't encountered the same obstacles. They are doing exactly what we've taught them to do--think for themselves and be themselves. They would love to see a woman president--but it has to be the right woman. They like what Sanders is saying and that's why they're flocking to him. I bet if Elizabeth Warren was running they'd vote for her. 

[mormont]

27 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, that's not entirely true. 

Madeleine Albright did clearly suggest that women who don't vote for Hillary have a special place in Hell reserved for them because Hillary is a woman and women who don't support other women have a special place in Hell reserved for them and Hillary Clinton is upholding her end of the bargain by helping other women. Presumably, Republican women are still women. And presumably, avoidance of Hell is a good reason to vote for someone. 

I think it would be fairly silly to suggest that Madeleine Albright's remarks, given at a Democratic Party event in support of a Democratic party candidate, were addressed to Republican voters.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

29 minutes ago, mormont said:

Nobody has advanced these positions. Just like nobody has said that, for example, female Republican voters should be voting for Hilary solely because she is a woman, nobody has said that electing Hilary would end sexism, or electing Obama would end racism.

Why put forward these straw men? Because, presumably, arguing against the facts is harder. Electing a woman or a black person to the Presidency does break down a barrier in the fight against sexism or racism, and that is just a fact. It doesn't solve everything, but you know what it does solve? It does solve the fact that there has never been a female or black President. And it contributes towards solving underrepresentation in other walks of life, because it further disproves notions like 'society is not ready for this'.

I think they would, but the trouble is, they'd then destroy many other gains by their policies, so the net effect would be negative. (And if one believes the same about Hilary, that's a valid reason not to vote for her.)

I'd say rather it's where I've expressed myself badly, because as Terra points out that's not what I meant. Apologies if it's misleading. But I meant that even the Jindal remark is in line with this, because it's not actually endorsing the idea that progressives should vote for Jindal, as you initially suggested.

I think my position is otherwise clear and has been stated many times, so apologies if this caused any confusion.

I'm going to agree with Notone and disagree with Terra here. (Mark your calendars. This is a rare day.) The Pope is absolutely entitled to make a public statement about the claims of any politician to exemplify the Christian faith. Particularly those, like Trump, who appear to embrace it purely as a flag of convenience.

 

Forgive me, but I am too lazy to disect the entire quote.

But it's a bit more than a straw man. A while ago, not sure whether it was last year, or this year, BUT Clinton pushed that button quite a bit. A reporter asked her, if a female President would break the glass ceiling. Clinton responded: "It would push the barrier up quite a bit." (you can construct the negative to that statement). To me that sounded a fair bit too much like self promotion. Mainly because she was and is the only viable female candidate in the running. Fiorina was still around then, but I said viable candidate. Objectively speaking she might even be correct (to some extent). But like I said, I think she is either overestimating the effect of a female president (or I am underestimating it), or she is simply using feminism as a flag like the Donald tries to use Christian faith. Don't get me wrong, there's some sexism thrown at her. Namely trying to pin Bill's philandering on her. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Just now, mormont said:

I think it would be fairly silly to suggest that Madeleine Albright's remarks, given at a Democratic Party event in support of a Democratic party candidate, were addressed to Republican voters.

I'm sure you understand the difference between "addressed to" and "applicable to." 

Madeleine Albright's remarks were "addressed to" a particular audience, but by the terms of the statement she made, her position on voting for Hillary is "applicable to" all women - at least, all women who don't want to go to (a special place in) hell.

Just like this comment is addressed to you, but the wider point about the distinction between addressed to and applicable to is applicable to not only the entire board, but everyone in the world. 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Well, that's not entirely true.

Madeleine Albright did clearly suggest that women who don't vote for Hillary have a special place in Hell reserved for them because Hillary is a woman and women who don't support other women have a special place in Hell reserved for them and Hillary Clinton is upholding her end of the bargain by helping other women. Presumably, Republican women are still women. And presumably, avoidance of Hell is a good reason to vote for someone.

So does this mean there's a special place in hell for Beyonce because she didn't support Baelor Swyft in her fued with Kanye Westeros?

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I'm sure you understand the difference between "addressed to" and "applicable to." 

I do, yes, and I think it's quite clear that it would be silly to suggest either is the case here.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Why Bernie Can Win

It’s almost surreal to go back and watch Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign announcement today.

