u.s. politics: sundowning on the american empire

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Haven't seen it, never got into WoT.

Consider yourself fortunate.  While I don't blame Zane per se, that was an atrocious production.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You're obviously forgetting his greatest work.  He'll forever be Lews Therin to me. 

Demon Knight would like a word!  

[Fez]

This has got to sting for some of the lower-tier 2020 candidates:

Stey-mentum!

[Toth]

Still, the "You remember Obama?" name recognition effect is crazy insane. My personal choice would be Warren, I wouldn't mind Sanders at all, but god damn it, Biden certainly isn't the guy I'd want.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

You're obviously forgetting his greatest work.  He'll forever be Lews Therin to me. 

Zane played Ishamael. Stop spreading fake news. 

[Jace, Extat]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

This has got to sting for some of the lower-tier 2020 candidates:

Stey-mentum!

All those ads man.

[Kalbear]

For better or worse, Biden is also one of the only candidates who is singlemindedly going against Trump. Every single message he has is about stopping Trump's excesses. For a whole lot of people not interested in all of these plans that can't go anywhere due to congress, that's probably a good message for them. 

[Bonnot OG]

Scumbag white supremacists still using the word invasion after a fucking mass murderer made it clear he was intent on killing Mexicans because he felt they’re invading the country.

 

All republicans hold the same views as the El Paso terrorist. They just don’t all act on their own and are fine with the state committing the violence, which is why they will totally be on board with actual death camps.

[Bonnot OG]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For better or worse, Biden is also one of the only candidates who is singlemindedly going against Trump. Every single message he has is about stopping Trump's excesses. For a whole lot of people not interested in all of these plans that can't go anywhere due to congress, that's probably a good message for them. 

He’s also a dipshit boomer that is an arrogant shitbag that has no place in the White House. He’s terrible. He’s slightly better than Trump in that he isn’t a homophobic or transphobic shit stick.

 

we totally need another groping racist white dude that thinks his shit doesn’t stink in the White House. Especially one that refuses to apologize for shit behavior, and thinks millennials should shut up when his generation ruined everything. Maybe he can go stick up for another rapist Supreme Court justice like he did with Thomas.

[Freshwater Spartan]

People like Biden. I don't get it. I'd prefer Warren , Harris or Buttigieg but it's true. People like Joe. If he's the one to beat Trump so be it. As far as all the eighties and nineties stuff, it was different political world back then. A lot of younger folks don't get that

[Larry of the Lawn]

People "like" Biden because they know who the fuck he is.  That's it.  

And wtf is this shit with Steyer?  This has to be a fluke.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

People "like" Biden because they know who the fuck he is.  That's it.  

And wtf is this shit with Steyer?  This has to be a fluke.

Name recognition. They recognize him from his impeachment ads.

[Freshwater Spartan]

I'll push back a little bit. I think it is deeper than name recognition. Most voters know as much about Biden as they do any other politician in the country. It may not be a knowledge of in depth policy nuances that Biden has but they know who he is, his personality and where he stands. People know him and for better or worse they like him.

Steyer  is probably the last candidate that has a chance to go from the bottom to having a large impact on the race . He has the funds and a least a little credibility from his pro impeachment commercials. Not my guy but it should be interesting to watch. At least he's not running as an independent.

[Larry of the Lawn]

32 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Name recognition. They recognize him from his impeachment ads.

Ah, I assume this is TV related?  

 

@DMC what's the industry accepted answer for this: how does technology, especially phone landlines and cable television, limit (or boost) access and exposure to political info for different generations?  I haven't had either of these for years and don't know anyone under the age of 40 who does.  

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Ah, I assume this is TV related?  

 

@DMC what's the industry accepted answer for this: how does technology, especially phone landlines and cable television, limit (or boost) access and exposure to political info for different generations?  I haven't had either of these for years and don't know anyone under the age of 40 who does.  

He had an impeachment drive via email. More recently he is advertising on Facebook.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

He had an impeachment drive via email. More recently he is advertising on Facebook.

I've seen the FB ads, but way less than I've seen from Gillibrand (maybe because I'm in NY?), Inslee, Castro, Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren.  Assuming this may be an algorithm issue?  Just seems weird that his FB ads are that powerful.  

I guess there's also the outsider factor, some people won't vote for any politician but are ok with picking a Perot, Trump, Yang, Steyer, etc.  Seems like every year my 'libertarian' or dropped out friends have a new candidate they're excited about, but they don't vote, with the exception being for Sanders in the primary in 2016.  Like, my brother and my ex gf had both never voted in their lives, both were super gung ho on Sanders, wicked pissed off he didn't get the nom, but both voted in their first presidential election ever in 2016 (one for Clinton one for Gary "what's uh-lepp-oh?" Johnson).  

