Previously 'The big ol' 2020 debate', turned Baruch's personal waste bin.

Started by Mr.Obvious, January 27, 2020, 06:37:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

#300
Quote from: Shiranu on March 07, 2020, 10:27:00 PM
I mean... it's not like he just randomly made that comment. He didn't just randomly praise Castro.

The hosts continued to pressure him on, "Are you SURE you're not a communist like Castro? Like... sure, sure? Cause we think you are a communist like Castro!" and he finally just said, "Okay, yes he did some things I actually agree with... that doesn't somehow mean that the other 99% of shit he did wasn't horrible."

Imagine ANY other candidate being held to that standard... of being called out for supporting capitalism even though there are horrible capitalists, supporting the military even though they commit war crimes, etc. ...it would be ridiculous. But they got the soundbyte they wanted and left out the context or the full point.

Imagine if someone continued to harass you about, "Are you SURE your not in favour of slave labour? After all the slave traders were just capitalists, and you like capitalism, so you probably like slave labour right? I mean capitalism is pretty bad, because slave labour happens you know?"... if you pointed out that capitalism does things right does that somehow mean you are also showing an unspoken support for slave labour?

The problem isn't that Castro got some things right, but it is a self-fail to mention that during a political campaign outside of Cuba.  The usual SJW response is that people shouldn't behave like people have always behaved before .... because Rousseau has "woke" us up.  Idealists always support humanity we don't have, and hate the humanity we actually are.  Idealists oppose empirical evidence.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

Voting strategically in the primary for who has the best chance of  winning sounds dicey for me and fraught with a lot of second guessing.  We know that Hillary didn't win, and for the life of me, I don't see how Biden is any different.  They are both cut from the same cloth, and with the scissors in the hands of the inner circle.  I'm not saying Sanders would have won if he were nominated last time.  I'm just going to vote for who I want.  Voting for the guy I don't want seems fundamentally wrong. 

Also, over the last 20 years I've watched the Democratic Party drift to the right.  I believe this was a strategy, and someone in this forum years ago thought drifting to the right to push the conservatives off a cliff was brilliant.  I don't think it's brilliant, and I think that's partly why the Democratic Party is failing.  There's something important about reflecting the desires of constituents, something that Republicans are much better at than Democrats.

This is conjecture of course.  I don't understand voters or what motivates them.

Baruch

#302
McGovern campaign 1972?  The Dems should have cut to the chase while Fidel Castro was still alive ... just nominate Fidel and we will all get Spanish literacy (which is not a bad thing BTW) and free medical care, Third World style.

Yes, the CIA took over the Democrat party decades ago.  Averell Harriman helped found the OSS/CIA, and was a Democratic Party bigwig.  In later life, married to Pamela Digby Churchill, who was Winston's first daughter in law, and played Mata Hari for him, in counter-intelligence against British and US senior officers.  Later Averell and Pamela got married (1971) and went around "cultivating" young Democrat candidates (including the Clintons).  President Clinton made Pamela US ambassador to France, as a personal favor.  She died in that office, and uniquely was brought back to the US in Air Force One.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Averell_Harriman

Yes, the Dems (who bombed Vietnam into the Stone Age) are ever so Liberal .... bwahaha.  The American Left has been played, for 100 years now, ever since J Edgar headed the FBI etc.

Yes, not only is revisionist history fraught with error (could Sanders win in 2016), so is predicting the future (of current election).

The voters don't understand themselves or what motivates them.  The mob never does.  Hence Socrates' objections to brainless democracy (mob rule).  Hive minds aren't real.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PopeyesPappy

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2020, 07:52:42 PM
Take a look at head-to-head polls (and/or generic ballots) and get back to me.

And predictably, your implication that Sanders' popularity extends only to super liberal (where do you guys keep getting this shared talking point?  I'd love to know) is dead wrong.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/late-support-lifts-biden-sanders-base-takeaways-super/story?id=69381829

Independents voting for guy who was himself an Independent for a long while.  Go figure.

If we learned anything in 2016 it was polls are unreliable. At this point in 2016 no one was giving Trump a snowball's chance in hell, and Clinton led him in the polls right up through election day. We were also reminded yet again that slim majorities in the general election don't always equate to a win.

As far as talking points go I don't know where you got that one because that isn't what I said. I said he had to capture the moderate vote, and the first sentence in the ABC article you linked was, "A surge of late support lifted former Vice President Joe Biden on Super Tuesday, extending his candidacy beyond his southern strongholds as moderates coalesced behind his electability argument." 

Moderate ≠ independent.