Last April, with a handful of reporters gathered outside the US Capitol, Sanders strode casually across the grass and unfolded a crinkled sheet of notes. As he spoke — airing his now-familiar grievances with the ever-more-unequal American economy — photographers snapped perfunctory pictures while journalists fiddled with their smartphones. It was all over in about ten minutes.

If little pomp attended Sanders’s announcement, there appeared to be even less circumstance. An obscure Vermont socialist, polling 3 percent nationally, had joined the race against Hillary Clinton? This was practically the textbook definition of a protest candidate. “It’s more important to you to get these ideas out,” one reporter asked Sanders, “than to contest the Democratic nomination?”

...

In fact, Sanders’s ideas remain extremely popular with voters. As a result Clinton has been forced to rely more than ever on a dryly pragmatic case for her nomination: only she can defeat the Republicans in November.

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia is likely to heighten this discussion of “electability” in the weeks ahead. “If anyone needed a reminder of how important it is to elect a Democratic president,” Clinton argued last weekend, “look at the Supreme Court.”

Leftists sometimes compare this election-year pitch to a species of blackmail. Vote for us, Democrats tell voters, not because we’ll do anything positive for you, but because if you don’t, the other guys will break your legs and take away your abortion rights.

This may not be an inspiring argument. But like most forms of blackmail, it has undeniable force. And so far, many Democrats seem to agree that Clinton, not Sanders, is the best bet to win in November: in both Iowa and New Hampshire, she claimed over 75 percent of the voters who put a premium on “electability.”

But let’s consider the argument on its own terms. Why should we believe Clinton is more likely to defeat a Republican than Sanders?

...

Across the primary season, Sanders himself has rebuffed “electability” arguments by pointing to poll results. In hypothetical matchups against the three leading Republicans (Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio) he beats them all soundly, and polls better than Clinton in every case.

We may be skeptical about the predictive power of these findings, nine months before Election Day. But it’s wrong to call them “absolutely worthless,” as one political scientist told Vox last week.

In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.

Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.

 

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Why Bernie Can Win

 

Carter was beating Reagan by over 20 to 30 points this far ahead of time, Dukakis was beating Reagan by 10 to 15 points, and H.W. Bush was beating Clinton by 15 points and Perot was actually in second place.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Carter was beating Reagan by over 20 to 30 points this far ahead of time, Dukakis was beating Reagan by 10 to 15 points, and H.W. Bush was beating Clinton by 15 points and Perot was actually in second place.

"As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome."

 

There's also a lot more to the article than just that one argument. You should take the time to read it.

 

[Kalbear]

Though oddly why that's the case is pretty much dumb luck.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

Dukakis didn't run against Reagan, He ran against George H. W. Bush, FYI.

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm going to agree with Notone and disagree with Terra here. (Mark your calendars. This is a rare day.) The Pope is absolutely entitled to make a public statement about the claims of any politician to exemplify the Christian faith. Particularly those, like Trump, who appear to embrace it purely as a flag of convenience.

In 2004, when Kerry was running against the incumbent W. Bush, the bishop (or archbishop?) of his region made a point saying that politicians who support the right to choose on abortion are not true Catholics, and that the priests who lead the congregation to which such politicians belong should contemplate whether they ought to be denied communion.

Rightfully, imo, that caused a minor uproar amongst Kerry supporters because it was seen as using religion to pressure politics. 

The Pope declaring that building a wall to stop immigration as anathema to being a Christian differs only slightly from that example, and that difference is insufficient to warrant immunity from similar criticism imo.

And, to be fair, of course the Pope is entitled to make statements about what is and isn't "true" Christian, since last I checked, the RCC still declares that they are the one true Church for Christ and that all salvations must come through them. I don't expect the RCC to abandon that point of view any time in the next 2 millennia. I should have been more clear to say that the Pope is free to remind people that he presumes to know what is a true Christian and what isn't, just like any number of other spiritual leaders, from Pat Robertson to the local street preacher, do routinely. And just like in those cases, the rest of us are free to disregard these proclamation and make up our own minds on what defines a Christian. While the RCC does have a lot more followers than many other types of Christian faith, from the perspective of a non-believer, what the Pope says on the issue matters no more, and no less, than any other religious figures' similar statements.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

"As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome."

Five elections does not a valid sample make. Neither do the three I mentioned either of course.

We can't say for sure that February polling for the general election is "absolutely worthless" but we can certainly say that we have absolutely no idea what its value is.

ETA: You're right Scot. I could argue that H.W. Bush was basically running a third Reagan term so it counts, but that's just an error on my part. Typing too fast.