US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Nah it's just because superdelegate talk is one of my bugaboos.  Along with having sex with old ladies for money or bear traps.

Let's take a timeout on the sidelines over here and have a quick alignment of perspectives, if you will. Here's the thing, DMC, I have no doubt you are knowledgeable and well-studied a lot in these areas, but it is your often aggressive and condescending manner of correction to folks around here that makes it difficult for me to have a discussion with you. Let me speak from my area of expertise, which is educational psychology (theories of how people learn most effectively), and I'll start with an example. I know you're a teacher, and I believe you're probably a good one, so based on this, I have to believe you don't speak to your students (even if they're wrong) the way you try to correct people here, because many of your students would shut down in that scenario, no? I use this example as an illustration because I could have said, "you know, I'm an expert in education and teaching people, and because you're aggressive in assertion here, you must be a terrible teacher." I don't believe that about you, and if I did (let me emphasize I don't), then I'd be doing little to nothing to change that--if it's even my place to change that.

We learn best through reciprocal communication, when we're motivated because we feel those who are teaching us care about us. Whether you're versed in learning theory or not, you likely intuitively know this because you're a educator. I say bring that ethos here with you. I haven't been great in responding to you either, so like I said, let's take this time out to realign. If you see I've lost my cool about a story in the NYT, absolutely take that time to help me learn and readjust my views on this (and I am working on that despite being put off by your approach), but try coming at it like you would with a student. You believe your students are intelligent and worthy of patience so they can continue to learn, no? Then treat those of us here that way who have common misconceptions and beliefs about the political process. Because I want to value your contributions, not feel defensive. I kind of like you when I'm not pissy at you. 

Can I add an P.S. An example of a time I wish I could have not been defensive and asked you to help me clarify and understand. Awhile back I had a misunderstanding about how gerrymandering worked and whether or not it influenced the Presidential election. I did not understand it (and this is common for a lot of voters). The way I felt you came at me made me defensive, and I wish I hadn't felt that way because honestly, that would have been a great time for me to communicate with you back and forth and correct my misconceptions. I understand politics the way most laymen do--and that is through connotation, which builds conceptual misunderstanding over time. You should work to correct this (that is, if it's your goal, I don't mean it's your duty or something like that). I'll work harder to listen to you.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Just now, DMC said:

This is one (the only one?) place where we entirely agree.  The media was incredibly stupid in 2016 by counting "superdelegates" as if they counted for anything.  There was some of this in 2008 too, but not as much.  I think the media gets kind of a bad rap once you consider the profit motive they are under, but on this one, yeah it was a broad reporting failure.  Superdelegates do not matter until there's actually a brokered convention, even before they changed the rules to the second ballot.  And it's never happened anyway, so there's no reason to take their endorsements in accounting for a candidate's delegate count.  Comcast, Disney, Redstone, and Murdoch - they can all eat a dick and stop fucking with our democracy much more than Vlad the Shirtless ever can.

Maybe not the only place we agree (or can agree)--see my above post.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

have to believe you don't speak to your students (even if they're wrong) the way you try to correct people here, because many of your students would shut down in that scenario, no?

Of course not.  This is my outlet man.  I definitely do not bring my teaching ethos into discussions on this thread, or any threads on this board.  This is where I get to let loose.  I understand if you approach this board differently, but I'm not gonna change that.  Maybe I'll get banned or whatever because of it, but here is where I give my unvarnished, unedited, and oftentimes yes aggressively provocative opinions.  And then there's alcohol and weed mixed in a lot of the time.  I am currently evaluating exactly 134 students, I don't need anymore when I come to post on this board.  If you don't like it, I'm sorry - and I do respect your opinion otherwise I wouldn't bother responding in the first place.  But that's just where I'm at.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Um, no. We haven’t had a brokered/contested convention in seven decades. That’s because the parties could eventually rally around one candidate and give them a clean nomination. Sanders risks being the first person since 1952 to fail to do so, and that speaks to his weaknesses as both a candidate and a leader.  

 

Maybe.  Or maybe it speaks to a bunch of candidates that most Dems are ok voting for?  If what you're saying is true about Sanders being weak, what does that say about all the other candidates?  

