2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:04 pm UTC

Here's a better link
The only non-Republican in the top 25: Bernie Sanders, a Senate independent whose state, Vermont, has a strong hunting tradition. He accepted $11,129 in cash. Sanders, of course, challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nod.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawma ... 2017-10-03
For a mere few grand, and of course, access to a Senate seat, the gun manufacturer lobby bought his vote on him control. Now you could quibble about how much they spent, and how effectively Bernie responded. But how is that any different than any other lobbying effort?
As for your consistency argument, I'm not a fan. Ted Cruz has been consistently an asshole in Congress, and that doesn't impress you. He's a decent candidate, and quite the contender in 2020. But I don't see him any better than any other top tier candidates. Weak on guns, better with youth but weak on blacks. Old though. None of this is a show stopper, but Democrats are overflowing with viable candidates. Especially since nobody is crowding out everyone like Hillary did.

reval
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby reval » Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:46 pm UTC

Sounds like a public stance against indiscriminate gun-grabbing to me, rather than a bought vote.

And another reason to vote for Bernie.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Here's a better link
The only non-Republican in the top 25: Bernie Sanders, a Senate independent whose state, Vermont, has a strong hunting tradition. He accepted $11,129 in cash. Sanders, of course, challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nod.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/lawma ... 2017-10-03
For a mere few grand, and of course, access to a Senate seat, the gun manufacturer lobby bought his vote on him control. Now you could quibble about how much they spent, and how effectively Bernie responded. But how is that any different than any other lobbying effort?
As for your consistency argument, I'm not a fan. Ted Cruz has been consistently an asshole in Congress, and that doesn't impress you. He's a decent candidate, and quite the contender in 2020. But I don't see him any better than any other top tier candidates. Weak on guns, better with youth but weak on blacks. Old though. None of this is a show stopper, but Democrats are overflowing with viable candidates. Especially since nobody is crowding out everyone like Hillary did.
Are you seriously trying to argue that someone bought Bernie Sander's vote on gun control for ten thousand dollars? That doesn't even make financial sense.

It seems many magnitudes of order more likely that they paid him for a position he already had.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:11 pm UTC

reval wrote:Sounds like a public stance against indiscriminate gun-grabbing to me, rather than a bought vote.

And another reason to vote for Bernie.
that's not very objective.
Shrugs

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... 20-part-2/
Good news for Biden and Bernie, front runners in polls typically will the nomination. Or at least are much more likely.

ijuin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ijuin » Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:27 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Are you seriously trying to argue that someone bought Bernie Sander's vote on gun control for ten thousand dollars? That doesn't even make financial sense.

It seems many magnitudes of order more likely that they paid him for a position he already had.


I agree—ten grand is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the several hundred million in total donations that a presidential campaign requires.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:00 pm UTC

ijuin wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Are you seriously trying to argue that someone bought Bernie Sander's vote on gun control for ten thousand dollars? That doesn't even make financial sense.

It seems many magnitudes of order more likely that they paid him for a position he already had.


I agree—ten grand is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the several hundred million in total donations that a presidential campaign requires.

That's fair, but his gun control position is influenced by the presence of gun makers in his state. Which isn't inherently a problem unless your party goes from frowning on guns to hating them.
Bernie being born with his sincere support for gun makers doesn't mean much to me. There's a lot of people in the country, and if person wasn't born and raised with politically convenient beliefs, he wouldn't have won.
Sanders isn't infallible, but if you don't believe me, that's fine. Partisanship can cover up a lot of flaws and let Bernie win.

When is Biden going to announce? His poll numbers haven't dropped despite the creepy Biden stuff. Good sign for him, though I hear he wants a guaranteed nomination before declaring.

ijuin
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby ijuin » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:12 pm UTC

Infallible? No. Better than most of the competition? Yes, for people who share the majority of my values.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That's fair, but his gun control position is influenced by the presence of gun makers in his state. Which isn't inherently a problem unless your party goes from frowning on guns to hating them.

Voters shouldn't be monolithic. Parties shouldn't be monolithic. Politicians shouldn't be monolithic. It's inane to think that any one group has or could have all the answers, and it's crazy that you can predict someone's views on, say, climate change just by knowing their views on, I dunno, abortion. That's why I'm proud to be a centrist and will support any party on any issue purely on its merits.

