US Politics: Talking about the Elephant in the race.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 I think his plans, while radical and extreme, would actually fail in America because we aren't a homogeneous country with 20 million people. 

I don't take particular issue with the rest of what you're saying, but what the fuck is this meant to mean? Yeah, you're the biggest Western nation but I don't think that's what would cause any issues with universal health care, and not every other country that has it is homogenous and dismissing the diversity in them comes off as pretty ignorant.

The reason it might not work in America is because there are too many people with a fucked conservative attitude that think it's better for 100 deserving people to go without something they need than risk that 1 undeserving person might get something. Even when you're spending more money to make sure that undeserving person doesn't get it than it would cost to just give it to them. There's more than a little of this attitude in my country as well and it's cruel and harms what we could be as societies.

[Fragile Bird]

27 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You literally have zero logic in analyzing things. Your obsession with the stock market is absolutely tone deaf and mystifying. 

I want to address this again in case I misunderstood something.

Right now the US markets are in a correction mode (down 10%}. A ‘relief rally’ means a break in the downtrend which is expected to be temporary. Pretty well everyone thinks that as more Covid-19 bad news rolls out they will continue to fall.

It does not mean ‘relief that Sanders didn’t do well’. That might be a factor, but it’s not an attack on Sanders supporters, if that’s what you think. Ok?

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The latter is actually far more connnected to a series of priors, as it 'learns' from the previous data in order to project the future. ML is excellent for things that don't change a ton and good at revealing odd trends in that, but in cases with a lot of volatility ML tends to be very conservative and reactionary. 

Right, but as set of priors I guess I meant the conventional way (say by 538) is to look at historical data, infer certain parameters and variables as being important, and then come up with an equation (the model) that incorporates those variables. As far as I can tell ML would look at data just in the 2020 primary and ignore past data. Or maybe not.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I want to address this again in case I misunderstood something.

Right now the US markets are in a correction mode (down 10%}. A ‘relief rally’ means a break in the downtrend which is expected to be temporary. Pretty well everyone thinks that as more Covid-19 bad news rolls out they will continue to fall.

It does not mean ‘relief that Sanders didn’t do well’. That might be a factor, but it’s not an attack on Sanders supporters, if that’s what you think. Ok?

 

No, I think the focus on the stock market as an indicator of quality of life in the U.S. is horribly misguided. Some people find their retirement plans impacted (which is bullsiht their retirement must be invested this way), but a significant percentage of Americans (who are suffering) are often ignored because the stock market is doing well. They don't invest, they can't invest, and the economy really sucks. I mean, this focus on stocks is similar to Republicans saying "Trump's economy is AMAZING. Look at how low unemployment is. So many people have two jobs!"

[Fragile Bird]

Bloomberg just announced he’s suspending his campaign.

And he has endorsed Biden. His campaign structure and his money will definitely be welcome there!

[Liffguard]

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I think his plans, while radical and extreme, would actually fail in America because we aren't a homogeneous country with 20 million people. And I don't think he has the political capital, will or desire to do what is necessary to compromise to get anything passed.

They’re mostly not. His healthcare plan, for example, is significantly less radical than the NHS, which has functioned well for seventy years.

More to the point though, even if Sanders doesn’t pass any legislation, the things he can do with executive powers will still make him the best potential president IMO. He’s by far the least likely to drop bombs on people, provide material support to other governments that drop bombs on people, and generally continue the USA’s genuinely frightening and devastating overseas aggression.

He’s the most likely to cut off arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The most likely to make aid to Israel contingent on actually respecting human rights. The least likely to support Latin American coups.

And that’s not even talking about trade issues yet, and how they can be leveraged in support of climate change action.

If we take the view that non-American lives are worth just as much as American lives, and that executive powers allow the US president to exercise a huge amount of power over non-American lives, then I think Sanders would make the best President even if he was unable to pass a single piece of domestic legislation.

[DMC]

Bloomberg's out!  Cool.  Pretty sure the winner of Super Tuesday ends up the nominee in every historical instance - although feel free to check me on that.  Sander is of course entirely justified in continuing on - much more so than 2016 - and considering the strength and intensity of his coalition (as well as his general predisposition), I'm sure he will.  So we probably have a long slog over the next couple months.  Good news for political media, bad news for those of that just want to pivot to beating Trump.  Shouldn't matter much either way as long as everyone can chill.  Stay frosty y'all!

[Raja]

 

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't take particular issue with the rest of what you're saying, but what the fuck is this meant to mean? Yeah, you're the biggest Western nation but I don't think that's what would cause any issues with universal health care, and not every other country that has it is homogenous and dismissing the diversity in them comes off as pretty ignorant.

