Jump to content

US Politics: Don't Panic - Organize


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She wasn't saying they don't get it all the time - but when Republicans hold their nose and vote for the person who sucks but is big on repealing all the laws they want and putting judges in, they do okay.

Right, and I'm saying that's not how Democrats win the Oval.  They have fundamentally different paths, which entirely makes sense in terms of the respective coalitions they need to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Right, and I'm saying that's not how Democrats win the Oval.  They have fundamentally different paths, which entirely makes sense in terms of the respective coalitions they need to win.

Yeah, I largely agree, though I still hope otherwise. 

The main reason I think this is the case is that for a reasonably large minority of the US the government's actions are, largely, bad news for them. No matter who is in power. There is little difference between, say, Clinton and Bush as far as they are concerned, as far as their life is concerned. When Clinton and the dems vote in tough-on-crime and minimum sentences, there's not a lot of difference between him and, say, your average Republican. 

So they see this track record and it's pretty disappointing, but at least there's a shot sometimes. 

The stupid phrase 'Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line' still seems pretty apt. That said, I think there's a lot of people who like Biden quite a bit, and even more who don't or won't have much of a problem with him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The stupid phrase 'Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line' still seems pretty apt. That said, I think there's a lot of people who like Biden quite a bit, and even more who don't or won't have much of a problem with him.

Pretty much agreed entirely, I just want the Dems to maximize their chances to beat him -as we all do - and my gut says Biden minimizes those chances.  Think about it this way: if the swing voters that generally fall in line to vote GOP nominees in are satisfied with the status quo, what motivation do they have to vote for Biden over Trump?  There's no added value there, especially if the economy remains healthy (and if it doesn't Trump's fucked regardless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know.  Not aware of any research splitting it up like that - particularly in terms of only running for office.  Off the top of my head, I think female governors have been at least around as prevalent as female Senators or House members as a percentage for the past twenty years.  There are many dynamics that women candidates have to overcome generally, the first being that sociologically women tend to be election averse.  Moreover, my advisor(s) wrote the book on the backlash that happens when women start to gain significant influence in legislators.  But again, I can't think of anything where they directly compared legislators to executives, although it does sound familiar.  I'll try to remember to ask Kris.

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

There is, though I've not been able to find the article that precisely says it. 

Here's the best I could find on the fly. Long story short is that women are better represented in legislative bodies at every level as compared to holding the governor's office, however, women are best represented at non-gubernatorial state wide executive offices.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

That said, I think there's a lot of people who like Biden quite a bit, and even more who don't or won't have much of a problem with him. 

 

I won't vote for him. I voted for Hillary because of all the 3rd party=Trump vote arguments. PA went for Trump anyway. If my vote's a waste anyway, I'm voting the way I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

I won't vote for him. I voted for Hillary because of all the 3rd party=Trump vote arguments. PA went for Trump anyway. If my vote's a waste anyway, I'm voting the way I want.

PA went for Trump by, uh, 46000 votes total. Less than 1%. The notion that your vote would be wasted in Pennsylvania is some of the most amazing pouting I've ever seen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey look, photos from the intake of the concentration camps:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/border-patrol-mcallen-texas-pictures/index.html?sr=twCNN051419border-patrol-mcallen-texas-pictures0146PMStory

Remember: this is what republicans want, this is what they think is just. Remember: they want to do this to you.

 

Anyway, my bet is now civil war mid 2022 after the coup. Global warming and staggering incompetence and evil make it kind of sure, not to mention russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serious Callers Only said:

Hey look, photos from the intake of the concentration camps:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/border-patrol-mcallen-texas-pictures/index.html?sr=twCNN051419border-patrol-mcallen-texas-pictures0146PMStory

Remember: this is what republicans want, this is what they think is just. Remember: they want to do this to you.

 

Anyway, my bet is now civil war mid 2022 after the coup. Global warming and staggering incompetence and evil make it kind of sure, not to mention russia.

if we get a civil war does that mean we get to build pipelines from the midwest to california after the war so california can take their water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure. But honestly, it's quite probably the south will have either no water or far too much contaminated water (from floods, idiotic no-reg mining, fraking etc). There is going to be a migration of rubes from the inner places to cities there because it's getting unsustainable in more than one way, and from cities there to other states because of the christian talibans and global warming. Though it'll hardly matter once large costal cities are killing thousands every spring and summer (without counting the probable starvation and likely genocide/wars going on, and the fact the models are softballing things because politicans are bought pieces of shit) by rolling blackouts at 55 C and too much air-conditioning and atmospheric humidity (yes, heatwaves kill better on high humidity, which, you'll probably get near water)

Australia is fucked too, speaking of 'white bois' refugees that the nazi Republican party is likely to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Why?  Because they're both women?  I reject that premise. 

No, because Warren is the candidate most likely to be utterly destroyed by Trump. She has the best policy platform of any candidate, or any senator in office of the last 80 years, I think she's fantastic, but she underperforms standard replacement democrat margins in her own senate races in a dark blue state, nationally that means she is probably going to underperform in every purple state and in several light blue states--yielding Trump a victory margin similar to Obama 08.

a double woman ticket doesn't help things vs the christian taliban party and herr trump, but a veep selection should first do no harm, and making a double woman ticket may not meet that qualification given the opposition.

