Jump to content

US Politics: Money, Money, Money Makes the World Go Round


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Are we now in the absurd situation where establishment Dems are now, by sewing chaos about Sanders, themselves the Russian assets however unintentionally?  

They've effectively been Russian assets since they used the FBI and FISA court to wiretap Trump's transition team in a fake hunt for fake Russians.  And then blaming HRC's obvious flaws as a candidate on a couple $100k of Facebook ad buys (that weren't all pro Trump to begin with) and then claiming Trump is some sort of Russian asset.  Sewing chaos in the US is Putin's assymetric MO.  

Considering the extent that the Russian oligarchy is funded by petroleum extraction, if you're anti-fracking without being rabidly pro-nuclear, you're objectively pro-Putin.  That the US is now a net exporter of fossil fuels alone makes the claims that Trump is a Russian stooge laughable. 

But i must confess to no small amount of shameful joy watching the media and DNC establishment now peddle fake news now about Sanders.  And when considering the Venn diagram for people who are credulous on both fronts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

[snip]

1.  This ideological point is irrelevant.  Nobody wanted to take Clinton on in the primary in 2016 - including Biden, who usually would be a shoe-in as a popular president's VP (in the primary, that is).  That's why the field was cleared other than Bernie, and why he did so well against her - he was free to make it a one-on-one matchup.  Him "offering" to step aside is the electoral equivalent of Doug Jones offering to step aside so another Democrat can take a crack at winning a Senate seat in Alabama.  Wow, how magnanimous.  Or, to any politician worth her salt, wow what a blatantly empty gesture.

2.  Oh, I do always enjoy when random internet posters with manifestly minimal training or experience in American politics lecture me on what I don't understand!  So, do I understand that most Sanders supporters tend not to have Warren as their second choice?  Well, according to the latest Morning Consult update, 29% of Bernie voters have Warren as their second choice, and 24% have Biden.  So, no, I guess I don't "understand" that.  As for Warren supporters, 38% have Bernie as their second choice while only 14% have Biden.  So, nope, guess I don't "understand" that most Warren voters tend to say their next choice is Biden either.

Anyway, all of this is again irrelevant - including the Buttigieg thing and her being attacked by "moderates."  My point, for the third and last time, is that if Bernie stepped aside many months ago, and put his full-fledged support behind Warren, the entire primary process would be structurally different.  And just based on her brief surge from September to November - in spite of the fact Bernie was still there hogging the progressive wing and his supporters/surrogates were attacking her - it's a pretty damn solid assumption that she'd still be in heavy competition right now.  Who's gonna take her out?  Biden, Bloomberg, or Buttigieg?  Please.  Honestly, the real complication you gotta think about with that counter-factual is which candidates that have already dropped out would still be in and gaining headway.

3.  Hoh-kay, l'm sure Bernie's age - and heart attack - won't be brought up at all by the right during the general election.  Ya got me, I'm just being silly.  And just because you say a "fresh face" wouldn't mean much against the likes of Donald Trump doesn't make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

1.  This ideological point is irrelevant.  Nobody wanted to take Clinton on in the primary in 2016 - including Biden, who usually would be a shoe-in as a popular president's VP (in the primary, that is).  That's why the field was cleared other than Bernie, and why he did so well against her - he was free to make it a one-on-one matchup.  Him "offering" to step aside is the electoral equivalent of Doug Jones offering to step aside so another Democrat can take a crack at winning a Senate seat in Alabama.  Wow, how magnanimous.  Or, to any politician worth her salt, wow what a blatantly empty gesture.

2.  Oh, I do always enjoy when random internet posters with manifestly minimal training or experience in American politics lecture me on what I don't understand!  So, do I understand that most Sanders supporters tend not to have Warren as their second choice?  Well, according to the latest Morning Consult update, 29% of Bernie voters have Warren as their second choice, and 24% have Biden.  So, no, I guess I don't "understand" that.  As for Warren supporters, 38% have Bernie as their second choice while only 14% have Biden.  So, nope, guess I don't "understand" that most Warren voters tend to say their next choice is Biden either.

Anyway, all of this is again irrelevant - including the Buttigieg thing and her being attacked by "moderates."  My point, for the third and last time, is that if Bernie stepped aside many months ago, and put his full-fledged support behind Warren, the entire primary process would be structurally different.  And just based on her brief surge from September to November - in spite of the fact Bernie was still there hogging the progressive wing and his supporters/surrogates were attacking her - it's a pretty damn solid assumption that she'd still be in heavy competition right now.  Who's gonna take her out?  Biden, Bloomberg, or Buttigieg?  Please.  Honestly, the real complication you gotta think about with that counter-factual is which candidates that have already dropped out would still be in and gaining headway.