If Bernie is happy to go against his party line on some issues that seems like a plus. Seems like there's a greater chance he's actually attempting to think through the issues for himself rather than toe a line...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:55 am UTC

Believing in bodily autonomy could lead you to be pro-choice and anti-pollution. If people are principled and consistent in their ethics then you would expect a lot of views across a wide variety of areas to go together.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Believing in bodily autonomy could lead you to be pro-choice and anti-pollution. If people are principled and consistent in their ethics then you would expect a lot of views across a wide variety of areas to go together.

That's not how most voters work. You go with someone or something, and then partisanship takes over. If you name a position that you personally don't care about, then you'll look for a party tag to signal what to support.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver53 ... 7208747008
I'm hoping Biden doesn't make the nomination. I'd feel it would hurt the progress on sexual harassment. The field is really fluid now, so everyone is trying to push out candidates by trash talking. Not sure who's going to win.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:49 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Believing in bodily autonomy could lead you to be pro-choice and anti-pollution. If people are principled and consistent in their ethics then you would expect a lot of views across a wide variety of areas to go together.

Pollution =/= climate change. You can be anti-pollution but believe anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

The fact that the left and right are partisan in different countries in different ways is enough to refute the theory that this is driven from the bottom-up (ie. ethical frameworks derived from first principles). It's the right these days that are sceptical of scientists and other 'experts' whereas not so long ago it was the left.

No, all this is far more simply explained as pure tribalism. Both sides have their echo-chambers endlessly reinforcing the dogma. And experiments have been performed where members of the public will reliably support or oppose made-up policies based entirely on which party they are told came up with them...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:13 pm UTC

Is your argument now that you expect concern for climate change to be completely independent of concern for pollution?

I never said that these were driven by the bottom up through consistency, but everyone does have some consistency in beliefs (inconsistency leads to cognitive dissonance) and political platforms are built around this. People who are pro-ignoring climate change are people who have a certain set of things they want for the US and tend to align with people who control women's bodies because the objectives align.
Last edited by Thesh on Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Sizik » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:15 pm UTC

elasto wrote:It's the right these days that are sceptical of scientists and other 'experts' whereas not so long ago it was the left.


What's this referring to?
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:29 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:What's this referring to?


eg.

Random article wrote:To distrust medicine, or to give it its archaic name, “western medicine”, was once the preserve of the hippy left. In the early days of the anti-vax movement, at the turn of this century, those who distrusted vaccinations spanned the political spectrum. Only in the past decade has it become the drum beat of the American right, and it’s only in the past few years that prominent Republicans – Chris Christie and Rand Paul in 2015 – took it on as a rallying cry. How an issue gets from US campaign literature to a Facebook page in Hebden Bridge is hard to pinpoint; suffice it to say that, from Islamophobia to cases such as baby Charlie Gard’s, we know that it happens.

It dovetails with a generalised anti-science movement: climate-change denial, scorn for any epidemiological data about inequality and its effects, a generalised repudiation of expertise.


Random article

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Dark567 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:45 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://www-m.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politi ... gle.com%2F
2015, Jeb Bush had the most money raised, but for some reason Trump won the nomination. Is this an outlier? Or are you confusing correlation with causation? What if the winners of the nomination get more donations?
This is more or less what seems to happen. If you give candidates a bunch of money *independently* from how many people are donating(the most common way is self financing) they tend to not actually do all that well. That is to say candidates who spend more tend to win *because* they raised more, and they raised money by already being popular. If candidates have money outside of popularity(i.e. self-financing) the money doesn't seem to actually help.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:51 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Sizik wrote:What's this referring to?


eg.

Random article wrote:To distrust medicine, or to give it its archaic name, “western medicine”, was once the preserve of the hippy left. In the early days of the anti-vax movement, at the turn of this century, those who distrusted vaccinations spanned the political spectrum. Only in the past decade has it become the drum beat of the American right, and it’s only in the past few years that prominent Republicans – Chris Christie and Rand Paul in 2015 – took it on as a rallying cry. How an issue gets from US campaign literature to a Facebook page in Hebden Bridge is hard to pinpoint; suffice it to say that, from Islamophobia to cases such as baby Charlie Gard’s, we know that it happens.

It dovetails with a generalised anti-science movement: climate-change denial, scorn for any epidemiological data about inequality and its effects, a generalised repudiation of expertise.


Random article


So an anti-establishment political movement had people who were anti-medical establishment and this was all because of partisanship? I don't think you put much thought into this, which would be my experience with centrists.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:10 am UTC

Thesh wrote:So an anti-establishment political movement had people who were anti-medical establishment and this was all because of partisanship? I don't think you put much thought into this, which would be my experience with centrists.

