US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[Guest]

On 1/31/2020 at 2:12 PM, Kalbear said:

AA people appear to largely disagree. 

 

I think it really depends on what demographic of African American voters disagree. Older African American voters, yes; younger ones, not so much.

[Zorral]

Well, Dems, let's make it even more confusing for everyone:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/john-kerry-overheard-talking-about-entering-the-2020-presidential-race/

 

Quote

According to NBC News, Kerry was overheard by a reporter in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, saying “maybe I’m f*cking deluding myself here” then explaining why he should run.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

It reflects the fact both Trump and Sanders have near universal name recognition, so the latter should be less subject to those type of manipulations thanks to his familiarity with the American public.  But to act like Sanders won't have to, among the Democratic field, uniquely confront the unpopularity of socialism across the general electorate due to his lifelong self-identification with the ideology is a particularly rich form of willful ignorance.

Not that I disagree with your analysis of the poll in question, but I have to think that at some point, Republicans will start reaping diminishing returns on the "socialist" label, considering they literally label every Democrat a "socialist".

Barack Hussein Obama was the scariest black, Kenyan, Muslim socialist who ever did socialize. And it doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination, they will be the new scariest socialist who ever did socialize. I think that Democrats are more scared of being called a socialist by a Republican than voters are scared of actual "socialists". Just own the shit already and move on. I mean, hell, Republicans were able to do that with racism, so I think the fucking idiots in the media and the fucking messaging idiots for the Democratic party need to stop being such fucking ninnies and quit letting Republicans define socialism.

[Ormond]

5 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Well, I'd have to say that people who write these questions have a reason for writing them the way they do, and that the results DO hold some form of validity. It's a poll. A poll CAN help us understand likely voter attitudes, and this poll DOES do that. 

Anyway, here's an article called Get a Grip, Bernie Bed-Wetters. Note: it's behind a paywall if you've used up all your Vanity Fair freebies for the month.

Oh gosh. What amazing faith you have in the "people who write the questions" for this particular poll. Especially since the other article DSM linked to points out that poll was taken by a "left-leaning organization" which "hasn't posted the survey or its methodology" but "released some of its data" to Matthew Yglesias. That's a set up for manipulation of the press.

I probably am not as much of an expert on survey research methods as DSM, but I am a psychology professor who for 40 years has been teaching the basics of research methods to introductory psychology students. And the two things one must always remember about surveys are that one must have a random representative sample of the population one is trying to predict, and one must be VERY careful about how one words questions. You can get big swings in the percentage of people who agree or disagree with something by very small changes in wording, and you sometimes even get differences if you ask exactly the same questions in a different order.

One of the examples commonly given about this in introductory psychology is that a substantially higher percentage of Americans agree that ads for tobacco products be "not allowed" than agree that they should be "censored." This makes no logical sense as "not allowing" something is actually stronger than "censoring", which does not have to mean complete suppression. But so many Americans have been trained to have a bad emotional reaction to the word "censorship" than you get that illogical result. 

Any way, I see no reason to particularly trust the research skills of the organization called "Data for Progress" without further information, especially since they chose that misleading wording for the particular question we are discussing. 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

One thing to keep an eye on tomorrow in Iowa is for the first time ever, the state party will release the results of the first vote - which will not reflect the final delegate tally - at all - in a caucus system but does reveal the more "democratic" winner for those that are opposed to the caucuses.  And rivals are already concerned that the Sanders camp is going to confuse the outcome by claiming victory solely based on the results from the first vote:

 

 

Fer fuck's sake, that is literally what any of the campaigns will do if they end up winning the first round of voting but lose the delegate count. Mark my words, if the scenario is reversed, and any other candidate wins the first round, but loses the delegate total, they're going to tout it as a moral victory, at the very least, to hype the campaign for the NH primary.

This is just bottom of the barrel shit now.

ETA: And uncritically reporting "what rivals are saying" is just some muckraking bullshit.

ETA 2: Aimed at Politico, not you.