The reason it might not work in America is because there are too many people with a fucked conservative attitude that think it's better for 100 deserving people to go without something they need than risk that 1 undeserving person might get something. Even when you're spending more money to make sure that undeserving person doesn't get it than it would cost to just give it to them. There's more than a little of this attitude in my country as well and it's cruel and harms what we could be as societies.

I have no issue with Universal Healthcare as long as there continues to be a private option should I so choose. I firmly believe that the worst thing the US ever did towards healthcare was tie it to your jobs.

What I do have an issue with is the idea that Norway/Sweden socialist policies that Bernie always points to as ideal would work in a country of this size, with diversity of states that have their own rights, policies, politics and racial viewpoints. Yes, we have a pretty fucked up attitude for a lot of reasons and that's not going to go away anytime soon, especially by calling for socialism in a country that instinctively pushes back against the mandate, regardless of whether it's actually practicing it in certain areas of the country (see farm subsidies).

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

As far as I can tell ML would look at data just in the 2020 primary and ignore past data. Or maybe not.

The programs I've used for textual analysis of EOs definitely would not just ignore past data.  In fact their estimations/results/outcomes would be heavily informed by past data.

[karaddin]

@Mexal it was the population bit that threw me off so I thought you were referring to Canada and by association, UK, Australian etc systems. Sweden is only 10m and Norway 5m so even combined you're giving them too much population credit!

I think they do a lot right, but you can't necessarily jump straight to the perfect. While I think there needs to be massive changes to the PHI industry in the US I agree it doesn't need to be entirely eliminated in one foul swoop. 100% with you on linking it to employment being something that has been massively harmful and I think it's in every way - costs, job mobility, complexity etc. It needs to be pulled back from that to more simple products that can be used to cover more/different things that aren't covered by the public option, but hopefully more medically useful stuff than our private health insurance does in Aus.

[IheartIheartTesla]

The rally in the stock market is driven a fair bit by Biden's strong showing, a lot of health care companies saw their stocks go up (Universal Health Care related I imagine) . The overarching COVID-19 story in the US may ultimately drive it down though.

Michigan is up next, what do I do with all these Bloomberg flyers littering my mailbox?

[illrede]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Bloomberg's out!  Cool.  Pretty sure the winner of Super Tuesday ends up the nominee in every historical instance - although feel free to check me on that.  Sander is of course entirely justified in continuing on - much more so than 2016 - and considering the strength and intensity of his coalition (as well as his general predisposition), I'm sure he will.  

Useful to remember the nomination process also serves to let a consensus decision form and sink in, not just determine what it is and publish it.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean the stock market is a terrible indicator of quality of life.

I also think it's one of the most societally damaging components of modern capitalism with way too much impact on our economies tied up in the second to second feelings of stock traders or gaming by algorithms.

[Kalbear]

So faced with this news, do I vote for Warren in the hopes she gets more delegates and thus can possibly get more of her policies and goals on the plank, or do I vote Sanders?

[Fez]

Glad to see Bloomberg do the right thing and drop out. He had no reason to be in the race any longer.

OTOH, the right thing for Sanders is absolutely to stay in the race for now. Things moved extremely quickly the past 5 days, and they could definitely move again now that circumstances are so different. This isn't Obama-Clinton 2008 where things were so clearly static that Clinton could never catch up to Obama. Now if Sanders hasn't made up any ground, and even lost more, by the end of the month (after a lot more states have voted), I think at that point he should drop out (though he certainly won't). For now though, he's entirely justified.

I think it makes sense for Warren to stay in for now too. Her supporters seem more of a middle ground than just being erstwhile Sanders supporters. And I think if either Sanders or Biden somehow fell apart entirely, she'd probably be the destination for their supporters. Also, if her goal is to be able to influence the party platform, and maybe even be the kingmaker at a contested convention, she needs to stay in.

[Mauvka]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So faced with this news, do I vote for Warren in the hopes she gets more delegates and thus can possibly get more of her policies and goals on the plank, or do I vote Sanders?

I feel similar and am waiting to see if she’s still in this race by the time my state votes. 

[Maithanet]

Sanders dropping out today would be crazy.  He had a bad night, but this thing is a long way from over.  He could realistically win all but one of the states voting next Tuesday.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ignoring some of the rather shameful posts I’ve read over the last several pages, I’m not sure why people are so worried about Biden’s weaknesses. Sure he is terribly behind with regards to creating a national infrastructure, but Bloomberg can easily fix that with the snap of his fingers. But after that? All his flaws he shares with Trump. A decade ago that would have mattered, but it likely won’t this go around, and all things being equal, Biden is still way more likable. Assuming his health holds steady, he’ll be fine.

[Mauvka]

Tywin,

I think the expectation is that the Democratic electorate cares more about those shared weaknesses in their candidate than the Republicans do.  So even if the flaws are shared, Biden may not have whatever je ne sais quoi that allows Trump to win support.