US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

[Fez]

27 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The USC Dornsife numbers are down to Biden +7 today after being in the double digits, so I imagine there has been some real tightening in the race. Might just be a temporary blip, we'll see.

Perhaps. Although the thing about the USC poll in 2016, besides being far more bullish on Trump than just about anyone, was that it was pretty volatile. It was a function of the way the panel worked, where 1/7th of it was polled each day and USC did had some formula for rolling in and out cohorts each day to give a multi-day average, and some cohorts were more conservative than others. My understanding is that this panel functions the same way.

If it starts being more positive on Biden in a day or two, we'll know its more a function of at least one cohort being far more conservative than another, and it causes the overall trend line to move when only one of them is in the average.

[All Cats Are Bad]

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Anybody you vote for, a bunch of assholes will vote for too.  It's inevitable even if you're just voting on whether to get pizza vs mexican with family and friends.  Unless maybe your family and your friends are better people than me and mine.  A lot of things about Biden and his supporters chap my ass too, but I'm voting for him anyway.  And I'm also skeptical about harm reduction over the long term as a general principle.  My plan is to vote for the mofo and bank for down ballot progressives.  Advocate for jungle primaries in progressive states or ranked choice voting.  Call your shitty centrist reps and tell them what you want.

There is some utility to voting Third Party in a deep red or deep blue state. If they get to 5% of a national vote there's all kinds of extra funding they get, they appear on debates, etc. If you live in Texas or Michigan, vote Blue. But IMO if you live in California or Mississippi or something your vote may well make more of a difference going toward the Green/Libertarian ticket.

[TrackerNeil]

28 minutes ago, Week said:

The Trump campaign will throw anything at the wall - from barely legal to overtly illegal - to maintain power and control to continue the grift, install 1-2 more Supreme Court Justices, while continuing to give power to white supremacists like Stephen Miller and cronies like DeVos, DeJoy, etc. (they likely fall in the latter category as well)

If you think about it, the GOP has pretty much resigned itself to acquiring power through artful application of minority support. Their last two presidents were elected without winning the popular vote, and nobody expects that to change in 2020. Whenever they control legislatures, state or federal, it's often due to a gerrymander. They got a Supreme Court seat because of a Senate that is essentially minoritarian, and when they are out of power they use the filibuster to ensure they get back in. It's like Republicans don't even try to win over the majority of Americans; a strategic minority is just fine, by them.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

There is some utility to voting Third Party in a deep red or deep blue state. If they get to 5% of a national vote there's all kinds of extra funding they get, they appear on debates, etc. If you live in Texas or Michigan, vote Blue. But IMO if you live in California or Mississippi or something your vote may well make more of a difference going toward the Green/Libertarian ticket.

I'd disagree on that having any utility in a presidential election.  Sure, vote third party locally, or statewide depending on the race.  But on a national scale it's just advocating for policies you don't want unless you get rid of first past the post voting.

Maybe it sends a message to one of the major parties that there are some votes to pick up, but uh, I don't think they're gonna get that message. 

Example: I'd rather not have say, Ilhan Omar running against Ivanka Trump and whomever the Green Party candidate is in 2032. 

[Week]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

If you think about it, the GOP has pretty much resigned itself to acquiring power through artful application of minority support. Their last two presidents were elected without winning the popular vote, and nobody expects that to change in 2020. They got a Supreme Court seat because of a Senate that is essentially minoritarian, and when they are out of power they use the filibuster to ensure they get back in. It's like Republicans don't even try to win over the majority of Americans; a strategic minority is just fine, by them.

100% agree. IMO, Trump admitted this last night -- "Stocks are owned by everybody [who matters]"

Wealthy Americans in Red states. 50% of stocks are owned by the top 1%.

https://amp.ft.com/content/2501e154-4789-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441?

[Maithanet]

Fivethirtyeight article about Trump vs Biden TV spending.  Puts together the pieces I've seen elsewhere nicely.  Namely that under Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign was virtually out of money at the end of July, and thus had to dramatically scale down tv advertising in August and early September.  For May 5-July 28, the Trump campaign outspent Biden by huge margins in virtually every swing state.  In the three states with the most advertising (FL+PA+WI), there were almost 75k ads in that period, more than double Biden's number.  Since then it's been the reverse, 95k for Biden and 53k for Trump. 

Quote

In sum, these numbers look damning for Trump. And they are indeed another sign that Trump’s campaign may be in trouble, especially considering he is the incumbent and, as such, should have a larger war chest at his disposal.

At the very least, it is hard to look at those numbers and conclude that the Trump campaign is well run.  But then, we already knew that, right?

[sologdin]

if you live in California or Mississippi or something your vote may well make more of a difference going toward the Green/Libertarian ticket.

maybe we advise against diluting the vote in california and other states likely for biden.  more that proper lefties should abandon him in all likely trump states. (though the libertarians are not within the cross elasticity for the greens or more leftward outfits?)

[aceluby]

I've seen this "5%" argument quite a bit, and yet when a 3rd party has crossed this mythical threshold it has done absolutely nothing.  Voting 3rd party for the goal of maybe getting 5% of the vote when you agree with most of one of the major party candidates is frankly, stupid.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, aceluby said:

I've seen this "5%" argument quite a bit, and yet when a 3rd party has crossed this mythical threshold it has done absolutely nothing.  Voting 3rd party for the goal of maybe getting 5% of the vote when you agree with most of one of the major party candidates is frankly, stupid.