[Guest]

On 2/1/2020 at 11:39 AM, Ran said:

Eh, the DNC did this after the Warren campaign pushed them to allow Bloomberg in because he was skating through to high poll results in later states without actually facing any scrutiny by being in a debate. 

 

I get this, but it's just a bad fucking look for the party, especially when it wouldn't budge after all the candidates asked for candidates of color who had missed in the polling requirements to be included.

Not to mention that it kind of makes all the remaining candidates look even worse, because I can't imagine that any of them would be pushing for, say, Yang to be included despite not meeting debate requirements if his polling were to suddenly take off. But an old, white, billionaire? Sure, let's change the rules.

Like I said, I get why. It's just that, while it may be tactically sound, it's also strategically stupid.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

19 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Oh gosh. What amazing faith you have in the "people who write the questions" for this particular poll. Especially since the other article DSM linked to points out that poll was taken by a "left-leaning organization" which "hasn't posted the survey or its methodology" but "released some of its data" to Matthew Yglesias. That's a set up for manipulation of the press.

I probably am not as much of an expert on survey research methods as DSM, but I am a psychology professor who for 40 years has been teaching the basics of research methods to introductory psychology students. And the two things one must always remember about surveys are that one must have a random representative sample of the population one is trying to predict, and one must be VERY careful about how one words questions. You can get big swings in the percentage of people who agree or disagree with something by very small changes in wording, and you sometimes even get differences if you ask exactly the same questions in a different order.

One of the examples commonly given about this in introductory psychology is that a substantially higher percentage of Americans agree that ads for tobacco products be "not allowed" than agree that they should be "censored." This makes no logical sense as "not allowing" something is actually stronger than "censoring", which does not have to mean complete suppression. But so many Americans have been trained to have a bad emotional reaction to the word "censorship" than you get that illogical result. 

Any way, I see no reason to particularly trust the research skills of the organization called "Data for Progress" without further information, especially since they chose that misleading wording for the particular question we are discussing. 

 

Same, my PhD is in research, so you're not clarifying anything for me. I've helped write and rewrite survey questions depending on populations we were interested in researching, and the basics of methodology are easily enough understood. I don't know who DSM is, and I didn't read any of his/her responses. I'm just pointing out to you a fairly simple point that your fear of socialism isn't grounded in anything but your gut instinct right now. Which fine, but it doesn't progress the conversation. Polls are hit or miss, but this whole "Sanders is a socialist and he'll get hammered by it" has very little relevant data to support it.

[Ran]

I think the Gallup polling on the socialism question is more reliable: here and  here,

[Week]

Bernie supporters - impervious to introspection or criticism. 

[GrimTuesday]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Bernie supporters - impervious to introspection or criticism. 

What are we supposed to be introspective about? Seems to me we are in a fight for the very future of our planet, and everyone else is offering half measures.

[Week]

51 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

What are we supposed to be introspective about? Seems to me we are in a fight for the very future of our planet, and everyone else is offering half measures.

It's pretty clear that we can tilt at windmills for the end all be all, encourage incremental change with the opportunity to accelerate after clear success and need, or put regressive troglodytes in charge. Enjoy all the feels from the first as we all go down in flames.

Eta- It's a ridiculous argument considering A) Republican Senate preventing any change and B ) the difference between Bernie and everyone else among the Ds might as well be non-existent compared to the "Right".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

What are we supposed to be introspective about? Seems to me we are in a fight for the very future of our planet, and everyone else is offering half measures.

So, since you don’t go in for “half-measures”, what is your plan if you lose?

[Freshwater Spartan]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Bernie supporters - impervious to introspection or criticism. 

This is absolutely the truth.

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Week said:

It's pretty clear that we can tilt at windmills for the end all be all, encourage incremental change with the opportunity to accelerate after clear success and need, or put regressive troglodytes in charge. Enjoy all the feels from the first as we all go down in flames.

Eta- It's a ridiculous argument considering A) Republican Senate preventing any change and the difference between Bernie and everyone else among the Ds might as well be non-existent compared to the "Right".