But I wouldn't necessarily think that Harris/Klobochar ticket was subject to same problem, because it doesn't have the downsides of Warren at the top of the ticket, and has an upside of a minority at the top of the ticket which probably increases minority turnout across the board, which may offset any losses to the christian taliban party from having a two woman ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Pretty much agreed entirely, I just want the Dems to maximize their chances to beat him -as we all do - and my gut says Biden minimizes those chances.  Think about it this way: if the swing voters that generally fall in line to vote GOP nominees in are satisfied with the status quo, what motivation do they have to vote for Biden over Trump?  There's no added value there, especially if the economy remains healthy (and if it doesn't Trump's fucked regardless).

They have none, and it's ridiculously stupid to try and go after 'swing' voters.  Non-voters are the key for democrats, and Biden doesn't get any non-voter to go out and vote.  It's still too early to tell who will be able to do that, but Biden definitely won't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

No, because Warren is the candidate most likely to be utterly destroyed by Trump. She has the best policy platform of any candidate, or any senator in office of the last 80 years, I think she's fantastic, but she underperforms standard replacement democrat margins in her own senate races in a dark blue state, nationally that means she is probably going to underperform in every purple state and in several light blue states--yielding Trump a victory margin similar to Obama 08.

Ah, yeah I agree with this aspect (and the rest of the quoted post) for the most part.  I don't think it'd be a big deal if she was on the bottom of the ticket though.

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Non-voters are the key for democrats, and Biden doesn't get any non-voter to go out and vote.  It's still too early to tell who will be able to do that, but Biden definitely won't

Yeah, so to review there are three ways to defeat Trump - based on the three reasons he beat Hillary by a smidgeon:  Obama-Trumps, lowered minority turnout, and increased 3rd party voting.  The latter two are much more reliable for an exciting Democratic candidate to recoup.  The first one I just don't trust.  Biden, as a candidate, is focusing solely on that uncertain first one and potentially throwing the last two out with the bathwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Serious Callers Only said:

 

Anyway, my bet is now civil war mid 2022 after the coup. Global warming and staggering incompetence and evil make it kind of sure, not to mention russia.

The idea that Americans would ever rouse for a civil war is farcical.

48 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

if we get a civil war does that mean we get to build pipelines from the midwest to california after the war so california can take their water?

Although, everyone loves a good farce so I'll indulge. It would make a certain amount of sense, for the survivability of the nation and indeed the species you understand, to reapportion unused irrigation equipment and resources from the subjugated extremist localities for use in the more... stable western regions of our new America.

Or if that doesn't work then I say simply woe to the vanquished.

27 minutes ago, aceluby said:

They have none, and it's ridiculously stupid to try and go after 'swing' voters.  Non-voters are the key for democrats, and Biden doesn't get any non-voter to go out and vote.  It's still too early to tell who will be able to do that, but Biden definitely won't

Silly, silly, gooses. Non-voters don't vote in primaries do they? Who votes in primaries gooses? Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

The idea that Americans would ever rouse for a civil war is farcical.

Although, everyone loves a good farce so I'll indulge. It would make a certain amount of sense, for the survivability of the nation and indeed the species you understand, to reapportion unused irrigation equipment and resources from the subjugated extremist localities for use in the more... stable western regions of our new America.

Or if that doesn't work then I say simply woe to the vanquished.

Silly, silly, gooses. Non-voters don't vote in primaries do they? Who votes in primaries gooses? Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

The Sierras provide a nice natural defense for California against massed ground assault from the christian taliban party. handful of east west motor routes to defend which utilize almost all the natural passageways, and then air raid protocols would be needed. Indicates the major battles would be on christian taliban territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Is it the people most likely to recognize and support Joe Biden like they did HRC?

Not really, actually.  Think about it.  The primary electorate is going to be inherently more politically active than the general electorate, on both sides.  More politically active individuals tend to be more partisan, not less.  Biden is trying to appeal to the precise opposite demographic - the "Average Joes," that demonstrably have less of a tendency to participate in primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

The Sierras provide a nice natural defense for California against massed ground assault from the christian taliban party. handful of east west motor routes to defend which utilize almost all the natural passageways, and then air raid protocols would be needed. Indicates the major battles would be on christian taliban territory.

They are already in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not really, actually.  Think about it.  The primary electorate is going to be inherently more politically active than the general electorate, on both sides.  More politically active individuals tend to be more partisan, not less.  Biden is trying to appeal to the precise opposite demographic - the "Average Joes," that demonstrably have less of a tendency to participate in primaries.

Do you remember that not all "politically active" persons are as informed as yourself and the majority of the individuals who participate here? There's a reason Joey B is polling a single Sanders stroke away from a majority. Compare really quickly the monthly pages views of any major politics publication to the viewership numbers of Fox, CNN, or MSNBC then spend five minutes pondering the difference in content quality.

It is a mistake to assume everyone thinks like you or the people you value.

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

They are already in California.

Not after I make the rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Do you remember that not all "politically active" persons are as informed as yourself and the majority of the individuals who participate here?

Yes.  That's my point.  Putting endogeneity aside, the less informed tend to be the less politically active tend to be the less partisan and, therefore, tend to be more "moderate" and less likely to vote in primaries.

24 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Compare really quickly the monthly pages views of any major politics publication to the viewership numbers of Fox, CNN, or MSNBC then spend five minutes pondering the difference in content quality.

I don't know why I'm supposed to care about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

PA went for Trump by, uh, 46000 votes total. Less than 1%.

And one vote out of 46000 is less than .01%. For this I'd be obliged to go for the old white dude? Come on.

Quote

The notion that your vote would be wasted in Pennsylvania is some of the most amazing pouting I've ever seen. 

It was wasted. Could've skipped voting. Could've voted third party. Could've voted Mickey Mouse. Same result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...