Well I though it goes without saying that we avoid a plurality nominee most of the time anyway, but apparently not.   "Being cautious about a plurality candidate" sounds an awful lot like "let's have a brokered convention" and if the real concern is democracy or beating Trump, making a Sherrod Brown the nominee over Sanders with a clear lead but not the majority, seems like concern trolling.  

And if the real concern is avoiding a plurality candidate or the weakness of a brokered convention, then change the format so it's not a possibility.  Which was my point.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of course not.  This is my outlet man.  I definitely do not bring my teaching ethos into discussions on this thread, or any threads on this board.  This is where I get to let loose.  I understand if you approach this board differently, but I'm not gonna change that.  Maybe I'll get banned or whatever because of it, but here is where I give my unvarnished, unedited, and oftentimes yes aggressively provocative opinions.  And then there's alcohol and weed mixed in a lot of the time.  I am currently evaluating exactly 134 students, I don't need anymore when I come to post on this board.  If you don't like it, I'm sorry - and I do respect your opinion otherwise I wouldn't bother responding in the first place.  But that's just where I'm at.

It's a suggestion. My view is you have a lot to bring to this board, and your teaching ethos here could function as an outlet too. But I understand if you feel it's not worth your time. I will work harder to not be immediately defensive on your perspectives either way, because as I said, I do you think you offer a lot to these discussions, and I come here as an outlet as well, and sometimes I come away feeling stressed. That's on me, not you.

[IheartIheartTesla]

16 minutes ago, Fez said:

A Sanders win on ST is probably still the most likely outcome, but its looking increasingly possible for a split decision between him and Biden; especially if Biden has a really big night in South Carolina. For instance, there's a lot of Virginia Dems endorsing Biden today; I don't think they'd be getting involved like this unless they thought Biden had at least a good chance of winning the state. And Virginia still basically doesn't have early voting, so good news out of South Carolina would help Biden. If Bloomberg support starts moving back to Biden, there's a few more states looking good for him too. And if Biden does respectably, and the field does consolidate after ST, I wouldn't say Sanders is a sure thing.

Though conversely, Sanders is in a position where he could deliver a knock-out punch on ST and no one else is. So we'll see.

Yeah, a big win for Biden in SC is looking more likely.

My take on it is that Klobuchar and Mayor Pete should exit the race if they dont win any ST states. Warren...it looks like MA may be up in the air with Sanders having a lead, so if she doesnt win that state, that would be the time for her to exit as well. 

So by the time Michigan has to vote, I'll have 3 straight white male candidates to choose from, two of whom I can easily ignore. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Awhile back I had a misunderstanding about how gerrymandering worked and whether or not it influenced the Presidential election. I did not understand it (and this is common for a lot of voters). The way I felt you came at me made me defensive, and I wish I hadn't felt that way because honestly, that would have been a great time for me to communicate with you back and forth and correct my misconceptions.

Didn't see this before.  Yes, in that case I'm sorry for being a dick.  Usually when I'm really a dick I'll either apologize for it or know it the next morning/afternoon when I wake up.  Even here, any time I can provide information that might be useful, sober me does want to do that, so again, sorry, and feel free to pm me or whatever on that front.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of course not.  This is my outlet man.  I definitely do not bring my teaching ethos into discussions on this thread, or any threads on this board.  This is where I get to let loose.  I understand if you approach this board differently, but I'm not gonna change that.  Maybe I'll get banned or whatever because of it, but here is where I give my unvarnished, unedited, and oftentimes yes aggressively provocative opinions.  And then there's alcohol and weed mixed in a lot of the time.  I am currently evaluating exactly 134 students, I don't need anymore when I come to post on this board.  If you don't like it, I'm sorry - and I do respect your opinion otherwise I wouldn't bother responding in the first place.  But that's just where I'm at.

Yesssss!

It's annoying when people claim this forum is, "posting in a bubble"

If anything this is escapism.

I'm surrounded by hateful, racist, homophobic people. 

It's nice letting loose around other human beings that don't think other people are less than them just because they were born different.