1) Seems to me like you're arbitrarily limiting the available options; and

2) If it doesn't matter anyway at the end of the day, why the need to take potshots at Bernie supporters, other than just a personal animus against him? Which I get, but at least just call it what it is.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

This is absolutely the truth.

 

It's complete horseshit, as even a cursory read of my posts about Sanders can attest.

[DireWolfSpirit]

So if Sanders takes Iowa and then N.H. 8 days later....who is Bernie tapping for the V.P. slot?

Because it seems pretty damn likely to me, that if Bernie wins Iowa, he will be in a incredibly strong position to sweep.

That would indeed flip the "fall in line" narrative to the moderates who will need to decide if they are going to support a real liberal or join the forces of fascism occupying our government currently.

[Freshwater Spartan]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It's complete horseshit, as even a cursory read of my posts about Sanders can attest.

Do you think it's possible that your angry response provides support to the hypothesis that Sanders voters are impervious to any criticism? 

Look I like Sanders but large swaths of his message is just not going to sell in places like my home state. I think he'd be a poor candidate for the general. 

[Freshwater Spartan]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So if Sanders takes Iowa and then N.H. 8 days later....who is Bernie tapping for the V.P. slot?

Because it seems pretty damn likely to me, that if Bernie wins Iowa, he will be in a incredibly strong position to sweep.

That would indeed flip the "fall in line" narrative to the moderates who will need to decide if they are going to support a real liberal or join the forces of fascism occupying our government currently.

No question. Bernie wins tomorrow he's in the driver seat for the nomination. Then it will be time to prep for a Trump reelection.  All Trump has gotta say is Crazy Bernie's a socialist. Socialism is evil. Over and over and he wins.

[DireWolfSpirit]

17 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

No question. Bernie wins tomorrow he's in the driver seat for the nomination. Then it will be time to prep for a Trump reelection.  All Trump has gotta say is Crazy Bernie's a socialist. Socialism is evil. Over and over and he wins.

I don't think a Trump victory over any nominee is a certainty. We don't know that, just as no one knew Trump would win in 16. 

[GrimTuesday]

42 minutes ago, Week said:

It's pretty clear that we can tilt at windmills for the end all be all, encourage incremental change with the opportunity to accelerate after clear success and need, or put regressive troglodytes in charge. Enjoy all the feels from the first as we all go down in flames.

Eta- It's a ridiculous argument considering A) Republican Senate preventing any change and the difference between Bernie and everyone else among the Ds might as well be non-existent compared to the "Right".

 What has incrementalism done for us? Passed a Republican healthcare plan? They have compromised away many of the hard fought victories that people, left wing people, fought and died for. Your incrementalism has been the true bane of progress because we were always going to have enemies in the right, they were always going to fight us, but it has been center left that has always stabbed us in the back. When someone tells you they think that we should just let people starve you don't counter with just letting some of them starve.

Sanders is actually our best hope of winning the senate, he has the most energy behind him in terms of passionate support and that will translate to better results in down ballot races.

 

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, since you don’t go in for “half-measures”, what is your plan if you lose?

Honestly I am not sure. The hope is that the movement that Bernie has built can be a countervailing force to the rising tide of fascism and autocracy we are seeing in America. And to say that I won't go in for half measures is not quite right. It's not like I (and the majority of Bernie's) aren't willing to vote for the lesser evil and I recognize that not every fight will result in a victory but you can't start from a compromised position. A lot of the plans that are being proposed by other candidates have already compromised so much that by the time the republicans are done with it, it will be toothless and possibly counterproductive. You just have to fight until you can fight no more.

27 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Do you think it's possible that your angry response provides support to the hypothesis that Sanders voters are impervious to any criticism? 

Look I like Sanders but large swaths of his message is just not going to sell in places like my home state. I think he'd be a poor candidate for the general. 

Sander's message is basically tailor made to win in places like Michigan, places that have been left behind.