Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Inslee and Hickenlooper out

[Sketch]

Trump is a particularly unpopular president, and his popularity is artificially propped up by the economy. I think his supporters are a mix of crazies who are firmly committed to him and casuals who will desert him if there's an economic downturn. So I wouldn't think that something as important and irreversible as a VP pick should be wasted trying to appeal to them.

Hahahah

 

[Lead]

I think also that the forum attracts angry, disaffected types who tend to be political hipsters (hence the decline of support for Warren as she's become more popular, for example--and Bernie would lose half his supporters here if he were to win the nomination).

I see some anger from time to time. Politics seems to be a magnet for that however so maybe it can also bring a unhappy group usually here. And yea, there seems to always be hate for the establishment pick.

 

[lfd0311]

Biden because it doesn't matter what you peasants think.

 

[Happy Man]

Biden because it doesn't matter what you peasants think.

Too white

 

[Jack V Savage]

I see some anger from time to time. Politics seems to be a magnet for that however so maybe it can also bring a unhappy group usually here. And yea, there seems to always be hate for the establishment pick.

I think this piece is pretty spot on:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-shouting-class.html

And here's a quote:

There are several reasons people may be part of the Shouting Class:

Reason 1: Idealism. Some people feel an emotional need to feel like they're improving the world. Since the world is never perfect, and fighting for a better world is intrinsic to these people's motivation (and probably their identity), they will always continue to speak up. Notice that there are many, many idealists who are not part of the Shouting Class - some express their idealism by building homes for the poor, or volunteering at an animal shelter, or working as a civil rights lawyer, or being a politician. Shouting Class idealists are only those idealists who see shouting as a key way to bring about positive change.

Reason 2: Personal Unhappiness. Research shows that negative moods make people much more likely to engage in online trolling. We also have good reason to believe that some people are just generally unhappy people - though life events make them relatively happier or sadder, their baseline is a negative emotional state that changes only very slowly. In other words, some people join the Shouting Class because they are giving vent to the negative emotion that they are constantly experiencing for reasons mostly unrelated to the problems they're complaining about.

Reason 3: Sadism. Research shows that many trolls are sadists, who delight in making other people feel uncomfortable. Since recipients of complaints and negative feedback often feel uncomfortable, joining the Shouting Class can be a way of indulging sadism.

Reason 4: Argumentativeness. Arguing is an intellectual activity, and many people enjoy intellectual activity. Some people enjoy argument specifically, while others just use it as a break from other kinds of intellectual activities (writing code, etc.). A subset of these people are "mansplainers" who just want to show off how clever they are or listen to themselves talk.

This is probably not an exhaustive list; I'm sure you can think of others. But it's pretty clear, from research and from personal experience, that there are a few people in society who fall under one or more of these categories.

For me, it's mostly 4 with a tinge of 1. But I think 2 and 3 are really common.

But here's another quote:

In August of 2016, NPR disabled comments on their website, after finding the following:

I did find the numbers quite startling. In July, NPR.org recorded nearly 33 million unique users, and 491,000 comments. But those comments came from just 19,400 commenters, Montgomery said. That's 0.06 percent of users who are commenting, a number that has stayed steady through 2016. When NPR analyzed the number of people who left at least one comment in both June and July, the numbers showed an even more interesting pattern: Just 4,300 users posted about 145 comments apiece, or 67 percent of all NPR.org comments for the two months. More than half of all comments in May, June and July combined came from a mere 2,600 users. The conclusion: NPR's commenting system — which gets more expensive the more comments that are posted, and in some months has cost NPR twice what was budgeted — is serving a very, very small slice of its overall audience.

So the people here are extremely non-representative, and in a way that leads them to favor candidates who are branding themselves as "outsiders" and/or candidates who are genuinely unpopular.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah, the potential for abuse is ridiculous.

How about instead establishing a bureau of standards with voluntary membership that allows for some certification process, and then people can choose to get their news from these supposedly trusted sources or not?

 

[BarryDillon]

How about instead establishing a bureau of standards with voluntary membership that allows for some certification process, and then people can choose to get their news from these supposedly trusted sources or not?

That seems more workable for sure. A certificate of authenticity is a lot better than more direct government involvement.

 

[Andy Capp]

That seems more workable for sure. A certificate of authenticity is a lot better than more direct government involvement.

As an example, the CBC already publishes their journalistic standards on their website. The proposed association could do likewise, with published reports of vetting procedures, handling of complaints, and other administrative and reporting requirements to make sure it doesn't end up being gamed like a lot of these sorts of things are (organic cert. is a total joke, for example.)

You could maintain an industry led panel, with public and government participation, that would oversee and make sure it doesn't begin to infringe rights or create barriers to entry. I could do it if I had the resources. I don't know why the "greatest country on earth" can't.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That seems more workable for sure. A certificate of authenticity is a lot better than more direct government involvement.

