Political Betting Thread

[waiguoren]

ahh, yeah i meant out of the main contenders, didn't realize buttigieg had that view too.

Note also that Harris keeps flip-flopping on that issue. She's trying to have it both ways.

Haven’t followed this stuff for a few days (July 4th weekend), if Biden did this, this makes it even worse. This is similar to the mistake Trump made by disavowing David Duke so late after the CNN livefeed. You can’t have that response so many days later on an emotionally charged event because it makes you look like a panderer (which is how it’ll be spun). Jeb did this with the War on Iraq in the last Republican Primary where he waited days and shifted stances on this emotionally powered event. Once I saw this, Bush was essentially done.

Biden’s campaign is on lifeline, people just don’t see it yet.

Yeah, so much of politics is about showing dominance/weakness. You can't be apologizing all the time. Biden also isn't in a position to be playing defense the way Clinton could in the 2016 primary. He needs to get the MSM talking about something else, but he's too boring and has people like Symone Sanders running his campaign who might not be bright enough to understand. Offense is key. Warren is killing it in this area BTW. It doesn't even matter if her policy proposals are reasonable or have any chance of implementation. She's securing her brand as the "candidate with a plan for that", which keeps the media types a headline to write. Most voters aren't doing a deep dive into policy or candidate history. They browse headlines.

 

[Joedaman55]

Note also that Harris keeps flip-flopping on that issue. She's trying to have it both ways.



Yeah, so much of politics is about showing dominance/weakness. You can't be apologizing all the time. Biden also isn't in a position to be playing defense the way Clinton could in the 2016 primary. He needs to get the MSM talking about something else, but he's too boring and has people like Symone Sanders running his campaign who might not be bright enough to understand. Offense is key. Warren is killing it in this area BTW. It doesn't even matter if her policy proposals are reasonable or have any chance of implementation. She's securing her brand as the "candidate with a plan for that", which keeps the media types a headline to write. Most voters aren't doing a deep dive into policy or candidate history. They browse headlines.

Warren used her ethnicity to abuse the Native American job preference on a high profile job application and then chose to get tested where it showed the normal white person is more native than her. All it takes is one line from Kamala or Booker where they have to say “at least I’m black and don’t pretend to be”. No one is focusing on her because high end political people know she has no shot (they still think Biden is front runner). There’s a reason i have her close to 0%.

 

[waiguoren]

Warren used her ethnicity to abuse the Native American job preference on a high profile job application and then chose to get tested where it showed the normal white person is more native than her. All it takes is one line from Kamala or Booker where they have to say “at least I’m black and don’t pretend to be”.

Which job application? Anyway, my point is that it's hard to deny she has been playing very smart politics since the DNA test error. She's been cultivating a brand very well and her poll numbers reflect that. It's possible a single one-liner will derail her, but I think that would be playing with fire for Harris/Booker. Especially with Harris, given that she already carried out some friendly fire on Biden, voters' tolerance for that kind of attack might wear thin. I do believe you are correct that this is ultimately a serious weakness for Warren.

 

[Joedaman55]

Which job application? Anyway, my point is that it's hard to deny she has been playing very smart politics since the DNA test error. She's been cultivating a brand very well and her poll numbers reflect that. It's possible a single one-liner will derail her, but I think that would be playing with fire for Harris/Booker. Especially with Harris, given that she already carried out some friendly fire on Biden, voters' tolerance for that kind of attack might wear thin. I do believe you are correct that this is ultimately a serious weakness for Warren.

On her professor application to Harvard she claimed herself as a Native American and nothing else. I think she did an interview where she was bragging about being the first professor of Indian decent or something like that.

I don’t see a strong attack against Kamala which couldn’t have an effective high ground maneuver as retaliation. Booker can if he goes too hard against a female.

 

[waiguoren]

On her professor application to Harvard she claimed herself as a Native American and nothing else.

Source?

I don’t see a strong attack against Kamala which couldn’t have an effective high ground maneuver as retaliation.

What do you mean by "effective high ground maneuver"? There's a lot to attack her on that clashes with her preferred image of a black "civil rights" heroine.

 

[Joedaman55]

Source?

What do you mean by "effective high ground maneuver"? There's a lot to attack her on that clashes with her preferred image of a black "civil rights" heroine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...lizabeth-warren-using-minority-status-advance

An effective high ground maneuver is when you rebuttal by taking the person arguing against you out of a detailed argument by raising the issue to the larger underlying issue (easy to do when you spot cognitive dissonance where people are trying to argue wordplay or hypocrisy). She did this perfect in the last debate with her food fight line where she framed all the other Democrats as children and commanded the audience to focus on the bigger issue which was hearing each other’s opinions out and not talking over each other. This was her strongest moment in pretty much everyone’s opinion because the high ground is lethal in arguments.

It’s outlined well in Scott Adams book “Win Billy”.

