I think people enjoy hating Trump. Hence the polls. But when it really comes down to it - it being voting day - I think it’s mostly talk, and if the economy is okay, then most opposition stays home, unless they really have someone they truly are excited by & care about to rally around. And I don’t see that person yet.
You really think so? I think we'll probably see record turnouts unless the nominee is damaged by a major scandal or something. The debates with Trump and any one of the leading candidates should be incendiary enough.
There is no hole in my thinking (in general I agree with your point about predictive ability) but when it comes to predicting electability the evidence is very clear (no one can do it reliably).
Are you confusing profitable gambling against betting lines with electability?
As I mentioned in the other thread he smeared her by association. She is the preferred candidate of the corporate wing of the party. You should include the post he is responding to next time.
I disagree that he smeared Warren by association. The "corporate wing" dislikes Warren and Sanders both, just dislikes Warren a bit less. Also it's not very intelligent to read tweets as the actual words of the candidate unless it's Trump. You and I both know Sanders doesn't write his tweets. When Obama's official Twitter put out that despicable "clock boy" tweet, I didn't assume that Obama was that much of a dumbass.
Bernie understands that Warren took a lot of his supporters and that was his attempt to get them back. He's also tapping into the DNC conspiracy stuff.
As for the DNC conspiracy stuff, there's plenty of high-quality evidence that key DNC leaders didn't want Sanders in 2016. It's pretty understandable that he would be skeptical.
Any sensible person would rate quality similarly. Well educated is preferable to poorly educated, experience over inexperienced, etc.. Trump is incoherent about everything that matters. Hillary is the opposite.
I'm talking about "candidate quality" as in ability to win elections. That need not correlate with highest level of schooling, political experience, or your subjective appraisal of "coherence on everything that matters".
Such as? Do you think voters really want corporate tax cuts or environmental deregulation? Do you think they want cuts to the safety net to support tax cuts on high income earners? They really want large estates to be passed on tax free to heirs?
I think that people who believe that life begins at conception are right to prefer the average Republican to the average Democrat.
I think that people who believe that the EPA should re-orient back to clean air and water instead of pouring resources into attempting to fight global warming are correct to prefer the average Republican to the average Democrat.
I think that those who believe that illegal immigration is a serious issue which requires more border barriers and serious diplomatic pressure are correct to support the average Republican over the average Democrat.
I think that those who put the interests of the Israeli zionists over the interests of the Palestinians are correct to support the average Republican over the average Democrat, although that one gets really hairy sometimes.
I think those who prefer few to no changes to federal gun laws are correct to support the average Republican over the average Democrat.
The general point is: each rational citizen assigns different weights to different issues. An extreme example for purposes of illustration: Bob might agree with the Democratic platform on 4/5 issues, but be repulsed by the platform's stance on his one most important issue issue and therefore vote Republican "rationally". I have to put "rationally" in quotation marks as you and I both know that voting is irrational.
You really think so? I think we'll probably see record turnouts unless the nominee is damaged by a major scandal or something. The debates with Trump and any one of the leading candidates should be incendiary enough.
The campaign next year will be an insane, incendiary circus no doubt; I just have a feeling when the ratings smoke clears, not much will have changed. I don’t see Biden or Warren pulling it off, & it seems one of those two will probably be the nominee. We’ll see though...
The campaign next year will be an insane, incendiary circus no doubt; I just have a feeling when the ratings smoke clears, not much will have changed. I don’t see Biden or Warren pulling it off, & it seems one of those two will probably be the nominee. We’ll see though...
1. Either Elizabeth Warren or Joseph Biden will be the 2020 Democratic nominee for president.
2. @Peteyandjia - for @waiguoren - against
4. Sig bet
5. 1 month
6. At the time of the 2020 Democratic convention.
The kryptonite for Trump is someone real, i.e., someone who has real convictions, has thought through his/her positions, can articulate them well, and contrast them with Trump's record. Few of the Democrats fit this description. Buttigieg and Sanders both do though. I also see them as the two most likely nominees.
Trump would destroy Harris. Seriously, that would be brutal.
I had the pleasure of hanging out with about 10 members of a major chapter of Women's March recently. Angry, middle-aged women. They seemed to love Harris. I think this type of voter will prefer Warren or Harris and could waffle between them. A lot of them are anti-Sanders because...well, they aren't very good at explaining it but it has something to do with 2016.
Well, that is a pretty dumb comment given what I said. Remember, I said experts can't predict electability so beating their picks isn't an achievement. I'm highly skeptical the people you're referring to can do it with accuracy.
You're aware that there is research on this issue yes?
I disagree that he smeared Warren by association. The "corporate wing" dislikes Warren and Sanders both, just dislikes Warren a bit less. Also it's not very intelligent to read tweets as the actual words of the candidate unless it's Trump. You and I both know Sanders doesn't write his tweets. When Obama's official Twitter put out that despicable "clock boy" tweet, I didn't assume that Obama was that much of a dumbass. See the above for why the first part is silly.
