Jump to content

US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.


Lykos

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

On top of going after Bloomberg the way she did, another of Warren's choices in the debate which struck me as good judgement was defending Klobuchar over forgetting the Mexican presidents name. She did it quite carefully so it was just that part, saying that we all forget things we know when put on the spot. 

Ya!  I thought that was brilliant rhetorical skill -- just as her cross examination of Bloomie on the NDA, etc. was -- she is an effective and experienced prosecutor --  but her defense of Klobuchar came through as sincere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump may have a >50% chance of winning right now, but unless something fundamental changes, it is not going to be easy for him to get to 270.  At all.

I think Trump plus a good economy dog walks Sanders’ socialism and tax increases. Idk if Trump can win a plurality or majority of the vote, but 270 will be easier than we want to admit if Sanders is the nominee.

I think the only hope of stopping Sanders at this point is if Biden and Amy drop out and endorse Warren. Warren has struggled threading the needle between the moderates and the left, but last night showed she can destroy a bigoted billionaire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

As much as you all sorts want to think that Bloomie is your great short white savior, he's just the same problem in the end.  Billionaires is gonna billionaire.  Which makes very prosperous white sorts happy, coz they think they are safe coz, you know, Bloomie's not, like, well, actually crazy.  

It’s funny how you either completely don’t pay attention to what people say, or just invent things! I don’t think there is one person posting here who is a Bloomberg supporter.

I was hoping Bloomberg hadn’t done that badly because Trump pounces on any weakness he sees, and it’s in everyone’s best interests not to have Bloomberg’s anti-Trump ads lose credibility.

Btw, saying he has a complex set of financial statements to produce is a lot better than just pretending he’ll release them after his audit is over. If Trump gets audited you can be sure Bloomberg does too. I do expect to see his taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

I think Americans can distinguish between Democratic socialism and the old USSR image of communism.

Your lack of not having faith in the American public is disturbing.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think Trump plus a good economy dog walks Sanders’ socialism and tax increases. Idk if Trump can win a plurality or majority of the vote, but 270 will be easier than we want to admit if Sanders is the nominee.

We'll see how the economy is doing in a few months.  Growth seems to be slowing, should have a better idea by the end of the second quarter.  Regardless, the enthusiasm against Trump has already been demonstrated, thoroughly and across many reliable indicators.  I would definitely give him the advantage over Sanders, but it's still going to be a very close election.  I think you're exactly wrong in that the conventional wisdom assumes how easy Sanders will be able to beat, when in actuality Sanders is now being underestimated - he is still an incredibly experienced politician that can hedge to the middle during the general.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the only hope of stopping Sanders at this point is if Biden and Amy drop out and endorse Warren.

Even if that did happen, which it's not, and Buttigieg dropped out as well, I'd still bet Bernie's gonna get the nomination.  It's time to recognize his support is strong and intractable.

9 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I haven’t followed very closely but I’m surprised Warren has been polling so poorly.  Any ideas on why?

Because she's a woman and Bernie is too narcissistic to step aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I haven’t followed very closely but I’m surprised Warren has been polling so poorly.  Any ideas on why?

When she got on the medicare-for-allish train, she had some verbal gaffes and didn't have a clear plan (not that anyone else does either, but the media pounced on her about it).  That's when I recall her numbers dropping.   Also it seems like any woman who takes the lead and starts talking a lot generally loses points.  

In my (admitably male experience), its hard for women to take leadership roles without perception of them becoming negative in a way that doesn't happen to men.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was hoping Bloomberg hadn’t done that badly because Trump pounces on any weakness he sees, and it’s in everyone’s best interests not to have Bloomberg’s anti-Trump ads lose credibility

If that is what you were saying, or think you were saying, I apologize.  But you have consistently been sounding like a bloomie supporter ever since he declared, at least to my ears.  Maybe it's because you don't feel this personally, as you remind us all the time, since this isn't your election, that it comes across that way to, at least, me?

Warren isn't out yet.  She had a great fund-raising last night, really great.  Money makes all the difference.  Just ask Bloomie.

As for her polling, the media decided she was unelectable -- which happened at the same time Bloomie decided to be the short white savior for billionaires.  NO WEALTH TAX! COUNT ON BILLIONAIRE BUYING EVERY INSTITUTION  -- er -- PHILANTHROPY!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zorral said:

Warren isn't out yet.  She had a great fund-raising last night, really great.  Money makes all the difference.  Just ask Bloomie.

Of course a great fundraising night for Warren was $3 million.  Bloomberg has spent more than that in the past 4 hours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, argonak said:

When she got on the medicare-for-allish train, she had some verbal gaffes and didn't have a clear plan (not that anyone else does either, but the media pounced on her about it).  That's when I recall her numbers dropping.   Also it seems like any woman who takes the lead and starts talking a lot generally loses points.  

In my (admitably male experience), its hard for women to take leadership roles without perception of them becoming negative in a way that doesn't happen to men.  