3.  Hoh-kay, l'm sure Bernie's age - and heart attack - won't be brought up at all by the right during the general election.  Ya got me, I'm just being silly.  And just because you say a "fresh face" wouldn't mean much against the likes of Donald Trump doesn't make it so.

1. Biden didn’t run because his son died. But that requires remembering the timeline.
 

2. okay then you understand that if 29% of Bernie supporters go to Warren and 24% go to Biden, then Biden who already had a double digit lead on Warren most of the race would have been pushed into the high 30’s to mid 40’s most of the race and would have been completely insurmountable? I guess you don’t understand that..

Also considering that I’m pretty sure between the two of us I’m the only one has experience actually working on campaigns (of one of the people involved at that) and I would bet between the two of us I’m the only one with any actual credentials studying elections, I wouldn’t go around trying to dismiss people as “random internet posters”. 

But if you want to me smug we definitely can get the measuring tape out on credentials. I can pretty much promise you that you’ll be the under qualified one though. 
 

But regardless, even during her surge she was in second. Without Bernie, it’s just getting Biden closer to a 50% mark where he’s going to take sizeable amounts of delegates in each race and be virtually unbeatable. Not that it’s easy to predict regardless. But by every indication she’d at best be a distant second even if she would be solidly in second. Then if you get into who drops out it’s people like Buttigieg and Klobuchar who are harboring the most support after that. 
 

Really the biggest effect it may have had is Bloomberg entering the race. It might not have been worth it with Biden so high up there 
 

3. Yeah Bernie’s heart attack will be brought up. But age wise no, someone who is 70 (71 around the time the primary ends) going after a 78 year old on age isn’t going to mean much. Especially when they will be facing an overweight 74 year old in the election. Honestly we already know where all the polls say voters are at. It’s just not that much kg a factor. If it was Beto would still be in this and Buttigieg wouldn't be 5th nationally. 
 

Also the inverse is true as well. Just because you say a fresh face matters, doesn’t make it so. 

4. Glad you gave up on this point. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Also considering that I’m pretty sure between the two of us I’m the only one has experience actually working on campaigns (of one of the people involved at that) and I would bet between the two of us I’m the only one with any actual credentials studying elections, I wouldn’t go around trying to dismiss people as “random internet posters”. 

I got two MAs and a forthcoming PhD come May in American politics at a top 30 university.  I've worked on campaigns at each level one way or another for every cycle since 2004.  I've participated consistently in at minimum about a half a dozen interest groups/causes that are important to me for the last 15 years.  And I've taught/prepped multiple courses in American politics at the undergraduate level over the past decade.  What do you got?  The fact that you do purport to have experience - especially "studying elections" - is incredibly concerning to me.

On that note, I just finished writing a week's worth of lectures and a midterm a couple hours ago, I'm really done with your bullshit reiterating your points while ignoring why I repeatedly tell you they're irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I got two MAs and a forthcoming PhD come May in American politics at a top 30 university.  I've worked on campaigns at each level one way or another for every cycle since 2004.  I've participated consistently in at minimum about a half a dozen interest groups/causes that are important to me for the last 15 years.  And I've taught/prepped multiple courses in American politics at the undergraduate level over the past decade.  What do you got?  The fact that you do purport to have experience - especially "studying elections" - is incredibly concerning to me.

On that note, I just finished writing a week's worth of lectures and a midterm a couple hours ago, I'm really done with your bullshit reiterating your points while ignoring why I repeatedly tell you they're irrelevant.

It's iterate, professor. And you sure do fight with everyone around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Triskele said:

A few weeks ago there was a podcast episode saying how Bernie was really catching on with younger Latinos.  Seems like that did indeed happen in Nevada.  I'd be curious as things progress what the data are looking like on to what extent Sanders would look good as a general election candidate if there's a solid boost there compared to say Hillary 2016.  

I'm always shocked every time I am reminded that Trump took 28 percent of Latino votes and polls show that number has grown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I'm always shocked every time I am reminded that Trump took 28 percent of Latino votes and polls show that number has grown.

It is a lot less shocking when you remember how many latino voters are catholic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is a lot less shocking when you remember how many latino voters are catholic. 

And socially conservative, and not(as much Democrats keep trying pretending it to be so), do not unanimously agree with a liberal immigration policy. 

The sooner more Democrats and Liberals understand no demographic is required to vote for them, and may have different needs/grievances than they've conceptualized the better off they’ll be

Just because they look like many of the illegal immigrants coming over, doesn't mean they have to have much sympathy for them. Or really poor immigrants in general. Anymore than Irish-Americans, or Italian-Americans. They got theirs already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been cracking up every single time I’ve read someone saying ‘we need another 2008 to defeat Trump’, ‘we need the economy to crash’.