That's a copout for his tweet and if he doesn't approve of every tweet before they go out he's incompetent. The idea that tweets don't count as actual words of candidates is insane.
If you want to point to a verifiable rogue tweet and discard it, fine, I'm with you. Do you think that was the case here?
What do you think the corporate wing refers to?
As for the DNC conspiracy stuff, there's plenty of high-quality evidence that key DNC leaders didn't want Sanders in 2016. It's pretty understandable that he would be skeptical.
I didn't say they didn't have preference. I said Sanders is feeding into the CT stuff to his advantage.
In the sense that Trump defeated Clinton head-to-head.
I'm talking about "candidate quality" as in ability to win elections. That need not correlate with highest level of schooling, political experience, or your subjective appraisal of "coherence on everything that matters".
I also find your use of "subjective" to be annoying and inappropriately dismissive. Do you believe Trump speaks well on issues in a coherent, effective way? I can pull hundreds of speech transcripts and get a consensus that he basically speaks at a below average high school student.
You can't even agree that he is a terrible speaker?
I think that people who believe that life begins at conception are right to prefer the average Republican to the average Democrat.
I think that people who believe that the EPA should re-orient back to clean air and water instead of pouring resources into attempting to fight global warming are correct to prefer the average Republican to the average Democrat.
I think that those who believe that illegal immigration is a serious issue which requires more border barriers and serious diplomatic pressure are correct to support the average Republican over the average Democrat.
Looks like you believe the successful smearing of Democrats on this issue too. The difference between Trump and Dems on imigration is a matter of blatant cruelty and treatment of immigrants. It's a lie that Dems don't want a secure border.
I think that those who put the interests of the Israeli zionists over the interests of the Palestinians are correct to support the average Republican over the average Democrat, although that one gets really hairy sometimes.
I agree with this one. I can't wrap my head around why this is so important to so many people but if it is Republicans are better on this issue for you.
The general point is: each rational citizen assigns different weights to different issues. An extreme example for purposes of illustration: Bob might agree with the Democratic platform on 4/5 issues, but be repulsed by the platform's stance on his one most important issue issue and therefore vote Republican "rationally". I have to put "rationally" in quotation marks as you and I both know that voting is irrational.
You have failed to mention a major difference. The policies Republicans actually pass are deeply unpopular. They get people riled up on guns and abortion then pass tax cuts, gut environmental regulation and gut healthcare. They talk about deficits then pass bills that increase them. They're snake oil salesman. Democrats try to do what they say they'd do.
You have a serious blind spot here. I'm perfectly comfortable with different world views and political preferences. I'm not ok with lying and deception to achieve upward redistribution of wealth.
"Despicable"? How dare he say something nice to a kid? Such evil must not be tolerated! The only proper way for presidents to treat brown kids is to lock them in concentration camps.
What the heck happened to you to make you think that something like that is despicable?
"Despicable"? How dare he say something nice to a kid? Such evil must not be tolerated! The only proper way for presidents to treat brown kids is to lock them in concentration camps.
What the heck happened to you to make you think that something like that is despicable?
It's quite telling that your mind went directly to race here. You need to work on that.
You also ignored the fact that the "clock boy" accomplished nothing to warrant a White House invite. The kid lied about "building a clock", and got rewarded handsomely for it. That's destructive of meritocracy and rates among the dumbest White House invites I've ever seen.
The original point, which still stands, was that neither you nor I should be dumb enough to think that Obama himself actually wrote that tweet and so I won't blame Obama very much until I've seen evidence that this dumb idea was his own.
It's quite telling that your mind went directly to race here. You need to work on that.
You also ignored the fact that the "clock boy" accomplished nothing to warrant a White House invite. The kid lied about "building a clock", and got rewarded handsomely for it. That's destructive of meritocracy and rates among the dumbest White House invites I've ever seen.
The original point, which still stands, was that neither you nor I should be dumb enough to think that Obama himself actually wrote that tweet and so I won't blame Obama very much until I've seen evidence that this dumb idea was his own.
He didn't lie about anything, and he got suspended and harassed by the cops for no good reason. So the president rectified it by being nice to him. You regard that as "despicable" while defending vile characters like Trump, Miller, and Kobach, which suggests that your moral compass is badly broken. And I think it's disingenuous to deny that race plays any role in why you found a nice tweet to a kid by the president to be despicable and why you think that cruelty to children by the administration is OK.
I think it's definitely not well-defined, but we could come up with a decent definition. It's a grouping of think tanks like Third Way and large corporate donors who are hostile to Medicare for All, increased greenhouse gas regulation, strict Wall Street regulations, and other 'progressive' goals.
I'm not sure why you refer to it as "the CT stuff". It's out in the open for you and everyone else to see. Here is one example: Stephanie Cutter, a co-founder of a corporate consulting firm called Precision Strategies which has received millions in funding from the health care industry who also worked as Obama's 2012 Deputy Campaign Manager.
Given the above and numerous other examples, it's completely reasonable for Sanders to speak of the "corporate wing".