I really think Tulsi Gabbard would be able to take a leadership role without perception of her becoming negative. Just something about her, she carries herself really well.

Maybe it's misogyny that's stopping Warren but there is something unique to her personality rather than gender that I think a lot of people find off-putting, she has this school teacher vibe to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Of course a great fundraising night for Warren was $3 million.  Bloomberg has spent more than that in the past 4 hours. 

Oooooo.  She's not privately wealthy. Ooooo.  Wonder how many would have donated to Bloomie, if he actually deigned to play the game instead of buying it. But that's not how he rolls.  He didn't for mayor either.  He just bought it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

We'll see how the economy is doing in a few months.  Growth seems to be slowing, should have a better idea by the end of the second quarter.  Regardless, the enthusiasm against Trump has already been demonstrated, thoroughly and across many reliable indicators.  I would definitely give him the advantage over Sanders, but it's still going to be a very close election.  I think you're exactly wrong in that the conventional wisdom assumes how easy Sanders will be able to beat, when in actuality Sanders is now being underestimated - he is still an incredibly experienced politician that can hedge to the middle during the general.

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.  

The enthusiasm against Trump may not matter. It’s shifted from 48% to 52ish%. Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

Quote

Even if that did happen, which it's not, and Buttigieg dropped out as well, I'd still bet Bernie's gonna get the nomination.  It's time to recognize his support is strong and intractable.

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Oooooo.  She's not privately wealthy. Ooooo.  Wonder how many would have donated to Bloomie, if he actually deigned to play the game instead of buying it. But that's not how he rolls.  He didn't for mayor either.  He just bought it all.

?  Are you agreeing with me?  I'm just pointing out the huge financial disparity between Bloomberg and everyone else.  When previously raising $3 million in a single night would be a great accomplishment, now it's just a drop in the bucket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.  

The enthusiasm against Trump may not matter. It’s shifted from 48% to 52ish%. Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

Was just discussing this with a friend. Economy-wise, we are doomed no matter who wins.  If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly (will probably bounce back, assuming underlying indicators remain ok-ish, but that's the issue).  If Trump wins, there might be short term market bump/sugar rush (though I doubt it), but he's spent us into such a freaking hole, and he has already used most of the available "goose the economy" tricks, such that no matter WHO wins we're having a downturn anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at an article on umm....Bloomberg (the news outlet, not the person) which noted that there was only a 25% chance of recession in 2020. Personally I would have placed it higher, but admittedly this is just a gut feeling based on the overheated stock market and the cyclicality of these recessions. I think the economy will be relatively strong but showing signs on sluggishness towards November. the question is how many voters it will peel off, if any, to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection. 

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think he does. If he wins reelection the next thing will be getting Don Jr. elected in 2024; gotta keep things going for that.

Yeah, unless the economy tanks worse than in 2008, the only question is whether it's Ivanka or Junior or (somehow) both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The economy is slowing in some regards, but Trump can easily fix that my dropping his trade wars. Everything Trump has been doing economically is to get him to a second term. He doesn’t care if collapses after his reelection.

Trump, just like any president, is going to have very minimal effect on the economy.  Aggregate economic indicators have very little to do with presidential behavior.  And my point is those indicators may be slowing to a dangerous level for an incumbent.

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Many experts think Trump can win the EO while losing by an even larger margin.

Please cite.  He's not winning with less than 47% of the popular vote (with the caveat there's not a strong 3rd party candidate, which almost certainly will not be the case).  Any expert saying otherwise should give back their degrees.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And no, Bernie is not going to tactic much to the center.

He definitely will rhetorically.  Not policywise, but he knows how to sound less like a screaming fringe guy and more like a great compromiser when need be.  This is clear if you actually observe his electoral career.

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What makes you say that? Bernie’s range seems to be 25-35% support, and with Bloomberg’s disaster performance, if everyone else dropped out I think Warren would take command of the race.

You're assuming Warren would get the lion's share of the support from those dropping out.  That's a very faulty assumption.  In fact at this point I'd say it's empirically wrong.  The "moderate" voters want to feel safe.  Warren introduces uncertainty.  Bernie they at least are comfortable with.

28 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

If Sanders is the nominee and wins, there will be a market collapse relatively quickly

This is an exaggeration among Wall Street types.  I admit that that means it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Bernie being elected president is not independently going to tank the economy.  By the time it happens, market analysts will have already adjusted to that probability.

12 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

there was only a 25% chance of recession in 2020.

There doesn't need to be a recession to screw Trump's reelection hopes.  Significantly slowed growth is sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

?  Are you agreeing with me?  I'm just pointing out the huge financial disparity between Bloomberg and everyone else.  When previously raising $3 million in a single night would be a great accomplishment, now it's just a drop in the bucket. 

Ah!  Well, then, I agree with you! :cheers: 

It really seems like sexism to me, this determination by the media and the pundits, that Warren just isn't good enough to run for election against kong-kong.  But she was enough to scare the bejeezus outta bloomie -- she surged, he declared.

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...