Jump to content

US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I don't think anyone "unperson"s you when you're polling below 1%

 

There is still a small faction of the quackier left who think she's going to be Sanders VP pick, lol

But she has cross-over appeal to wacky right libertarians, so any day now she's gonna surge!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I already know that I'm just going to get accused of sour grapes, but I just have to say how disgusted I am by media coverage, and I completely understand the conservative impulse to surround one's self in a media bubble.

A week ago, major news anchors were implying that Sanders was going to be rounding them up in death camps in Central Park. Sanders cruises to a 27% victory in Nevada, and a thousand think pieces decry him as a dangerous candidate, ignoring every single piece of polling evidence that Democratic voters largely like him.

Meanwhile, Biden finishes 4th, 5th, a district 2nd in Nevada, and then "crushes" Sanders by 28% in South Carolina, and is essentially being anointed the savior of the Democratic party. Meanwhile, there's no context given that Sanders raised $46 million in February, that Biden had only spent $900,000 in Super Tuesday states as of last week, has virtually no field offices in any Super Tuesday state, is being crushed by Sanders in California where 70% of votes have already been cast, etc. 

Biden won big last night, and I'm not taking anything away from that. But the media desperately needs a horse race, and it's doing it's damndest to create one, and that's bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how would Trump evade term limits, assuming he lasted that long? Interesting article, but not sure any of these strategies really apply here in the U.S. Only the court option is something that could even remotely happen. 

One thing comes to mind. Family. They could 16 more years in power out of Jivanka alone.

 

The World Is Experiencing a New Form of Autocracy
Today’s authoritarians use legal measures to subvert constitutional constraints on their power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/new-authoritarianism/607045/

Quote

 

This is how authoritarianism looks today. Our original study documents all term-limit-evasion strategies worldwide since the year 2000. We found that presidential-term-limit evasion is exceedingly common: About one-third of all presidents who reached the end of their term made a serious attempt to overstay. Two-thirds of those who made the attempt succeeded.

What’s particularly interesting is not only that so many presidents try to evade term limits, but that they are more and more sophisticated and legalistic in how they do so. Whereas leaders once used unmistakably authoritarian actions to stay in power, such as banning opposition parties or dismissing the legislature, today’s heads of state instead use democratic institutions and legal measures to subvert constitutional constraints on their power. More specifically, we found that there are four basic strategies for evading term limits, none of which violates a constitution outright: adding constitutional amendments, rewriting the constitution, using the courts to reinterpret the constitution, and appointing a placeholder president.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Okay, I already know that I'm just going to get accused of sour grapes, but I just have to say how disgusted I am by media coverage, and I completely understand the conservative impulse to surround one's self in a media bubble.

Methinks you have part of that exactly backwards.  Unless to stretch the metaphor, the bubble is floating in the lefty sympathizing media ocean.  But at least you re now a fish that's discovered water.  You've taken your first step into a larger world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mcbigski said:

Methinks you have part of that exactly backwards.  Unless to stretch the metaphor, the bubble is floating in the lefty sympathizing media ocean.  But at least you re now a fish that's discovered water.  You've taken your first step into a larger world.

Ha. You’re funny. Is this part of your stand up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Methinks you have part of that exactly backwards.  Unless to stretch the metaphor, the bubble is floating in the lefty sympathizing media ocean.  But at least you re now a fish that's discovered water.  You've taken your first step into a larger world.

I'm not the bubble, you're the bubble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Biden won big last night, and I'm not taking anything away from that. But the media desperately needs a horse race, and it's doing it's damndest to create one, and that's bullshit.

I agree with you that the media focuses on the horse race and tries to simplify contests to mano-a-mano. The media constantly underestimated Sanders to its peril particularly in a divided field.  But I don't agree with your inference that the motive is bias for or against Sanders.  It's just the need to tell a simple story.  It could have been Pete who was the beneficiary of this attention but for the hijinks at the Iowa caucus. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it the latinx vote in Nevada, not the African American vote, that put Sanders so far ahead in Nevada?

So, one is interested in California and Texas results, which has very significant numbers of voters from all the various latinx, African American -- and Asian American -- voters. And Middle Eastern too, particularly in Texas due to the oil bidness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Muaddibs_Tapeworm said:

Looks like all those Latin Americans that would never vote for Bernie because something-something-Castro-Venezuela are pushing him over the edge in Texas

Did people argue this? Castro mostly matters only to older Cubans. I expect most Central and South Americans don't give a damn. Venezuela matters to older Cubans too, due to the socialist thing, and I suppose ex-pat Venezeulans may care a little more about it, but I'm not sure there's going to be much of a feeling about it elsewhere.

Personally, I'm starting to lean towards Biden for our primary in Florida. Warren is nearer my ideal as a candidate, but I'm pragmatic about these things, and right now when I look at SC and the fact that the turnout was so heavy, but that new voters preferred Biden to Sanders, it makes me think a bit about the bigger picture. There's a narrative that Sanders is going to be the guy to bring about fresh turnout, but mostly these primaries have not supported that notion.