And telling someone it's stupid is probably not a great strategy to convince someone to reluctantly vote for a candidate they have major reservations about.  

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Week said:

Noted.

I (clearly) snapped at you earlier and it was because your response to me at the time came across as essentially responding to my "please be nice to the innocent 3rd party victims" with a "hell no, our fighting is more important". This was rather uncharitable and at odds with the overall sentiment I was asking for, so I'm sorry for snapping like that.

The non-snappish part of my post stands though, I wasn't calling anyone in particular out and definitely wasn't calling you in particular out. I wasn't intending to suggest you can't push back on points you disagree with, and I actually agree with you on how frustrating it is when the thread eats it's tail like that. I was just asking people generally to think of the potential collateral damage of their posts and choose a narrower scope for their disagreement and avoid sounding like Republicans.

[Week]

@karaddin 1) Absolutely no worries  2) Yes, absolutely agree with the end of your post. 

[sologdin]

"5%" argument quite a bit,

it was a thing in 2000; get gore elected and get nader FEC matching funds by voting along the lines of SG's advice, supra. not sure if it has done nothing--movements take time to develop.

has the punitive segment of third party voters otherwise been vindicated (as opposed to the parity segment and the purity segment)?  i.e., have they effectively punished the dems by withholding support from HRC, which caused her defeat and consequently induced a shift leftward by the defeated party? it is not obvious to me.  i do not think, say, that nader voters caused gore's defeat in any substantial manner, and i do not regard the candidates thereafter to have shifted meaningfully leftward in response in the next couple elections. has it happened however in 2016 and thereafter? not sure.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The USC Dornsife numbers are down to Biden +7 today after being in the double digits, so I imagine there has been some real tightening in the race. Might just be a temporary blip, we'll see.

Very likely it's a blip in the panel based on the trends.

2 hours ago, SaltyGnosis said:

The fact is a vote for anybody other than Bernie Sanders in the primary was a vote for the centrist arm of the DNC.

Bernie Sanders was the only non-centrist in the Democratic primary?  This indicates a misunderstanding of what centrist means or a willful ignorance of every candidate but Sanders.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Namely that under Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign was virtually out of money at the end of July, and thus had to dramatically scale down tv advertising in August and early September.

This is either criminally negligent or, more likely, simply criminal embezzlement.

[IheartIheartTesla]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Perhaps. Although the thing about the USC poll in 2016, besides being far more bullish on Trump than just about anyone, was that it was pretty volatile. It was a function of the way the panel worked, where 1/7th of it was polled each day and USC did had some formula for rolling in and out cohorts each day to give a multi-day average, and some cohorts were more conservative than others. My understanding is that this panel functions the same way.

Right, and looking through their polls for the last 2-3 weeks (late August),, while the numbers do jump around a bit because of the cohort-rolling, its never dipped to +7. Still, like you say, we may need to see 7 day numbers to make a judgement.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Double post, to note that Scientific American has broken a 175 year tradition to endorse a Presidential candidate! And in news that surprises no one, its Joe Biden.

The amount of votes this will change is less than negligible, but hopefully it will open the floodgates to more symbolic endorsements from other scientific publications.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is either criminally negligent or, more likely, simply criminal embezzlement.

Why not both?

[All Cats Are Bad]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Bernie Sanders was the only non-centrist in the Democratic primary?

No, Tulsi Gabbard had no chance of winning, neither did Elizabeth Warren after that first Super Tuesday. By the same logic that a vote for the Green or Libertarian parties (or a non-vote) is a vote for Trump in the general, a vote for one of the progressive candidates that was never going to be the nominee, especially after the point in the election where they literally had no path to victory, was a vote for the super PAC monolith that settled on Biden.

[All Cats Are Bad]

49 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I've seen this "5%" argument quite a bit, and yet when a 3rd party has crossed this mythical threshold it has done absolutely nothing.  Voting 3rd party for the goal of maybe getting 5% of the vote when you agree with most of one of the major party candidates is frankly, stupid.

I think the point is to take little steps to make third parties more viable. Incrementalism, right?

If the Obama/Clinton mold of Democrat had ever really done anything of substance to move progressive values forward at all I might be more chagrined at pointing out the 5% threshold is mostly hypothetical. Shit, so is the public option on the ACA, and they've been promising that for over 12 years 

[All Cats Are Bad]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I'd rather not have say, Ilhan Omar running against Ivanka Trump and whomever the Green Party candidate is in 2032. 

Honestly, Ivanka Trump would be a huge step to the Left for Republicans. She's basically a scumbag Democrat with a right-wing name. But as much as I'd love to vote for Omar, I don't think she can actually run for POTUS.

Sorry for multiple posts.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

I think the point is to take little steps to make third parties more viable. Incrementalism, right?

If the Obama/Clinton mold of Democrat had ever really done anything of substance to move progressive values forward at all I might be more chagrined at pointing out the 5% threshold is mostly hypothetical. Shit, so is the public option on the ACA, and they've been promising that for over 12 years 

The little steps would be to get greens / socialists into local and state positions, build an actual base from the bottom up rather than the top down.  And change the way votes are allocated: going against two juggernauts in a first past the post is a great way to prevent progressive initiatives.  Sanders has done more to move the Dems left than [Nader] or Jesse Ventura ever did.