The fundamental problem right now is that any outlet or individual that or who is very careful to be accurate will be accused of having a left bias because the "conservative" movement is based on lies.

 

[Sketch]

LOL

The fundamental problem right now is that any outlet or individual that or who is very careful to be accurate will be accused of having a left bias because the "conservative" movement is based on lies.

<Lmaoo> Hack at it again.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Inside Biden and Warren's Yearslong Feud
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...0-democratic-primaries-bankruptcy-bill-225728

 

[Anung Un Rama]

 

[curryjunkie]

In the end Murica is going to vote for the most charismatic candidate as always. Actual policy be damned.

sadly true

 

[tinker_190]

My personal rankings----

Most raw intelligence/highest IQ: Andrew Yang, followed closely by Elizabeth Warren

Best branding: Bernie Sanders

Best name recognition: Joe Biden

Most likely to be coronated Obama style: Buttigieg (but he also lacks the Chicago Machine so...)

Weirdest face: toss up between Castro and Swalwell

Most attractive: Kamala Harris (yes this matters)

Most likely to have a sex scandal: Corey Booker

Most genuine with conviction: Tulsi Gabbard

GOAT: George St. Pierre

Most corporate friendly Pepsi equivalent aura: Kamala Harris

 

[Lead]

I think this piece is pretty spot on:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-shouting-class.html

And here's a quote:

For me, it's mostly 4 with a tinge of 1. But I think 2 and 3 are really common.

But here's another quote:

So the people here are extremely non-representative, and in a way that leads them to favor candidates who are branding themselves as "outsiders" and/or candidates who are genuinely unpopular.

The other thing is some people here need politics to be exciting to continue on with it. How sharp was the drop off two months after the 2016 election. That’s the most maybe an average joe (or sherdog poster) wants to really engage in politics. Focus a few months every four years or so and then check back out. It isn’t necessarily bad as I don’t think everyone’s hobby should be this but it’s definitely another type of group we get even though they are seasonal. I guess you could argue they are 1 because they feel like the election is how they are fixing things

 

[Jack V Savage]

The other thing is some people here need politics to be exciting to continue on with it. How sharp was the drop off two months after the 2016 election. That’s the most maybe an average joe (or sherdog poster) wants to really engage in politics. Focus a few months every four years or so and then check back out. It isn’t necessarily bad as I don’t think everyone’s hobby should be this but it’s definitely another type of group we get even though they are seasonal. I guess you could argue they are 1 because they feel like the election is how they are fixing things

Well, I think a lot of regular people barely pay attention to politics. More than half of voters can't name anyone on the SCOTUS, and like a third usually can't name the VP. So the WR is angrier than usual, actively trolls, knows more, and also has a better handle on partisan takes (like, I think most Americans don't know that deficits fell dramatically under Obama, but most WRers will recite ridiculous arguments about deficita that most people would have never heard). WRers are more informed but have more false information or prefabricated bad arguments as part of their mental architecture.

 

[Sketch]

Well, I think a lot of regular people barely pay attention to politics. More than half of voters can't name anyone on the SCOTUS, and like a third usually can't name the VP. So the WR is angrier than usual, actively trolls, knows more, and also has a better handle on partisan takes (like, I think most Americans don't know that deficits fell dramatically under Obama, but most WRers will recite ridiculous arguments about deficita that most people would have never heard). WRers are more informed but have more false information or prefabulated bad arguments as part of their mental architecture.

Watching you descend into madness the past year or so has been incredible. All of your so called 'political knowledge' amounts to nothing now a days and you will further slide into the realm of being obsolete.

Gabbard is going to drive you off the edge, much like she has done with some of your contemporaries.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

sadly true

Explain GWB.


This guy had zero charisma

 

[waiguoren]

Why?

Bearing in mind that I have profound differences with him on the role of the federal government and would not choose him over Trump:


In my limited exposure to him, I find him to be far more thoughtful than the average Democratic presidential candidate. I like his advocacy for ranked-choice voting. I think he is ahead of the curve in recognizing the soon-coming effects of large-scale technology-driven displacement of entire sectors of workers, and it's good that he is at least thinking about how we might have to cope with that---even if I'm not sure his solution is the right one. I perceive the proposals of his that I find foolish or immoral (e.g., lowering the voting age to 16) to be unlikely to occur even if he were to become president. On the big issues with which I disagree with him (e.g., single-payer health insurance, attempting to regulate "climate change" at the federal level) I don't see him as being materially different from the competition.

 

[waiguoren]

Truly shocking

Given that I want the federal government to be smaller than 1/10th its present size, will you at least concede this is a rational selection?