Where did I say that hippies held their views because of partisanship..? It might have escaped your attention but political polarisation and animosity is far worse today than at any time in recent memory...

Centrists who are willing and able to judge each issue on its merits are more needed now than ever before. Maybe some ideas the left come up with are good and some are bad, and likewise for the right.

That's definitely how I want my MPs in the UK parliament to vote, anyhow: I absolutely do not want them voting every issue on party lines but on the basis of deep reflection after seeking expert advice, and, sorry, I refuse to see that as a bad thing...

(Bear in mind, when I call myself a centrist I consider myself to the left of the US Democrats on almost all issues, which is why it's pretty silly you sometimes throw insults at me... Being a centrist doesn't mean I am somehow 'equidistant' between any one country's political parties, it just means I think good ideas can come from any wing of any ideology and I feel free to vote for any party at any time on that basis, and, indeed, I have...)
Last edited by elasto on Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:38 am UTC

The fact that the left and right are partisan in different countries in different ways is enough to refute the theory that this is driven from the bottom-up (ie. ethical frameworks derived from first principles). It's the right these days that are sceptical of scientists and other 'experts' whereas not so long ago it was the left.


I dismiss you because you are decrying extremism while not actually offering a critique of extremist beliefs (what was your critique of the left you offered before? "They want to nationalize food and that's bad because socialism"?) and you seem to use "extremist" as a synonym for "disagrees with the status quo".
Last edited by Thesh on Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:48 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:46 am UTC

[Double-Post]
Last edited by elasto on Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:57 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:56 am UTC

What part of what I said there isn't true?

If what you said was true (that policies are correlated because they come from first principles and not from partisanship) then it wouldn't be the case that the left in the UK believe in (A and B) but not (C and D), but the left in the US believe in (A and C) but not (B and D).

And I maintain that it used to be the left that was more sceptical of science and now it's the right - but I never claimed that partisanship was the historical cause of that, only that it was the present-day cause of it.

Edit:

I dismiss you because you are decrying extremism while not actually offering a critique, and you seem to use it as a synonym for "disagrees with the status quo".

Ah, then, maybe I see the cause of the misunderstanding. No, I am quite happy for anyone to challenge the status quo at any time for any reason.

(I am also happy for anyone to defend the status quo at any time for any reason. Sometimes policies in any one area are pretty sound and based on the best available scientific evidence, and sometimes they are pretty crappy.)

Extremism does correlate with over-confidence and closed-mindedness though, on both the left and the right:

People with radical political views, both on the left and the right, are less able to judge when they are incorrect, a study suggests.

Scientists at University College London found those on the political fringes tended to overestimate their certainty after getting questions wrong.

[...]

Participants were then asked to complete a simple task in which they looked at two pictures and judged which one had the most dots on it.

Afterwards they were asked to rate how confident they are in making their decisions, and the scientists used cash rewards to incentivise them to judge their confidence accurately.

“We found that people who hold radical political beliefs have worse metacognition than those with more moderate views,” said lead author and neuroscientist Dr Steve Fleming.

“They often have a misplaced certainty when they’re actually wrong about something, and are resistant to changing their beliefs in the face of evidence that proves them wrong.”

To test how participants reacted to being proved wrong, they were shown a bonus set of dots that should have nudged them towards the correct decision.

For moderates who had made the wrong decision the first time, being shown this bonus information made them less confident in their choice. Radicals, on the other hand, held onto their initial decision even after seeing evidence suggesting it was incorrect.


link

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5448
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:58 am UTC

I think it’s important to distinguish between voters and those they vote for when talking about this. There is still today a contingent of politically left-leaning people who are anti-vaxers and homeopaths and generally all in for a wide variety of woo, but to my knowledge that has never been part of the Democratic political platform. Whereas the Republicans actually in power have a history of defunding education and research and pushing for their own religious woo to displace it.

People in general are prone to all kinds of craY unscientific nonsense, but which side’s politicians actually act on that when they get the chanc?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:08 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I think it’s important to distinguish between voters and those they vote for when talking about this. There is still today a contingent of politically left-leaning people who are anti-vaxers and homeopaths and generally all in for a wide variety of woo, but to my knowledge that has never been part of the Democratic political platform. Whereas the Republicans actually in power have a history of defunding education and research and pushing for their own religious woo to displace it.

People in general are prone to all kinds of craY unscientific nonsense, but which side’s politicians actually act on that when they get the chanc?