The ideal situation, either way, is no brokered convention. Fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to find out how many of Sanders votes in SC actually did come from Republicans. As dominant as Biden was, it's possible he would have been even more dominant had Republicans not been able to vote in the Democratic primary. And can you imagine what the news channels would have looked like over the last month or two if SC had been the first state to vote? Starting with Iowa and New Hampshire, states that look nothing like America as a whole, is garbage.

Any indication that the young voters we are supposed to depend on to propel Bernie to victory are getting out in higher numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Kornacki has on his twitter a variety of realistic Super Tuesday results. Most are extremely favorable to Sanders (based around him likely racking up a lot of delegates in California). However, the "best case" realistic scenario for Biden is a result of somewhere around Sanders: 590 delegates, Biden 529 delegates; Warren 182 delegates; Bloomberg 102 delegates. Where that to happen, it's absolutely a horse race between Sanders and Biden and the media coverage is more or less justified.

OTOH, something like Sanders 771; Biden 368; Bloomberg 144; Warren 121 is also very much in play. And that'd be the end of the nomination race. Or at least, it would be were in not for the fact that California will take weeks to report results. So Biden might keep a zombie campaign going for a while until it becomes clear just how lopsided the delegate count is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

Personally, I'm starting to lean towards Biden for our primary in Florida.

I may still be registered in Florida despite not living there in years, but I'm pretty sure I live closer than you!

5 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It would be interesting to find out how many of Sanders votes in SC actually did come from Republicans.

According to the exits, the partisan breakdown was 68/27/5 for Democrat/Independent/GOP.  That's compared to 82/16/3 in 2016, but 73/23/4 in 2008 and 71/24/5 in 2004 - the last "good" comparison since there was no competitive GOP primary taking place (and thus more motivation for those voters to participate in the Dem contest regardless of any ill intent).  The ideological breakdown wasn't really discernibly different than past cycles.  It does not appear operation chaos had much of an effect.  At least based on the exits, which is assuming respondents are telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chatter around coffee after mass here north of the wall was mainly about Covid-19 and Trump appointing Pence.

There was a lot of speculation that Trump appointed Pence so that if there is a huge outbreak of cases, Trump has a scapegoat. He'll then dump Pence and pick a new running mate.

I had been seeing stories about rumours Trump wants to dump Pence for months now. What do you all think about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

I may still be registered in Florida despite not living there in years, but I'm pretty sure I live closer than you!

I am sure that's the case. Fortunately, the fax does not care where I am!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically based

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Steve Kornacki has on his twitter a variety of realistic Super Tuesday results. Most are extremely favorable to Sanders (based around him likely racking up a lot of delegates in California). However, the "best case" realistic scenario for Biden is a result of somewhere around Sanders: 590 delegates, Biden 529 delegates; Warren 182 delegates; Bloomberg 102 delegates. Where that to happen, it's absolutely a horse race between Sanders and Biden and the media coverage is more or less justified.

OTOH, something like Sanders 771; Biden 368; Bloomberg 144; Warren 121 is also very much in play. And that'd be the end of the nomination race. Or at least, it would be were in not for the fact that California will take weeks to report results. So Biden might keep a zombie campaign going for a while until it becomes clear just how lopsided the delegate count is.

The issue Biden faces more than anything is that while Sanders is winning mosts states, Biden isn't even placing in third in some of them. Like in , California he might not be viable for him. Then Sanders is leading Massachusetts, Colorado, Utah, Virginia, Texas, Vermont, Maine, and Virginia. Sanders and Biden are in a tight race in North Carolina, and then Sander's is in 2nd in Minnesota with Klobuchar there and Biden is under 10 points.

Then Bloomberg might screw Biden out of Oklahoma and Arkansas. Which really is going to leave him with with realy Alabama and Tennessee as his most likely states o Super Tuesday. Even if he gets alot of breaks he could have a very bad night and it could end with Sanders in a huge lead. Also if Bloomberg has 100 something delegates he's not leaving.

I think the real question is whether people stay for a contested convention

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, I can't find a lot of information confirming the low youth turnout in the first four primaries. I've heard the turnout is low, but is there a place that confirms this? I suppose the first four primaries aren't going to tell much--Super Tuesday ought to be where we really see it if it is going to happen. I know New Hampshire made it more difficult for young people to vote. I wonder, too, how caucusing impacts youth turnout. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Hm, I can't find a lot of information confirming the low youth turnout in the first four primaries. I've heard the turnout is low, but is there a place that confirms this? I suppose the first four primaries aren't going to tell much--Super Tuesday ought to be where we really see it if it is going to happen. I know New Hampshire made it more difficult for young people to vote. I wonder, too, how caucusing impacts youth turnout. 

Youth turnout isn't "down". It was actually up in both New Hampshire and Nevada, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't fit the media narrative, so it got ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Youth turnout isn't "down". It was actually up in both New Hampshire and Nevada, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't fit the media narrative, so it got ignored.

You do not recall correctly. Youth turnout was up, but not particularly compared to everyone else, and not compared to 2008. I'll see if I can find the source. 

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...