[Maithanet]

The path for Biden is IMO clearer than it has even been since he fell apart in Iowa.  If he wins SC by ~10 points (as expected), then there's a good chance the media jumps on the "Biden comeback" narrative, which could really give him a boost going into ST.  And while Sander will almost assuredly win the most delegates on Tuesday, if Biden can establish himself as the clear #2 with some momentum, then he would then have a very real chance of winning the nomination.  Looking at this 538 article and taking the midpoint of the small and big Biden wins scenarios, you could easily imagine that Sanders finishing ST with 600 delegates, Biden with 400, Bloomberg with 200 and Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar with another 250 between them. 

That is in many ways a great spot for Sanders, he could quite accurately say that he's won more than half the states and a 200 delegate lead is substantial.  However, in this scenario, we have to assume that Steyer, Klobuchar and Warren are dropping out.  There is nothing to gain by sticking around.  Buttigieg may hang on a bit longer, but probably not much since going 0fer on Super Tuesday is going to destroy his electability argument and he'll be running out of money soon.  Bloomberg is a bit of a wild card, since he can afford to stay forever, but if it seems like he's losing momentum and hurting Biden's chances then I could see him dropping out after the March 10 or March 17 primaries show he's not making any progress.  If as of March 18, it is a Biden vs Sanders, there are still 25 states/territories/districts to go.  That's a lot of time for Biden to potentially earn at least the plurality of pledged delegates, assuming that he is a good candidate capable of being a preferred candidate of center-right voters.  I don't know if he can do that or not, but the path is there. 

Of course, Biden being an unexciting, past-his-prime candidate obviously doesn't help him any. 

[Zorral]

Krugman breaks down this culmination that has been the catastrophic crisis of 2016.

"When a Pandemic Meets a Personality Cult
The Trump team confirms all of our worst fears."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/opinion/coronavirus-trump.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Conclusion:

Quote

Maybe Trump — and America — will be lucky, and this won’t be as bad as it might be. But anyone feeling confident right now isn’t paying attention.

