Jump to content
Fragile Bird

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

And you sure do fight with everyone around here.

He started it and I'm cranky.  And no one says iterate.  Except maybe silly English professors.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DMC said:

He started it and I'm cranky.  And no one says iterate.  Except maybe silly English professors.

Maybe this will mollify you

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe this will mollify you

Uh...no.  I'm cranky about stupid people.  Wayyyyy past acceptance of Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lancerman said:

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.

No, there's no current data.  Because my argument you were responding to had nothing to do with current data.  Maybe, one day, a long long time from now, you'll get that.  But it doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon.  Maybe realize what you're responding to instead of making your own argument then calling it "deflecting" when people have no interest in you changing the goalposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well I also said I though Warren was a better candidate than Sanders but if she couldn't even be a credible threat for him then obviously I was wrong.

He had a ton of advantages on her in terms of starting momentum on a campaign (as Biden does too-  it does suck up a lot of air that they’re in this).  But I think she had begun to be a threat to Sanders this past fall.

When she started catching a bit of fire, a lot of the very pro-Sanders progressive sites really hammered home how Sanders is the one true path, and Warren is an unacceptable proxy.  I’m thinking of places like Jacobin and Chapo Trap, which I ended up deleting from my podcasts because of this.   The idea was typically that nothing short of razing the system of capitalism would do, and we need revolution which only Sanders provides.  Note though- I did stop listening and don’t read Jacobin and other explicitly leftist sites as regularly as other sources, so maybe my impression of how she was ultimately treated in comparison is skewed.  At any rate, it is especially galling to me to hear his surrogates now explain how his M4A plan is to be tempered into what these sites and his surrogates excoriated Warren for, and to hear his supporters even on here assure a bunch of us that Sanders is really an incrementalist and not really going to have a revolution and the like.  I think that pealed a number of progressives from Warren to Sanders this past fall.

I Also think M4A was a huge liability for her in ways that haven’t harmed Sanders yet, but I’m pretty sure they will.  She was seen as the more serious candidate rising when the M4A kerfuffle happened, so she received more scrutiny for it, from both sides.   And she also got more scrutiny because it’s been totally acceptable for Sanders to just have “moral positions” he doesn’t have to show the work for in general - acceptable from his supporters, as well as more mainstream sites that hadn’t taken him as seriously as Warren, and as such hadn’t imposed scrutiny.

I said much earlier that Sanders has been treated with kid gloves outside of some major whining from NeverTrumpists and moderates.   The other candidates haven’t been treated this way, except Biden a bit, who seems to be graded on a generous curve, which meant that for a long while kept being celebrated as “winning” debates and such for not having too many gaffes and embarrassing derailments.  Which leads to a point I wanted to address:

@Lollygag - I don’t think the issue is going to be real skeletons in the closet or surprising “gotcha” moments for Sanders.  I think the problem is that he is going to be that subject to real scrutiny very soon, which he’s mostly escaped.  I also think it doesn’t matter if he’s actually like Trump in the ways you’ve been pointing out or not— it’s how it’s going to look, and there’s a lot about Sanders that just won’t be a good look to the geographically advantaged (i.e. swing state suburban voters).   A lot of the people who turned the election for for dems in 2018 very well might look at him as a leftist Trump, decide they’re both the same, and think at least Trump won’t raise my taxes for welfare programs, etc.   I don’t know if the reality matters that much to these (possibly lower information) voters.   I mean, Benghazi and Butter Emails weren’t real either, but they managed to utterly destroy whatever enthusiasm existed for corrupt Hillary.   Who, I again point out, had even higher favorability ratings than Sanders does now during the fall of the primaries.

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter over an anti-Bernie 'liberal' any day. At least one has the courage of their convictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

So how do you see this happening?  Doug Jones is almost certainly going to be losing his seat in Alabama, so Democrats will need to win four seats to get the senate to 50-50.  The three senators that Democrats have a fair chance of knocking out are Susan Collins, Martha McSally, and Cory Gardner, but Dems are going to need one more to reach 50 and like I mentioned earlier if Bernie becomes president they are likely to lose his seat temporarily as well.

My guess: assuming you can knock off the trifecta of Collins, Gardner, and McSally (which would already say that Democrats are having themselves a good year, because while they're anywhere from favorites to having a fighting chance in those races, winning all three is already somewhat unlikely) other targets should be Joni Ernst in Iowa, (very unpopular Senator who is having an especially bad slide in popularity, even among Republicans) North Carolina, (Thom Tillis retiring will shake up some things, as will the presidential election and all the political shenanigans going on in the state) Kansas (mostly if Kobach becomes the nominee, as he just managed to fuck up an election in the state and get a Democrat elected governor due to his unpopularity outside of Republican circles) and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia. (Not especially popular appointed candidate and there were divisions in the Republican party about her appointment.)

It'll take a lot of luck for it to work out. Plus, you never know when Republicans are going to come up with candidates like Roy Moore, Christine O'Donnell, and Kris Kobach who manage to loss elections they should win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

No, there's no current data.  Because my argument you were responding to had nothing to do with current data.  Maybe, one day, a long long time from now, you'll get that.  But it doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon.  Maybe realize what you're responding to instead of making your own argument then calling it "deflecting" when people have no interest in you changing the goalposts.

That’s because your argument is just a non factual made up stance with no basis in reality. This discussion is a waste of time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×