Holy shit guys, if the economy tanks Trump will say Look! Look! Just the idea of Sanders winning the nomination has made the US economy tank! I brought you the best economy in the history of the USA and only by re-electing me will the economy be saved!

And guess what? You may see some action as early as Monday morning! I said watch out if Sanders wins Iowa, but first of all, they screwed up the data and secondly Sanders didn’t win Iowa. Everyone knew Sanders would win New Hampshire, so it got discounted, and he didn’t even win big. But winning Nevada has changed things. The Dow futures are predicting about a 550 point drop. The markets dropped all last week, nervous about corporate profits being affected by Covid-19, but the president of China has really stepped in it now by admitting they didn’t have a proper handle on things from the beginning.

There has been a 10 year stock boom and it may be time for the big correction. 
And only Donald Trump will be able to save you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

A few weeks ago there was a podcast episode saying how Bernie was really catching on with younger Latinos.  Seems like that did indeed happen in Nevada.  I'd be curious as things progress what the data are looking like on to what extent Sanders would look good as a general election candidate if there's a solid boost there compared to say Hillary 2016.  

Here's some background on how they campaigned for the Latino vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’ve been cracking up every single time I’ve read someone saying ‘we need another 2008 to defeat Trump’, ‘we need the economy to crash’.

Holy shit guys, if the economy tanks Trump will say Look! Look! Just the idea of Sanders winning the nomination has made the US economy tank! I brought you the best economy in the history of the USA and only by re-electing me will the economy be saved!

And guess what? You may see some action as early as Monday morning! I said watch out if Sanders wins Iowa, but first of all, they screwed up the data and secondly Sanders didn’t win Iowa. Everyone knew Sanders would win New Hampshire, so it got discounted, and he didn’t even win big. But winning Nevada has changed things. The Dow futures are predicting about a 550 point drop. The markets dropped all last week, nervous about corporate profits being affected by Covid-19, but the president of China has really stepped in it now by admitting they didn’t have a proper handle on things from the beginning.

There has been a 10 year stock boom and it may be time for the big correction. 
And only Donald Trump will be able to save you!

To piggy back off what others have repeatedly said, Wall Street isn't the economy.  Come out to redneck ville and tell me and my neighbors (mostly Republican and Republican leaning independents) that the economy is doing great event though they are still making the same as they did 5 years ago working two jobs 45+ hours a week.  Even without the stock market taking a hit Trump is vulnerable here.  While he has a very loyal base he also had a lot of people vote for him to say 'fuck the system' and they haven't seen the pay-off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Then give me an actual topic to discuss instead of re-hashing tired anti-Sanders tropes.

When discussing political issues and politicians, you need to go beyond name-calling something as a "trope" which is just a cop out to avoid the obvious. And why does it look like this isn't old at all?

Here's 60 Minutes from last night where Sanders doubled-down on Castro which ticked off Democrats and Republicans alike. There's more links within the links. Note that by the reactions this was new to a lot of people at least in the mainstream. If Trump was praising North Korea's programs or whatnot, it'd be perceived as propping up a dictator. Rightly so.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/say-goodbye-to-florida-bernie-sanders-torched-for-equivocation-over-fidel-castros-cuba-its-unfair-to-say-everything-is-bad/

Here's Bernie praising Fidel's Communist Revolution. Since it's from "Reagan Battalion", it's not unlikely at all that the Republicans already have this one geared up and ready to drop the moment Bernie wins the nom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

To piggy back off what others have repeatedly said, Wall Street isn't the economy.  Come out to redneck ville and tell me and my neighbors (mostly Republican and Republican leaning independents) that the economy is doing great event though they are still making the same as they did 5 years ago working two jobs 45+ hours a week.  Even without the stock market taking a hit Trump is vulnerable here.  While he has a very loyal base he also had a lot of people vote for him to say 'fuck the system' and they haven't seen the pay-off.

 

My point remains the same - if things start to tank, it will be because of fear of the socialist terror to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I got two MAs and a forthcoming PhD come May in American politics at a top 30 university.  I've worked on campaigns at each level one way or another for every cycle since 2004.  I've participated consistently in at minimum about a half a dozen interest groups/causes that are important to me for the last 15 years.  And I've taught/prepped multiple courses in American politics at the undergraduate level over the past decade.  What do you got?  The fact that you do purport to have experience - especially "studying elections" - is incredibly concerning to me.

On that note, I just finished writing a week's worth of lectures and a midterm a couple hours ago, I'm really done with your bullshit reiterating your points while ignoring why I repeatedly tell you they're irrelevant.