Guess I'm wondering if there's a way to a) pinpoint how Steyer jumped up to 6 % when you have most of the field fumbling around for % or two.

[Freshwater Spartan]

I guess the 6% morning consult poll for early primary states where Steyer has spent a lot of money. It is not a national poll. In national polls he is at 1% or so.

[Fez]

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I've seen the FB ads, but way less than I've seen from Gillibrand (maybe because I'm in NY?), Inslee, Castro, Biden, Harris, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren.  Assuming this may be an algorithm issue?  Just seems weird that his FB ads are that powerful.  

I guess there's also the outsider factor, some people won't vote for any politician but are ok with picking a Perot, Trump, Yang, Steyer, etc.  Seems like every year my 'libertarian' or dropped out friends have a new candidate they're excited about, but they don't vote, with the exception being for Sanders in the primary in 2016.  Like, my brother and my ex gf had both never voted in their lives, both were super gung ho on Sanders, wicked pissed off he didn't get the nom, but both voted in their first presidential election ever in 2016 (one for Clinton one for Gary "what's uh-lepp-oh?" Johnson).  

Guess I'm wondering if there's a way to a) pinpoint how Steyer jumped up to 6 % when you have most of the field fumbling around for % or two.

Bear in mind, as the poll said, this was a poll just of the earliest voting states. It's easier for Steyer to pay for a concentrated dose of ads just targeting those states than trying to hit everywhere. For most candidates, their poll numbers in the early states are about the same as overall. Steyer isn't like that, he's a non-entity in the national polls, but is up to 6% in the early states. Presumably his plan to build momentum from those early states and use that to keep going throughout the rest of the voting; which is basically everyone's plan except for Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris. But he has enough money to really go all-in on the ads, unlike many of the other also-rans.

[davos]

1 hour ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

People like Biden. I don't get it. I'd prefer Warren , Harris or Buttigieg but it's true. People like Joe. If he's the one to beat Trump so be it. As far as all the eighties and nineties stuff, it was different political world back then. A lot of younger folks don't get that

Its a different political world now. and a lot of older folks don't get that.   

Seri ously, I like some things about Joe as a person.  He's dealt with a lot of shit in his life. and come through ok. He can be really funny and genuinely disarming.  And he knows how to cut deals, get things done.  but he has taken a lot of really problematic positions that were ok at the time but we know recognize as no ok. And he has to deal with that.  He has to come to terms that this is a different world and politics as they were done 30 years ago are neither acceptable nor are going to work now.    If he can't do so he shouldn't be the nominee.  

Joe had his moment if he had wanted it.  He could have had his party's nomination in 2016.  He would have won.  Denied the world the awfulness that has been the Trump administration.   I'm not sure he would have been a good president but wouldn't have been a dumpster fire either.  But that moments gone.  4 years down the road he's the good feelings towards him that rubbed off from Obama are not as strong.  3 years ago he would have essentially been able to make use of the Obama coalition and that, with Trump being a shitstorm of a human being, would have been enough.  That coalition doesn't exist anymore.    Without that he doesn't have the merits as a candidate to win on his own.  If Joe is nominated, we are going to get 4 more years of Trump.  We need a new way forward that confronts that reeking sewer that Trump has made of our politics and Joe doesn't have anything close to that on offer.  I get why he didn't run in 16.  He had just gone through a family tragedy and wasn't up to it.  It makes sense.   But history has passed him by.  He should have gone off into the twilight. Let history remember him as a very good VP.  But he's trying for more and that is going to hurt him and could easily hurt all of us if he gets the nomination.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

 

 

@DMC what's the industry accepted answer for this: how does technology, especially phone landlines and cable television, limit (or boost) access and exposure to political info for different generations?  I haven't had either of these for years and don't know anyone under the age of 40 who does.  

I haven't looked at the lit in a long time, so DMC can give you a more precise answer, but generally speaking, more access always boosts exposure in a vacuum. The more important thing to look at though IMO is trends on the number of sources people are exposing themselves to. Conservatives tend to expose themselves to fewer sources which in turn creates a strong group think dynamic. It's why, for example, we got that clip of the elderly lady who said she had never heard any negative news about Mueller towards Trump until she attended the town hall held by a Republican who quit his party.