Using hypocrisy against someone is a terrible persuader. Some people think it was effective but judging from Trump’s constant stance chances and people calling him out in the details, it was a failing strategy. Hypocrisy can put you in a terrible situation in an argument if you’re wrong about your vision but not your details. It’s one of the easiest and best ways to beat opponents in an argument.

 

[waiguoren]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...lizabeth-warren-using-minority-status-advance

Ok, so not on her Harvard Law application.

An effective high ground maneuver is when you rebuttal by taking the person arguing against you out of a detailed argument by raising the issue to the larger underlying issue (easy to do when you spot cognitive dissonance where people are trying to argue wordplay or hypocrisy). She did this perfect in the last debate with her food fight line where she framed all the other Democrats as children and commanded the audience to focus on the bigger issue which was hearing each other’s opinions out and not talking over each other. This was her strongest moment in pretty much everyone’s opinion because the high ground is lethal in arguments.

It’s outlined well in Scott Adams book “Win Billy”.

Using hypocrisy against someone is a terrible persuader. Some people think it was effective but judging from Trump’s constant stance chances and people calling him out in the details, it was a failing strategy. Hypocrisy can put you in a terrible situation in an argument if you’re wrong about your vision but not your details. It’s one of the easiest and best ways to beat opponents in an argument.

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[rev0lver]

Yeah, so much of politics is about showing dominance/weakness. You can't be apologizing all the time. Biden also isn't in a position to be playing defense the way Clinton could in the 2016 primary. He needs to get the MSM talking about something else, but he's too boring and has people like Symone Sanders running his campaign who might not be bright enough to understand. Offense is key. Warren is killing it in this area BTW. It doesn't even matter if her policy proposals are reasonable or have any chance of implementation. She's securing her brand as the "candidate with a plan for that", which keeps the media types a headline to write. Most voters aren't doing a deep dive into policy or candidate history. They browse headlines.

Yet Biden has nothing to go on the offensive with other than anti-Trump stuff lol. His platform is basically "let's go back to the Obama era and not do anything new". I don't see how that's going to resonate for a year in a field with new ideas and dozens of ways to attack him.

 

[rev0lver]

On her professor application to Harvard she claimed herself as a Native American and nothing else. I think she did an interview where she was bragging about being the first professor of Indian decent or something like that.

That's not true. She didn't claim it on her application to Harvard, she only added herself in a directory after she was hired. Supposedly, according to her, as a means to connect with similar people who may also have some level of that ancestry, and she stopped bothering with it when nothing came of it. The controversy arose when the school promoted her as a Native American when they came under fire for lack of minority hires. There's no evidence I'm aware of that she has intentionally claimed heritage for professional gain.

However, the problem here is that the popular narrative of the story is similar to what you said. It doesn't matter what's true or false if that's the impression people have, and it's tough to erase that. But the more her campaign takes off, the more I think it might not be too big of an issue in the end. Especially if she wins the primaries, it's hard to say a Native American ancestry claim is worse optics to Native American groups than a guy who's publicly idolized Andrew Jackson and uses "Pocahontas" as an insult.

 

[waiguoren]

However, the problem here is that the popular narrative of the story is similar to what you said. It doesn't matter what's true or false if that's the impression people have, and it's tough to erase that.

Exactly. I think we can all agree on this.

But the more her campaign takes off, the more I think it might not be too big of an issue in the end. Especially if she wins the primaries, it's hard to say a Native American ancestry claim is worse optics to Native American groups than a guy who's publicly idolized Andrew Jackson and uses "Pocahontas" as an insult.

I think it's a bigger issue in the general than in the primary, and I think it is worse optics than Trump's labeling her "Pocahontas". Did listing herself in a law directory as Native American benefit her career? No one can answer that question and people will argue endlessly about it. At the end of the day, the public is left with the image of a milky white woman claiming Native American identity repeatedly. That will damage her.

 

[Roads55]

From a Non American why is using the name pocahontas so bad? Honestly have no idea.

 

[rev0lver]

From a Non American why is using the name pocahontas so bad? Honestly have no idea.

Well I guess it's the same as using the name of anyone from a particular culture/ethnicity to belittle someone else in reference to that culture/ethnicity.

 

[Joedaman55]

Ok, so not on her Harvard Law application.



Interesting stuff. Thanks.

That is correct, I thought I’d remembered some story of her being advertised as a Native American by Harvard but I can’t remember. I’m sure someone will use this in the upcoming debates to boost their numbers.

 

[Joedaman55]

That's not true. She didn't claim it on her application to Harvard, she only added herself in a directory after she was hired. Supposedly, according to her, as a means to connect with similar people who may also have some level of that ancestry, and she stopped bothering with it when nothing came of it. The controversy arose when the school promoted her as a Native American when they came under fire for lack of minority hires. There's no evidence I'm aware of that she has intentionally claimed heritage for professional gain.