 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Poe, perhaps?

~~~~~~~~~~

As for anybody floating the idea of Michelle Obama as VP to anybody -- just how much do people think this strong, brilliant African American woman should be expected to sacrifice for her country, one moreover, that catapaulted 24/7 the most vile accusations and insults of her and her family, including her children, while she was the one and only First Lady of my lifetime who did absolutely everything right?  (Hillary, ha!) She didn't even want her husband to be POTUS, much less herself as First Lady.  And now she's getting a career again, a career of her own.  If nothing else this proves what empty headed, stagnant thinking jerkoffs these VERY WELL PAID political operatives are.

Moreover, if she went back out on the campaign trail in this environment she'd be targeted literally by crazy people determined to kill her.

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread

For he on honey-dew hath fed,

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Kublai Khan by Coleridge.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

My take on it is that Klobuchar and Mayor Pete should exit the race if they dont win any ST states. Warren...it looks like MA may be up in the air with Sanders having a lead, so if she doesnt win that state, that would be the time for her to exit as well.

Yeah if the polls are right on SC, then Klobuchar and Warren need to drop out once they get nothing from Super Tuesday, at the least.  That sounds sexist, but at least Buttigieg can point to good performance in IA and NH as reasoning for staying in...

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And while Sander will almost assuredly win the most delegates on Tuesday, if Biden can establish himself as the clear #2 with some momentum, then he would then have a very real chance of winning the nomination.  Looking at this 538 article and taking the midpoint of the small and big Biden wins scenarios, you could easily imagine that Sanders finishing ST with 600 delegates, Biden with 400, Bloomberg with 200 and Warren/Buttigieg/Klobuchar with another 250 between them. 

Silver's model is very far from reliable, but Sanders with a ~200 pledged delegate lead coming out of Super Tuesday means he's the nominee.  Full stop.  Outside of something we all don't want to think about, there will be no change in his support, so I would hope all the other "moderate" candidates - which couldn't get their shit together and galvanize the entire anti-Sanders vote in the first place - will step aside.  They should, "for the good of the party," at the least.

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, maarsen said:

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread

For he on honey-dew hath fed,

And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Kublai Khan by Coleridge.

I am well acquainted -- as all my life -- with this poem.  I seem to have missed the raven though.

[maarsen]

Just now, Zorral said:

I am well acquainted -- as all my life -- with this poem.  I seem to have missed the raven though.

Quothe the raven "Nevermore, Nevermore."

[Maithanet]

Just now, DMC said:

Sanders with a ~200 pledged delegate lead coming out of Super Tuesday means he's the nominee.  Full stop.  Outside of something we all don't want to think about, there will be no change in his support, so I would hope all the other "moderate" candidates - which couldn't get their shit together and galvanize the entire anti-Sanders vote in the first place - will step aside.  They should, "for the good of the party," at the least.

What are you basing that on?  After Super Tuesday, 38% of delegates will have been awarded, which leaves 62% to make up the gap.  Sanders ability to win contests with 25-40% of the vote in a 7 person field does not necessarily mean he'll be able to win the 45% of votes necessary to hold the delegate lead in a 1v1 contest.  He would need to expand his support beyond what we've seen thus far.  Maybe he can do that, but he has to show he can. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Here's one take on a current projected snapshot of a Sanders v Trump race-

Trump 260

Sanders 248

Toss up 30

Here's what a Sanders-Trump map could look like

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/sanders-trump-2020-general/index.html

 

The sky is not falling, the election can still go blue or red, nothing is cast in stone yet.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

After Super Tuesday, 38% of delegates will have been awarded, which leaves 62% to make up the gap.  Sanders ability to win contests with 25-40% of the vote in a 7 person field does not necessarily mean he'll be able to win the 45% of votes necessary to hold the delegate lead in a 1v1 contest.  He would need to expand his support beyond what we've seen thus far.  Maybe he can do that, but he has to show he can. 

I'm basing it on the fact no alternative candidate has come even remotely close to consolidating anything against Bernie.  So in a one-on-one matchup, Bernie is going to continue to get probably the majority of the votes.  And if he comes out of Super Tuesday with the type of lead mentioned, he only needs 40% of the votes unless at least one of the other two near-octogenerians drops out - and I don't see either doing so.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Fez said:

A Sanders win on ST is probably still the most likely outcome, but its looking increasingly possible for a split decision between him and Biden; especially if Biden has a really big night in South Carolina. For instance, there's a lot of Virginia Dems endorsing Biden today; I don't think they'd be getting involved like this unless they thought Biden had at least a good chance of winning the state. And Virginia still basically doesn't have early voting, so good news out of South Carolina would help Biden. If Bloomberg support starts moving back to Biden, there's a few more states looking good for him too. And if Biden does respectably, and the field does consolidate after ST, I wouldn't say Sanders is a sure thing.

Though conversely, Sanders is in a position where he could deliver a knock-out punch on ST and no one else is. So we'll see.

Possibly, but I think for this to play out, Biden and Sanders need to get like >75% of the vote in SC, causing the other moderates to drop out before ST. If they don’t, Biden will miss the 15% threshold in a lot of places and if that’s the case, he’s probably done, even if Bloomberg bankrolls him.

[A True Kaniggit]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Possibly, but I think for this to play out, Biden and Sanders need to get like >75% of the vote in SC, causing the other moderates to drop out before ST. If they don’t, Biden will miss the 15% threshold in a lot of places and if that’s the case, he’s probably done, even if Bloomberg bankrolls him.

Not saying I'm biased.

But I got 5 bucks on Sanders winning the nomination. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

7 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Here's one take on a current projected snapshot of a Sanders v Trump race-

Trump 260

Sanders 248

Toss up 30

Here's what a Sanders-Trump map could look like

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/sanders-trump-2020-general/index.html

 

The sky is not falling, the election can still go blue or red, nothing is cast in stone yet.

Early days yet of course. What was interesting to me is that a generic D against Trump would end up being 248-248 with 42 EC being toss-ups. Not a ringing endorsement for other candidates, by any means.

I cant quite figure out how to make up those 12 ECs. Maybe move IA to tossup, but cant see any other combination giving up 6 ECs (of course, I am assuming a generic D would carry all Sanders states)