While I agree with that, I'm keen to expand it to left and right in general rather than simply the Ds and the Rs in the US - both of whom I consider to be basically extremist right-wing parties in global terms...

Bernie would be considered barely a moderate in European terms...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:17 am UTC

elasto wrote:What part of what I said there isn't true?


I was directly answering your first question "Where did I say it was partisanship?" I really don't see how your argument is otherwise relevant. If your thesis is that the right is driven by partisanship, showing that the left once held a belief that the right now holds fails to do that. Your thesis is, however, that it's the left and the right. I'll present you another alternative to consider: the right is anti-science because science contradicts their beliefs - they believe that people should live their lives a certain way, and science disagrees. They are anti-education, or pro-STEM, because sociology and philosophy teach you things that contradict their beliefs. They are anti-believing in climate change because if they believe in climate change then they have to acknowledge externalities. They are anti-welfare because if they acknowledge the imperfections in the market, they have to acknowledge that they do not deserve their status in society. They believe what they believe because they have to in order to support what they care the most about: "Real Americans".

Anyway, please tell me about this extremism on the right and left that is so bad. What is it you are witnessing on the right and the left, and where are these groups coming from?

Also, stop strawmanning my argument. Don't just tell me what I'm saying, quote what I said and what it was in response to.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:55 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/si ... the-polls/
Tldr Biden is trying to secure the moderate wing. Bernie, Harris and everyone else together have higher odds, but individually, polls show Biden ahead.

I'm curious if Biden is going to do more for progressives or win the nom with moderates alone. It's possible either way because every Dem will fall in line behind whoever the nominee is.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote: because every Dem will fall in line behind whoever the nominee is.



Because that worked out so well last time...
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:17 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Because that worked out so well last time...
Are you saying the parties won't unite around the nomination winners?
When Trump won the nomination, the Republicans united around Trump despite his terrible behaviors, positions, and traits. Unless you're assuming I don't know the odds of a president in a good economy getting reelected. Your witty one liner looks dumb, and off topic.

Mutex
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Mutex » Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:25 pm UTC

I think he's saying the Dems didn't fall in behind Clinton in 2016, and expecting them to automatically support whoever wins the Dem nomination for 2020 no matter how divisive the candidate is seems a bit optimistic.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:04 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I think he's saying the Dems didn't fall in behind Clinton in 2016, and expecting them to automatically support whoever wins the Dem nomination for 2020 no matter how divisive the candidate is seems a bit optimistic.

Because that worked out so poorly for Trump last time...
In all seriousness, Are you saying Edgar said being a moderate uniter is a better strategy than a factional progressive? Also, some proof that Democrats didn't fall in line behind Hillary in numbers large enough to matter?

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote: Are you saying Edgar said being a moderate uniter is a better strategy than a factional progressive

I don't think anyone has said what is the best strategy. I'm pretty sure the claim is you can't just assume all the Dems will fall in line with whatever strategy/candidate you pick because it didn't happen last time.


sardia wrote:Also, some proof that Democrats didn't fall in line behind Hillary in numbers large enough to matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
A study by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group found that 9.2% of Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.[1] According to the American National Election Study, 13% of Trump voters had voted for Obama in 2012.[2] Some analysts have argued that these voters had a disproportionately large impact on the 2016 election because they were concentrated in key swing states in the Midwest, while others have said that they were actually "Obama Republicans" rather than Democrats to begin with.[1][3] A May 2017 analysis by Global Strategy Group estimated that Obama-Trump voters accounted for more than two-thirds of Hillary Clinton's loss.[4]

It probably depends on how you define Democrat but these are votes the Democrats have historically gotten and they needed the last time to secure victory.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:55 pm UTC

I can claim almost all voters will fall in line behind their candidates because of increasing partisanship. It's incredibly predictive of voting patterns, behaviors, and beliefs, and that predictive power is growing over time. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pu ... sappeared/
The midwest getting redder (Obama trump voters) are trends that already started before 2016.
"It probably depends on how you define Democrat but these are votes the Democrats have historically gotten and they needed the last time to secure victory." Democrats also lost the white Nationalist vote (remember Jim crow Democrats?) but I don't see anyone crying about them either. We are basing Obama Trump voters in the midwest as the blue collar working class stereotype of the old bluedog Democrat days of yore. Are you sure you want to count them as Democrats as opposed to swing voters, or even diehard republicans?