Ideologically moderates are all over the map. The same goes for independents but to a lesser degree. There are left-leaning moderates and independents. There are right-leaning moderates and independents. Moderates by definition however generally do not fall into the extreme of either the left or the right on most issues. They tend to be more centristic. While a majority of independents identify as moderates, more of them lean further left than among moderates. So no, it isn't surprising that independents like far-left candidates, and moderates like centrist candidates. That's why Biden is getting more votes than Sanders. There are more moderates than independents.

The good news is the majority of both groups lean left. The bad news is the democrats half to have about 2/3rds of the moderate vote to win, and like it or not the further to the left a candidate gets the less likely they are to get there.

The bottom line here is asking a moderate to vote for someone on the far end of either spectrum is asking them to vote against their values. When forced to choose between two extremes they will often make a decision based on a single issue. For a small business owner that issue might be tax-friendly corporate laws. For a Catholic that issue could be abortion. They might even decide to vote 3rd party, or just stay home. Neither of those last two would benefit the democratic nominee who say they need a large turn out to beat trump.

Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

SGOS

Your Venn Diagram needs another circle for "extremists who think they are moderates."

Baruch

#305
Quote from: SGOS on March 08, 2020, 03:19:38 PM
Your Venn Diagram needs another circle for "extremists who think they are moderates."

And moderates who think they are extremists etc.

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns - Donald Rumsfeld.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

"Confused Biden Calls Himself "Obiden Bama" & Says "We Can Only Re-Elect Donald Trump"" ... sorry, Dem's own goal strikes again.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

#307
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on March 08, 2020, 12:57:41 PM
If we learned anything in 2016 it was polls are unreliable.
...to a point.  538 had Trump with a 30% chance of victory.  Sometimes, you roll a 1.  It happens.

QuoteI said he had to capture the moderate vote, and the first sentence in the ABC article you linked was, "A surge of late support lifted former Vice President Joe Biden on Super Tuesday, extending his candidacy beyond his southern strongholds as moderates coalesced behind his electability argument."
Moderate democrats was clearly what that article is referring to, not self-described "moderates" writ large.  These sorts of terms can be a bit subjective and confusing and overly complicated, so I'll boil it down for clarity's sake:

Sanders can get more non-Democrat votes than Biden.

"Some 26% of Democrats and independents polled Feb. 17-25 said they believed Sanders was the strongest Democrat in a head-to-head matchup with Trump, compared with 20% who picked billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg and 17% who named former Vice President Joe Biden.

That was a big change from a month earlier, when 27% of respondents gave Biden the edge, and just 17% thought Sanders could beat Trump."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-poll/sanders-surpasses-biden-among-african-american-voters-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN20J2J9

QuoteThe bottom line here is asking a moderate to vote for someone on the far end of either spectrum is asking them to vote against their values.
As I have learned quite recently, it should not be taken as a given that people are going to vote their values.

Case in point: Trump.  That's a person who I think most of us would characterize as solidly right-wing, who obviously did manage to get support from more than just diehard right-wingers.

Shiranu

I don't see Biden drawing in the independent vote; he is more of the same, boring and frankly seems like a semi-senile grandpa wandered on stage and is just recounting the glory days.

Bernie at least can draw in a segment of the independent vote, and frankly... most democrats are going to vote for the nominee regardless of who it is. I don't think Bernie getting the nomination is going to suddenly cause large swaths of the Dem to say, "You know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna stay home and not vote."

Biden appeals to dyed in the wool Democrats and the "Not Trump" crowd, and honestly that seems to be about it. That is what they tried with Hillary and it failed.

And I appreciate that people can afford to take what they feel are "incremental steps" in voting a candidate like Biden in, even though it would only be an incremental step back to the status quo and not legitimate reform... I cant afford that. A majority of Americans cant afford that. I'm living paycheck to paycheck while up to my neck in debt, and it's not even debt on fun shit. It's debt on medical bills, on a college education that is frankly useless (like 90% or more of college degrees), on rising food and housing prices.

This country needs a progressive revolution, or it will very soon likely require a violent one and I sure as fuck don't want that. But the working class continues to be driven further and further into poverty, the wealth divide deepens, the sick have to stay home and lose their job or die because they cant get the medical treatment they need... and more of the same is going to mean more of this.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hydra009

#309
Quote from: trdsf on March 07, 2020, 11:42:40 PM
Yes, that's reasonably accurate.  Right now my priority is executive experience, to clean up the shitstorm domestically and internationally that Trump is going to leave behind.  I believe that is more important right now -- we are damaged goods internationally, and catastrophically divided nationally.
I think we all agree that this dumpster-fire needs to be cleaned up asap, though we're definitely at odds over how to do that.

