Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fragile Bird

US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Again, the problem isn't Bernie here.
And funnily enough this is why I was rooting for Warren. I've darkly suspected, for some time now, that most American "liberals" are scared of the left.
 

Liberalism exists on a spectrum, and what a lot of us worry about is reaching for things that have no chance of passing. It only sets the movement back. Virtue signaling is all well and good, but it’s pointless if you can’t gain power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant, and I don't think it's already been linked. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data

Pollsters at UC-Berkely and Yale teamed up to run a 40,000-person survey on Sanders' electability.

Quote

 

We found that nominating Sanders would drive many Americans who would otherwise vote for a moderate Democrat to vote for Trump, especially otherwise Trump-skeptical Republicans.

Republicans are more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated: Approximately 2 percent of Republicans choose Trump over Sanders, but desert Trump when we pit him against a more moderate Democrat like Buttigieg, Biden, or Bloomberg.

Democrats and independents are also slightly more likely to say they would vote for Trump if Sanders is nominated. Swing voters may be rare — but their choices between candidates often determine elections, and many appear to favor Trump over Sanders but not over other Democrats.

-break-

The case that Bernie Sanders is just as electable as the more moderate candidates thus appears to rest on a leap of faith: that youth voter turnout would surge in the general election by double digits if and only if Bernie Sanders is nominated, compensating for the voters his nomination pushes to Trump among the rest of the electorate.

There are reasons to doubt a Sanders-driven youth turnout surge of this tremendous size would materialize. First, people who promise in surveys they will vote often don’t, meaning the turnout estimates that Sanders’s electability case rests upon are probably extremely inaccurate. Second, such a turnout surge is large in comparison to other effects on turnout. For example, Sanders would need to stimulate a youth turnout boost much larger than the turnout boost President Obama’s presence on the ballot stimulated among black voters in 2008.

 

There's a lot of other data as well; but this is why the establishment is freaking out about Sanders.

ETA: Important to note that Sanders does worse than any other candidate against Trump among all groups, including whites-without-a-college. The only place Sanders does better is among youth, and he needs an unprecedented and massive spike in their turnout to overcome his losses elsewhere.

Edited by Fez

Share this post


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

Relevant, and I don't think it's already been linked. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data

Pollsters at UC-Berkely and Yale teamed up to run a 40,000-person survey on Sanders' electability.

There's a lot of other data as well; but this is why the establishment is freaking out about Sanders.

The establishment is out to get him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Democrats still have a +6 lead over the generic Republican and an incumbency advantage. We'll just have to wait and see.

Sure, but that can change quickly once people realize that Sanders wants to knock the apple cart over in relatively good times. How do you stand with that in a middle class, purple district?

Again, the larger point is this is the last election to try and get cute with. It will set the tone for the entire decade, and a Republican rout could spell disaster on so many fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The thing is, he's not. This isn't "whataboutism": Bernie is -essentially at least- correct on Cuba while Obama was totally wrong on Chile for instance. I'm not just pointing out a double standard, I'm also pointing out that slamming Bernie on Cuba is a form of perverse misinformation.

That's totally not the thing.

People need to understand what the purpose of opposition research actually is. It's not about proving anything. It's about controlling the conversation.

There's a maxim in politics - Reagan coined it, I think, he certainly used it - 'if you're explaining, you're losing'. And it's true. 

If Sanders - or any other Dem candidate - has to spend the election explaining why it's OK to defend Cuba, or whatever other stuff is being flung at him, he's vulnerable. He's vulnerable in part because some people simply won't accept or believe his explanation. He's vulnerable also because if he says it was a misjudgment, that undermines any claim to have good judgment now. But mostly he's vulnerable because he will be talking about past Sanders and not present Sanders, or present Trump. At best, he's going to be wasting precious time that he could be using more productively: but he's also going to be allowing the Republicans to dictate what the election is about. Republicans excel at that. They make the Democrats fight on their ground. And if you're explaining why Sanders was right, you're not defeating that objective. You're assisting in it.

One of Trump's advantages is that by nature, he doesn't explain himself. He has a massive ego and no conscience, so whatever the charge is, he either ignores it or tells some ridiculous lie, and either way he moves right on. Since there are usually more controversies arising all the time, it's hard to make him explain - but even where the media or opponents can focus on that, he doesn't explain anyway. He just repeats the lie and counterattacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yeah, even if he said some 'weird' stuff back in the 70s and 80s, we have to consider someone who won after the Access Hollywood tape came out. There are easy ways to counter much of this, but of course the Democrats like playing defense and respond rather than attack, attack, attack.

The 'Bernie Bros' do have what could be called a rapid response team or something similar, so I usually see a ready reply fairly soon for most of these kinds of nuggets.

The problem is that it is asymmetrical, and that the US in a standard state leans conservative. As we saw in 2016 republicans fall in line. Using attacks on trump doesnt help if the problem is people wanting to have someone better than trump. Because if the choice is basically the same, theyll pick the devil they know (or choose not to pick anyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Liberalism exists on a spectrum, and what a lot of us worry about is reaching for things that have no chance of passing. It only sets the movement back. Virtue signaling is all well and good, but it’s pointless if you can’t gain power.