Here's the thing, the not uniting behind a party theory is based only on Democrats, which is pretty sketchy as an argument if you exclude Republicans not defecting in large enough numbers to swing other states. Second, you are ignoring the significant possibility that the Democratic voting bloc as a whole could be at fault. Lastly, we didn't get those Obama Trump voters back in 2018, and yet Democrats still got the House with a +6ish margin of victory.

Edit: None of these answers feel very satisfactory to me regarding ObamaTrump voters/midwest/blue collar voters. Take it with a grain of salt.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:42 am UTC

sardia wrote:Here's the thing, the not uniting behind a party theory is based only on Democrats, which is pretty sketchy as an argument if you exclude Republicans not defecting in large enough numbers to swing other states


Except, we're not talking about Republicans uniting behind the nominee, or some hypothetical third party uniting behind a nominee.
We're talking about the Democrats uniting behind the nominee, and recently enough that these are mostly the same people who didn't rally behind Hillary.

And regardless of whether or not you think the party rallied behind Hillary, whatever happened in 2016 didn't turn out well for the Democrats and there's no reason to expect another establishment 'moderate' to do any better this time.
If The Democrats want to win, they need a candidate who can either more successfully rally the voters who stayed home/defected in 2016, or can pull in more support from outside the party's 2016 voting base.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Except, we're not talking about Republicans uniting behind the nominee, or some hypothetical third party uniting behind a nominee.
We're talking about the Democrats uniting behind the nominee, and recently enough that these are mostly the same people who didn't rally behind Hillary.

And regardless of whether or not you think the party rallied behind Hillary, whatever happened in 2016 didn't turn out well for the Democrats and there's no reason to expect another establishment 'moderate' to do any better this time.
If The Democrats want to win, they need a candidate who can either more successfully rally the voters who stayed home/defected in 2016, or can pull in more support from outside the party's 2016 voting base.

There's no evidence that a progressive factional candidate will do better in 2016 or 2020. Given Hillary's performance levels, you could easily imagine a similar candidate with less negatives to get 2 more points in the polls. Biden is in a interesting position because he could play to either the boost turnout strat (playing towards your base) and the welcome back former blue collar democrats(outside party base). Or this could all be for naught if the economy slows heavily or gets even better.

Right, wrong, or indifferent Biden has a big lead in the polls (compared to similar candidates name recognition or popularity (Warren or Booker). Does it guarantee anything if Biden crushes the opposition in the primary? Not much. It's very possible that the Midwest reddening reverses(2018 showed some strength in the midwest, while other midwest states had more losses), while the southern strategy remains out of reach for Democrats. But nobody knows without huge error bars.
Do I personally like Candidate Biden? No, I hope he loses. He's not getting it, and he still acts like he's fresh out of a old boy's networking event. But that has no bearing on his strength as a candidate. I'm also worried about the decline in polling for Democrats(compared to 2018, polls show worse results for 2019 elections), the good economy propping up Trump/GOP, continuation of a reddening midwest, but a stagnation of the Democratic southern strategy.

Note: Not sure if this matters, are you implying a separation between democratic voters and the party apparatus? Because I was referring to both the voters and Democratic party overall.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby duodecimus » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:26 am UTC

How is Biden leading the democrat nominations? Didn't he massively fuck up his first run for president by lying a ton and cribbing other people's speeches?

I feel like the party has forgotten that Democratic voters have long memories. Biden is bad in almost all the same ways Hillary is; he's a proven politician who is willing to compromise his stated ideals if it serves him.

Maybe they think Being Obama's VP is all it takes?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby sardia » Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:36 am UTC

Short answer? Divided progressives, only a couple moderates. Not sure otherwise, similar candidates don't have the same polling levels, endorsements or money raised. I still find it strange that Warren and Booker aren't higher in the polls.

Edit: leading in the polls is no guarantee but it's a better signal than most other things.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Sat May 04, 2019 8:40 pm UTC

Media still hasn't learned it's lessons from 2016; it's still giving Trump a handicap

But the way the Times reported this story is instructive. They put the juicy Biden details at the top, and buried by far the most important piece of news: that the president's personal lawyer is working with the Ukrainian government on the Biden story. "Mr. Giuliani has discussed the Burisma investigation, and its intersection with the Bidens, with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor general and the current prosecutor. He met with the current prosecutor multiple times in New York this year." He discussed this with Trump, who then suggested Attorney General Barr should open an investigation. The idea is to both smear Biden and cast doubt on the Mueller investigation as somehow coming from a Democratic conspiracy with Ukrainians.