However, the problem here is that the popular narrative of the story is similar to what you said. It doesn't matter what's true or false if that's the impression people have, and it's tough to erase that. But the more her campaign takes off, the more I think it might not be too big of an issue in the end. Especially if she wins the primaries, it's hard to say a Native American ancestry claim is worse optics to Native American groups than a guy who's publicly idolized Andrew Jackson and uses "Pocahontas" as an insult.

She claimed she was Native American to make people view her as Native American. Lol she’s not Native American so who would relate to her (this makes it 100x worse). Would you find it insulting if a person not of your ethnicity posed to be of your ethnicity and “understood” the cultural struggles you went through?

My Native American buddies found her hilarious especially when Trump started using the Pocohantes line with her.

 

[Roads55]

She claimed she was Native American to make people view her as Native American. Lol she’s not Native American so who would relate to her (this makes it 100x worse). Would you find it insulting if a person not of your ethnicity posed to be of your ethnicity and “understood” the cultural struggles you went through?

My Native American buddies found her hilarious especially when Trump started using the Pocohantes line with her.

i really don't understand why ppl find this so insulting

 

[longway]

i really don't understand why ppl find this so insulting

It's not insulting to Native Americans, but it makes Warren look like an idiot bc she claims to be one and made a big deal of it, or used to anyway, so people have to play the race card to try and deflect from its bite, not very successfully either.

 

[Joedaman55]

i really don't understand why ppl find this so insulting

Some ethnicities have unfair advantages over others because of the wealth that was created by their ancestors (I.e blacks were slaves until the end of the civil war and they had a bunch of disadvantages in labor markets very similar to Native Americans who had to adopt to a capitalistic world and were driven from some of their valuable land assets). In a way to even this out, the United States created programs/laws to reduce the wealth gap (equal opportunity act, federal funding, etc).

Warren is trying to identify herself in this directory as a Native American and not Native American and white. This signals that she’s trying to maximize her return by creating a minority status that doesn’t exist for personal gain (basically fraud).

Some people won’t see this as an issue and some will. On those that see this as an issue, they will see this as fraud and exploiting society for personal gain. Given the way Democrats view people exploiting government systems, this crushes her identity she’s trying to portray as she’s against government abuse (especially corporation loopholes) and she herself exploited the government (not saying this is what occurred but this will be the optics). Once voter groups can’t identify with you, you’re done as a candidate. I think this would be less of an issue if she was a Republican candidate as they tend to be more free market thinking and would see this as taking advantages the government allowed similar to Republican viewpoints on Trump’s tax payments and his exploiting of tax loopholes.

 

[rev0lver]

Some ethnicities have unfair advantages over others because of the wealth that was created by their ancestors (I.e blacks were slaves until the end of the civil war and they had a bunch of disadvantages in labor markets very similar to Native Americans who had to adopt to a capitalistic world and were driven from some of their valuable land assets). In a way to even this out, the United States created programs/laws to reduce the wealth gap (equal opportunity act, federal funding, etc).

Warren is trying to identify herself in this directory as a Native American and not Native American and white. This signals that she’s trying to maximize her return by creating a minority status that doesn’t exist for personal gain (basically fraud).

Some people won’t see this as an issue and some will. On those that see this as an issue, they will see this as fraud and exploiting society for personal gain. Given the way Democrats view people exploiting government systems, this crushes her identity she’s trying to portray as she’s against government abuse (especially corporation loopholes) and she herself exploited the government (not saying this is what occurred but this will be the optics). Once voter groups can’t identify with you, you’re done as a candidate. I think this would be less of an issue if she was a Republican candidate as they tend to be more free market thinking and would see this as taking advantages the government allowed similar to Republican viewpoints on Trump’s tax payments and his exploiting of tax loopholes.

I don't see how she's exploited it for personal or professional gain when she never identified as such publicly or used it for anything, only in an in-school directory that was only meant for other faculty. And it was never about her really lying about it, only retrospectively inappropriately giving an identity based off of family stories. The idea of significant numbers of people seeing it as detracting from her platform and her anti-wall street history seems a bit of a stretch.

And in a race with Trump, I can't imagine it doing much bad for her beyond Trump-supporters repeating the insults, considering the Native American population votes heavily democratic and Trump's/republicans' policies specific to them haven't given them many new friends.

 

[longway]

I don't see how she's exploited it for personal or professional gain when she never identified as such publicly or used it for anything

She found it so important she took a DNA test to prove she had NA ancestry. She is the one who made it a focus of her candidacy as it was the launch pad of her run for president. She has dropped it now that it showed she doesn't have any of any significance. Made a clown of herself. She even had to apologise for it to the Cherokee nation.

 

[rev0lver]

She found it so important she took a DNA test to prove she had NA ancestry. She is the one who made it a focus of her candidacy as it was the launch pad of her run for president. She has dropped it now that it showed she doesn't have any of any significance. Made a clown of herself.

She did it because Trump was offering a donation to charity lol, which he pretended didn't happen