Then you should know that elections and support aren't inherently run on an ideological basis and it's one of the primary flaws the general public and media have when it comes to their analysis of such matters. Warren right now has much more support amongst the same people that supported Clinton in 2016 than she does with Bernie. She plays well with Bernie, but she isn't driving that vote out. Nor is she playing as well with key parts of his coalition like Hispanics and the working class. The idea that they are all just going to fall to her with him out historically isn't how these things work. 

You also have to answer for if age is a factor why the last election came down  two people who were on the cusp of 70 and why in this primary has the only 4 candidates polling above 10 percent nationally Sanders (78), Biden (77), Bloomberg (78), Warren (70). And the youngest of that quarted is the one who is polling the worst. So is it a factor? Possibly. It's however definitley not an overriding factor. In fact aside from Buttigieg who is in 5th and under 10% nationally, most of the younger canidates were among the first to struggle and drop out. O'Rourke, Harris, Booker. Buttigieg is the only candidate still with reasonable polling (and that's with the understanding that he would be a massive underdog)

I have an BA in Political Science and an MA in American Politics and Public Policy. I worked on Warren's Senate campaign, I worked on several other Senatorial and local rep campaigns as well in my homestate. Probably would have been on her current campaign if work didn't get in the way this cycle. So I'll grant you that your forthcoming PhD gives you the schooling edge but I have pratical experience both in elections and with the subject in question. 

However, the fact that you are making so many amatuerish assumptions about the election that don't even hold up to the known make up of each coalition is pretty concerning in it's own right when you claim to have been educated that extensively. Not that it's an exact science. However, there is virtually no evidence that the absence of Sanders would transfer enough of his coalition to help Warren win. 

In fact we already established that Biden with his lead would still get a sizeable portion of Sanders supporters. We already have data that backs up the minority and working class segments of Sanders coalition are less likely to back Warren compared to any other candidate. 

At the end of the day your argument is a paper thin assumption that two progressives overlap in support and that one not being there would create a single bloc around the remaining party. Beyond that, Warren has shown no capability to be able to gain the support and momentum that Sanders has regardless. The mobilization, the donations, etc. Who is on the ticket actually matters and there's people that are supporting Sanders that are only going to come out and campaign this heavily for him. 

It's the same silly argument that people make on the opposite side that if all the moderates drop out except one, that it passes Sanders. That's not how elections function. It was wrong when people said it with Trump in 2016, it's wrong now, and we can break down the data to prove it.

At best your argument is a vague assumption that seems to have very little but surface level thought behind it and the fact that you are resorting to being quite frankly abrasive in nearly all your posts and trying to find little outs (like whining about losing your patience) is pretty revealing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Then you should know that elections and support aren't inherently run on an ideological basis and it's one of the primary flaws the general public and media have when it comes to their analysis of such matters. Warren right now has much more support amongst the same people that supported Clinton in 2016 than she does with Bernie. She plays well with Bernie, but she isn't driving that vote out. Nor is she playing as well with key parts of his coalition like Hispanics and the working class. The idea that they are all just going to fall to her with him out historically isn't how these things work. 

You are consistently ignoring my original point, which has literally nothing to do with how much support Warren is generating "right now," nor how she's currently "playing" among latinos nor Bernie supporters.  I have made that clear from the beginning.  In fact, it was the point I was making that you originally responded to.  I'm not going to accept you changing my point to something it has nothing to do with, no matter how hard you may try.  And it has nothing to do with "wrong analysis" other than you cannot grasp the premise of my argument after me explicitly telling you it's fundamentally different from what you are talking about four different times.  The rest is just window dressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

You are consistently ignoring my original point, which has literally nothing to do with how much support Warren is generating "right now," nor how she's currently "playing" among latinos nor Bernie supporters.  I have made that clear from the beginning.  In fact, it was the point I was making that you originally responded to.  I'm not going to accept you changing my point to something it has nothing to do with, no matter how hard you may try.  And it has nothing to do with "wrong analysis" other than you cannot grasp the premise of my argument after me explicitly telling you it's fundamentally different from what you are talking about four different times.  The rest is just window dressing.

I’ve responded to your. There’s no current data that suggests that it made any sense for Bernie to bow out for Warren. You certainly have yet to provide any. The few points you made to try to support it, I’ve addressed and you shifted to calling them irrelevant. 
 

This is the second time that you decided to only quote part of my post. This also isn’t the first time your discussion devolved into deflection. 
 

Your primary argument was nothing more than a superficial assumption that you have consistently failed to back up with any data or intelligence. You can keep trying to argue you like you have some authority on it, but it’s really not working for you. It’s tired 

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...