Top law enforcement authorities potentially conspiring with the president to conduct politically motivated prosecutions is hugely more important than anything Hunter Biden did. It's awesomely corrupt — basically straight out of the aspiring dictator's handbook. But the Times buried it way at the bottom of their article.


I'm sure media outlets around the country have looked into it and have decided that it's more profitable if journalists have no professional obligation to inform people, and instead play up controversies against Democrats (since only Democrats care if Republicans are corrupt or unethical, it's a smaller audience).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Mon May 06, 2019 6:39 am UTC

I suspect a lot of Democrats don't care to here another news story about how corrupt Trump is. You might find new instances but Trump being corrupt is old news. Motivating news by profit instead of necessary information is a real problem but I don't know how you solve it without introducing a new problem.

Also, I don't think that this is their motivation but issues with Democrat candidates are probably more important at this point in election coverage. The vote between them is sooner and it is best to kill bad candidates bids as quickly as possible. It also might let the Trump scandal fatigue rest a bit but I wouldn't count on it helping that much.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 6:57 am UTC

You can eliminate the profits by running news as consumer cooperatives. On top of that, journalists need to have ethical obligations to ensure people are well-informed on the issues with priorities determined by how much people's lives are affected, rather than political campaigns or controversies.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby idonno » Mon May 06, 2019 1:45 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You can eliminate the profits by running news as consumer cooperatives.


It is difficult to see how running it as a consumer cooperative would help when the issue is that the lack of the consumers' interest in the subject makes it less profitable.

Thesh wrote:On top of that, journalists need to have ethical obligations to ensure people are well-informed on the issues with priorities determined by how much people's lives are affected, rather than political campaigns or controversies.

I'd argue that there is already an ethical obligation that they are not living up to and it has zero consequences for them so what happens if they don't live up to this ethical obligation? Who determines how much people's lives are affected? Is it lives in the country or general lives in the world? Shouldn't more priority be given to things that people can realistically influence rather than simply information about something bad that they can't fix? What about time sensitivity? Can't something with a more major impact but more time to act, be put off in favor of news for something that requires quick action?

Reality is complicated and I doubt you can design a system of enforcing any sort of obligation that is not open to several attack vectors for abuse and I really doubt an unenforced ethical obligate will do anything since we already have that.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby Thesh » Mon May 06, 2019 2:58 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
Thesh wrote:You can eliminate the profits by running news as consumer cooperatives.


It is difficult to see how running it as a consumer cooperative would help when the issue is that the lack of the consumers' interest in the subject makes it less profitable.


Yeah, it doesn't work that way; you are assuming that people and rational are purely motivated to maximize their personal preferences for
information. It doesn't work that way; hell, the media deliberately publishes stories with misleading titles for the sake of getting clicks.

idonno wrote:I'd argue that there is already an ethical obligation that they are not living up to and it has zero consequences for them so what happens if they don't live up to this ethical obligation?


There is no obligation if there is no consequences. I really don't feel like explaining how these questions have already been answered in the myriad of other professions that have ethical obligations and oversight.

idonno wrote:Who determines how much people's lives are affected?


How do we economics? The journalists have to justify their own stories, in the same way that doctors have to justify medicine, and researchers have to justify the usefulness of their research.

idonno wrote:Shouldn't more priority be given to things that people can realistically influence rather than simply information about something bad that they can't fix?


If someone can't realistically influence something that is having a major impact in their lives, then that is a major fucking issue that needs to be corrected.

idonno wrote:Reality is complicated and I doubt you can design a system of enforcing any sort of obligation that is not open to several attack vectors for abuse and I really doubt an unenforced ethical obligate will do anything since we already have that.


"Information is complicated, so let's not even make an attempt to discuss solutions for the problem and just agree that a system that is obviously failing to inform people about the things that affect them is the best we can have."

You know how you solve the problem? By creating an environment where bad information can be called out before it becomes the narrative.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3758
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2020 Presidency Campaign for the Future

Postby elasto » Mon May 06, 2019 3:03 pm UTC

I think news has to be non-profit. That may mean government-funded but independent (like the BBC), that may mean private benefactors (eg. some billionaire setting up a trust), and maybe even a collective (I recently heard an interview with a journalist who self-funds through Patreon) but I think the days of expecting for-profit organisations not to treat news as an entertainment medium first and foremost are long gone...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, gmalivuk and 9 guests