And that's fair. But Bernie was talking about many issues long before it was virtue signaling. He can't renounce what he's been fighting for his entire adult life, or even change the tone of his message - that'd be even worse, even if he was willing and able to do it.

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

If Sanders - or any other Dem candidate - has to spend the election explaining why it's OK to defend Cuba, or whatever other stuff is being flung at him, he's vulnerable. He's vulnerable in part because some people simply won't accept or believe his explanation. He's vulnerable also because if he says it was a misjudgment, that undermines any claim to have good judgment now. But mostly he's vulnerable because he will be talking about past Sanders and not present Sanders, or present Trump. At best, he's going to be wasting precious time that he could be using more productively: but he's also going to be allowing the Republicans to dictate what the election is about. Republicans excel at that. They make the Democrats fight on their ground. And if you're explaining why Sanders was right, you're not defeating that objective. You're assisting in it.

One of Trump's advantages is that by nature, he doesn't explain himself. He has a massive ego and no conscience, so whatever the charge is, he either ignores it or tells some ridiculous lie, and either way he moves right on.

Again, fair. But if Sanders imitates Trump and doesn't explain some of his positions (past or present), or doesn't give a wealth of details about his proposals and how he means to finance his programs, he gets accused of being a populist like Trump, a "con-artist" or worse.

Either way he loses. And the point I'm trying to make is that he loses despite being essentially correct on almost everything, because the conversation in the US is already so far skewed to the right that no actual leftist can hope to win in this environment. It's just too late - or too early. Even if he was 40 and had better messaging there are things that are almost impossible to defend in the US. And that's depressing. It's even more depressing to see this at work here, in February, on a board that resident conservatives regularly claim to be far skewed to the left. And it really doesn't bode well for the election itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were running the Democratic election campaign this time around, I would make sure I had facts about how Trump ran his businesses on my fingertips, like how many illegal workers he used, how many were given false IDs. I would have 10 women who made accusations of sexual assault sitting in the front row at every debate. I would pay the women he paid off $100,000 or $200,000 for every appearance they made at a Trump event. I'd surround them with security and I'd have tv cameras rollng for the reactions. Hell, I'd pay the women who made sexual allegatiions against Trump $100,000 per appearance.

I'd run ads with the women telling their stories.

So many papers have investigated Trump's businesses, I'd pluck ugly and hideous facts and run ads about them.

I'd hammer Ivanka. Trump hammered Biden's son, so it's open season. I'd show pictures of her sitting beside the president of China and then list the trademarks China then gave her 10 days later, or whatever it was, and I would scream WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE INVESTIGATED!

I watched CNN's Town Hall last night, and Sanders really is a good speaker. He's clear and coherent, not a rambling, shambling old guy telling stories like Trump is. Keep in mind that Trump has already floated the idea that he will not do any debates. Maybe if it's Sanders he's confident enough that he can destroy him. Maybe he'll say that the Democrats are liars and unfair and full of fake news so he won't dignify the lying libs with his presence. I'm sure he has floated the idea of not debating because the advisers he listens to have told him not to debate. 

Where does the money come from to make these payments? Last night Bernie said he will not take money from billionaires. Such a fucking insane thing to say when he knows Bloomberg has said he will support Sanders if Sanders wins and he will offer his election team to the nominee. Sanders also said Mayor Pete got his money from "40 or 50 billionaires". Whaaaaat? 40 or 50 Democratic billionaires exist in America? Woah baby, there are 540 billionaires in the US. Holy shit, I did not know there were that many. How many are Democrats, not Republicans?

Because of Canada's election campaign finance laws, you could never either spend the money I am talking about or even do the things I'm talking about. But the US is a free-for-all. If Sanders refuses money from Bloomberg, Bloomberg should go ahead and do all the stuff I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who continue to demonize Medicare for All will find themselves on the losing end. It is only a matter of time before voters and politicians get on board with something that will give us all high quality health care for less money.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • As the US healthcare debate continues, there is growing interest in “single-payer” also known as “Medicare for All.” Single-payer uses a simplified public funding approach to provide everyone with high-quality health insurance.
  • Public support for provision of universal health coverage through a plan like Medicare for All is as high as 70%, but falls when costs are emphasized.
  • Economic models help assess the financial viability of single-payer. Yet, models vary widely in their assumptions and methods, and can be hard to compare.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • We found and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the US or individual states.
  • Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
  • The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
  • Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.

What do these findings mean?

  • There is near-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all US residents.
  • To achieve net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug price reductions, as well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
  • Replacing private insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare costs.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013

Share this post


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

 

Either way he loses. And the point I'm trying to make is that he loses despite being essentially correct on almost everything, because the conversation in the US is already so far skewed to the right that no actual leftist can hope to win in this environment. It's just too late - or too early. Even if he was 40 and had better messaging there are things that are almost impossible to defend in the US. And that's depressing. It's even more depressing to see this at work here, in February, on a board that resident conservatives regularly claim to be far skewed to the left. And it really doesn't bode well for the election itself.