I measure the quality of a fighter by his ability to win fights.
I measure the quality of a candidate by his ability to win political contests.
This is the natural definition, and other definitions inevitability involve a high degree of subjectivity.
Would you say Tony Ferguson is not a great fighter because he keeps his chin up, never mixes takedowns in with his strikes, and often puts himself out of position by switching stances? No, because he consistently wins fights against elite competition.
To show how this works in politics, take Obama. I won't bore you with all of his policies and behaviors that I disagreed with, but suffice it to say I'm not a fan. Obama is probably the best presidential candidate of my lifetime. McCain and Romney were not easy wins and he pretty much coasted. To test if you are being fair, I think you should ask yourself if Reagan was a great candidate by the time 1980 had rolled around. (The answer is a resounding 'yes').
I also find your use of "subjective" to be annoying and inappropriately dismissive. Do you believe Trump speaks well on issues in a coherent, effective way? I can pull hundreds of speech transcripts and get a consensus that he basically speaks at a below average high school student.
It's a matter of fact that your judgments of "coherence" and "effectiveness" are subjective. You don't think Trump speaks coherently or effectively, but his rallies attract huge numbers and it's just Trump talking. It would be foolish to assume he can fill a stadium with people who think he speaks "incoherently". Furthermore, the "consensus" you're referring to might exist among your anti-Trump pals or even the Sherdog War Room more broadly, but there is no reason to assume it would be representative of anything on a national level.
The fact that most Republicans at the national level support the appointment of SCOTUS justices who would likely overturn Roe if given a chance, and the fact that most Republicans at the national level support the Hyde Amendment.
Looks like you believe the successful smearing of Democrats on this issue too. The difference between Trump and Dems on imigration is a matter of blatant cruelty and treatment of immigrants. It's a lie that Dems don't want a secure border.
No, stay focused on my point. I wrote that those voters who believe in more border wall construction and the use of diplomatic pressure to solve the border crisis are correct to prefer the average Republican than the average Democrat at this time.
As as aside, I basically agree with you that the public policy platform of most national-level Democrats does include "border security". I never wrote otherwise. However, it is notable that a major Democratic presidential candidate (Robert O'Rourke) has called explicitly and publicly for tearing down the existing fences/border wall.
I never claimed otherwise. Elections are mostly decided by subjective emotions rather than policy. I'm providing you instances for which a rational citizen with particular preferences would prefer an average Republican to an average Democrat.
You have failed to mention a major difference. The policies Republicans actually pass are deeply unpopular. They get people riled up on guns and abortion then pass tax cuts, gut environmental regulation and gut healthcare. They talk about deficits then pass bills that increase them. They're snake oil salesman. Democrats try to do what they say they'd do.
This is a talking point that comes up a lot, and I think it's a poor one. Republicans run on guns and abortion, sure, but then you are missing the fact that they deliver. How do you think the anti-abortion crowd is feeling about the thorough re-shaping of the federal judiciary that the Republicans have carried out under Trump? They are feeling great. Federal gun laws remain unchanged. That's a big selling point for the base.
On the issue of taxes: the rise of Trump has brought a lot of lower-income people into the Republican Party. We now can find high-quality polling showing that about half of Republicans support raising marginal income tax rates on high earners. That's a change from 10 years ago. However, the polling typically references a tax bracket that doesn't exist (e.g., the $10 million tax bracket). Also, the Republican tax package was a lot more detailed than a single marginal rate cut, despite misleading attacks from people including Paul Krugman. The bill cut marginal income tax rates across the board (excluding the 10% bracket and the 35% bracket), and the largest rate cuts were for middle-level and upper-middle level earners (rates reduced 3% and 4%, respectively). Of course, the resistance focused on the reduction of the top bracket from 39.6% to 37% and painted this as "soaking the rich".
I disagree with you on both environmental regulation and health care.
I agree with you on deficits. I believe that many national-level Republicans are too cozy with military contractors, and most Democrats lack the balls to speak out.
Wrong. He lied when he told media on multiple occasions that he "built the clock". He did nothing more than take the plastic case off of a pre-purchased digital clock and put it into a pencil box. It looked like a "bomb" from a Hollywood movie (check the photos online), and the kid's teacher got scared and called the police. Then lazy and/or evil MSM types and the White House treated him as a hero in a feel-good story. It's almost as bad as the Covington High School MSM debacle.
What's your source for that? If it's the boy's word against the police, then you've just showed your bias for everyone to make note of. Looks like standard tribalism to me.
I defend them when they are correct and criticize them when they are wrong. That's just what a fair-minded individual should do. I'm not into the tribalist thing like you.
And I think it's disingenuous to deny that race plays any role in why you found a nice tweet to a kid by the president to be despicable and why you think that cruelty to children by the administration is OK.
Your post quality is declining. In a single sentence, you both (a) tried to mind-read me (b) strawmanned me on "cruelty to children by the administration". You're just making things up at this point. What happened to you?
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