QuoteAnd it's not so much that I think an incremental approach is the best approach; it's that in this election it's the only realistic way forward.  We're only going to get a center-left Congress at best and flipping the Senate is iffy at best, so I will take the small steps we can realistically do.
See, I would've agreed with that 10-20 years ago, but look, we have some pretty damn serious problems on our hands and we simply can't take half-measures or less.  Climate change can't wait.  Medicare for all can't wait.  I can't stress enough how serious this stuff is.  We don't have the luxury of doing politics as normal.  Plus, every time the POTUS swaps parties, it's a 1 step forward, 10 steps back situation.  We have to massively up our game and fervently fight for the stuff we say we believe in.  It's as simple as that.  We need firebrands for this fight, not incrementalists.  After the wreckage is cleared and we're on a decent track again, then we can talk about how fast we want to get there, not before.

QuoteNo, you're not mistaken, I haven't mentioned policy.  For me, this isn't a policy election.
Okay, and hear me out on this, but for me, the entire point of doing politics is to make policy.  For me, it's ALWAYS about policy.  Cause I'll level with you - I'm not out there knocking on doors, sending texts, sending emails - to get a person elected.  Believe it or not, I'm not a cult of personality kind of guy.  I'm out there to effect policy change.

So saying something like that, it's just flabbergasting.

And I promised myself that I'd go canvassing for whomever the Dems nominate against Trump, so for IPU's sake, PLEASE give me policy reasons to sell this guy to people.  I'm begging you.

I have family members who are Independent-minded and one who straight up told me that Biden and Trump are a giant douche and turd sandwich kind of situation (which, btw, I consider a false equivalence) and I simply can't come to him with a lesser of two evils argument.  It's just totally unconvincing.

QuoteIf a bunch of centrists get knocked off by progressives throughout the primary season, then maybe we can have revolution rather than evolution and I will cheerily admit my miscalculation.
See, that might never happen because people who say they're ideologically aligned with the progressive candidate might not vote that way and the establishment is going to find a way to make sure the centrist wins (like say, slipping the centrist candidate the debate questions ahead of time or making some phone calls and have almost everyone else drop out of the race and simultaneously endorse the chosen centrist scant days before a big vote)

QuoteUntil then, my view is that we have two good candidates, and one has the executive experience the other doesn't.  It really is as simple as that.
And I get that that's important to you, but I gotta be honest with you, that's probably not going to convince other people.  I mean FFS, last time America voted in a guy with zero political experience whatsoever.

Hydra009

Quote from: Shiranu on March 08, 2020, 06:55:09 PM
I don't see Biden drawing in the independent vote; he is more of the same, boring and frankly seems like a semi-senile grandpa wandered on stage and is just recounting the glory days.
And they say that I'm the mean one!

GSOgymrat

I agree that Medicare for All is the best solution for providing healthcare but a plan that is more agreeable to Republicans and special interests may save more lives than holding out for Medicare for All. Let's say Sanders is elected, champions Medicare for All, encounters strong resistance but gets it passed at the end of his second term. That is eight years with approximately 29 million people not having access to affordable healthcare. Let's say Biden is elected and champions "Medicare for All Who Want It" that covers people who don't have private insurance, which is passed in four years rather than eight because it doesn't encounter such strong resistance. That is 29 million people who have affordable healthcare four years earlier, which is significant. I feel like Sanders won't accept a compromise because he knows M4A won't be financially viable without eliminating private insurance, just as the ACA compromise failed because states were allowed to opt-out of expanding Medicaid and citizens were allowed to refuse coverage.

The good thing about Sanders is M4A is his signature policy and I'm confident he will make healthcare a priority. I'm not sure how strongly Biden would fight for universal coverage. After winning the executive branch and convincing the legislative branch we then must deal with the judicial branch, which Trump has stacked, claiming universal healthcare is unconstitutional.

Baruch

The world needs a revolution.  It isn't good enough for spoiled Boomers, X-gen, Millennials ... enter Corona-Chan.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Bloomberg drops out, endorses Biden in bid to stop Sanders from achieving 'insurmountable' delegate lead
Bloomberg would owe least with Biden's tax plan, most with Sanders' tax plan

Interesting.  Really puts the "wasted" $500 million presidential bid in perspective.

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 08, 2020, 11:01:46 PM
Bloomberg drops out, endorses Biden in bid to stop Sanders from achieving 'insurmountable' delegate lead
Bloomberg would owe least with Biden's tax plan, most with Sanders' tax plan

Interesting.  Really puts the "wasted" $500 million presidential bid in perspective.

The lack of self-interest by billionaires is legendary ... LEGENDARY!  Like the Lock Ness monster.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.