Hence the anxiety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno what to tell you, @Rippounet. If the last 3 years where the US had kids washing up on riversides, literal nazi marches being excused by the potus, and the potus actively using his power to find dirt on his enemies - and his approval stayed precisely the same! - didnt tell you that the US leans conservative to an absurd degree, I think that's on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You're explaining the conditions you live in. Stop projecting your poor life planning onto every non-millionaire in the country.

 

I have already pointed out statistics where that show I agree that Simon is projecting his own situation onto others. But I'm sorry, for you to attribute his own situation to "poor life planning" is unwarranted and insulting and I think you should apologize to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Again this is bullshit. Yeah I'm a bad saver. My rent increases astronomically over the last decade, I live in affordable housing and I have a bachelor and master's degree but fifty percent of my check goes to rent. Yeah fuck me and my budgeting. You have no clue.

This isn't about you personally, Simon Steele, but living paycheck to paycheck is a horrible measure of the economy.   As I mentioned, Americans are huge consumers that love spending their pay checks.  Americans having a paltry savings rate even in good economies.  American savings rate raise after the economy has problems because they cut spending on non-essentials and start stockpiling money for a rainy day.  The reason "consumer confidence" is such a feted economic indicator is because it tells economists how likely people are to spend money rather than horde it.  If living paycheck to paycheck was a negative economic indicator than we'd think that countries like Nepal and Bangladesh, that have huge saving rates, would have great economies.

The point about retirement accounts was that it indicates many people that are living paycheck to paycheck are actually accumulating wealth while doing so, 

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The problem is that it is asymmetrical, and that the US in a standard state leans conservative. As we saw in 2016 republicans fall in line. Using attacks on trump doesnt help if the problem is people wanting to have someone better than trump. Because if the choice is basically the same, theyll pick the devil they know (or choose not to pick anyone).

Not sure Trump's 2016 performance is a good indication of Republicans falling in line considering the substantial number of Republicans that stuck to their never trump guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

And that's fair. But Bernie was talking about many issues long before it was virtue signaling. He can't renounce what he's been fighting for his entire adult life, or even change the tone of his message - that'd be even worse, even if he was willing and able to do it.

Yes and no. Sanders has been more consistent than any politician I’ve ever seen, but his policies have always been virtue signaling to some degree because he never really had to implement them. I’m not sure what he did while serving as the Mayor of Burlington, but since then everything he’s purposed has been DoA in Congress. It would have been preferable if he ran for governor and actually put the theory of laboratories of democracy to work.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Not sure Trump's 2016 performance is a good indication of Republicans falling in line considering the substantial number of Republicans that stuck to their never trump guns.

Substantial? 95% of Republicans say they support Trump. Most NeverTrumpers have actively gone over to his side or are now claiming that if it isn't someone they really like they'll vote for Trump anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dow is now down 600. I wonder how long this will last.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes and no. Sanders has been more consistent than any politician I’ve ever seen, but his policies have always been virtue signaling to some degree because he never really had to implement them. I’m not sure what he did while serving as the Mayor of Burlington, but since then everything he’s purposed has been DoA in Congress. It would have been preferable if he ran for governor and actually put the theory of laboratories of democracy to work.  

Eh... I've been mostly talking about US foreign policy here. And I'm quite certain that Sanders's voting record has been consistent with his positions throughout his career as a member of Congress.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

If the last 3 years where the US had kids washing up on riversides, literal nazi marches being excused by the potus, and the potus actively using his power to find dirt on his enemies - and his approval stayed precisely the same! - didnt tell you that the US leans conservative to an absurd degree, I think that's on you. 

Duly noted.
I hope you're prepared to own this position though because I can tell you it's going to be much harder to defend than anything Sanders has ever said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

When I read an American, living in the country with the best economy in the world, tell me how bad things are in the US, just imagine how horribly the rest of us must be living.

An enormous amount is terrible for a very very very large number of people in very very very many places of the USA.  Of course for the top it's just great.  But there are far more people who aren't at the top.  Do you even have an idea of how many people are homeless in the USA? Go to bed hungry in the USA? Who have no health care in the USA? Who are paying off student loans for a degree that even with loans they can't afford to complete in the USA?  And still are working three jobs

Thank you, bloomb, bezos, and every Dem and rethug who supported weakening and removing rules and regs for corporations, banks and Wall Street, etc. And not bothering to prosecute even those caught red-handed like Trump.

What do you think it was like here economically when Obama came into office thanks to the above?

Even living in Canada you should be better informed than this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

 

Duly noted.
I hope you're prepared to own this position though because I can tell you it's going to be much harder to defend than anything Sanders has ever said.

I dont know what I have to defend here. It's not my position personally. It's just an observation that the US in general is willing to tolerate a lot more horror and injustice and illiberalism than most other modern democracies, is far more controlled by oligarchs, and is likely going to be an autocracy in the next 10 years. How is that on me? If I tell you it's raining are you blaming me for producing the clouds now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody was able to forecast Trump winning in 16, much of the polling missed it. So I'm not convinced about any of the hand ringing over Bernie not being electable in 20.

I believe the truth is that we do not know. I will trust the process and support the Dem that gets the most primary votes.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...