US Politics XII: shutting down Interference until @U2 agrees to pay for a firewall - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-27-2019, 04:41 PM   #241
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Guy lost by 3 million votes, 55 to 43 percent.

But sure, popular doesn't matter. True. If the Democratic primary were scored on the same electoral scale, he'd have been destroyed. Hillary won all of the big tally electoral college states. He won, for the most part, red States that weren't flipping.

You seem to think that an old socialist was going to have some huge turnout that he couldn't even get within the party that was more likely to side with his economic policies than both Republicans and Independents. I disagree.
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:25 PM   #242
War Child
 
Jerry Dunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 939
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
It’s true. Bernie tapped into the sense of a rigged system, and did so very well. Maybe that would have turned T voters into B voters. But given that SCOTUS was on the line and “socialist” still makes some parts of the country wake up screaming in fear, it doesn’t seem likely that there were T votes that could have been B votes and not H votes. Most of America isn’t waiting to have socialism actually explained to them — and explained well, you know, disregarding anything negative as Not Real Socialism. What needs to happen is something like Obamacare. A good step in the right direction, that was always intended to be the first step. Now, D’s can run on it, and win places like Orange County.
The point is not to win over Trump voters. The point is to win over non-voters and get them to the polls. There are so many more non-voters than there are "independents."

Why don't people vote?

1. Voter Suppression - This has become even more blatantly obvious since 2017, but this is a major issue that can easily be tackled in 2020 if the Democrats can get aligned on it.
2. Electoral College - How many people don't bother voting because their state is already decided in the general?
3. Lack of Representation - D.C. and Puerto Rico should be granted statehood.
4. Nothing to Vote For - This is what I'm really getting into here. The Democrats are objectively better than the Republicans, but where are the candidates with legitimate concerns about what capitalism has wrought? The American people are to the left of the Democratic Party, polls show, on a number of key issues: healthcare, taxation, climate change. But because they are more concerned about "independents," the whole notion is guffawed at.

Those first three things are functional problems that the Dems should tackle when they get back into power. But the fourth is the thing that really seems to be tricky for the Democrats to wrap their heads around. While it is encouraging that there are more candidates refusing to take corporate donations, it cannot just be presidential candidates. The party as a whole needs to sever its ties with big businesses that have wreaked havoc on so many aspects of people's lives. Instead, we get a media class rallying around Joe Biden, who spent the 2018 election season campaigning for Republicans because they paid him well.

Also, the "Kremlin" thing about Sanders is cute. Russia, a country even more capitalist than the United States, would sure love a democratic socialist in office!
__________________

Jerry Dunk is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:27 PM   #243
War Child
 
Jerry Dunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 939
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
You seem to think that an old socialist was going to have some huge turnout that he couldn't even get within the party that was more likely to side with his economic policies than both Republicans and Independents. I disagree.
Yes, I do. He lost a primary system that is absurd in its construction and function, with a campaign that had pitiful resources compared to the Clinton campaign. He made his mistakes along the way, but Sanders had a message that resonated. As mentioned before, he is literally the most popular politician in the United States by quite a wide margin.

He also won Michigan and Wisconsin, which ended up being a bit consequential!
Jerry Dunk is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:30 PM   #244
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Guy lost by 3 million votes, 55 to 43 percent.
So, arbitrarily 55-45. Now go revisit every other primary. Aside from 2008, a quick Wikipedia search shows 1912 (Democrats) and 1976 (Republicans) were the only times a challenger managed more than 40% of the vote, aside from the 2008 and 2016 elections featuring Clinton.

Quote:

But sure, popular doesn't matter. True. If the Democratic primary were scored on the same electoral scale, he'd have been destroyed. Hillary won all of the big tally electoral college states. He won, for the most part, red States that weren't flipping.

You seem to think that an old socialist was going to have some huge turnout that he couldn't even get within the party that was more likely to side with his economic policies than both Republicans and Independents. I disagree.

And now you’re saying if A beats B in the general election and B beats C in the primary, well B would’ve beaten C in the general election... the factuality of which is uncertain but totally irrelevant.

You seem to think that people would’ve rallied in hatred against Bernie for being a “socialist” in the same way that they rallied against Hillary Clinton for being a Clinton and I disagree. The hatred for Hillary Clinton was a very long-calculated media campaign that goes back all the way to 2008. Opposition took her character and planted seeds in the minds of the voters as early as then to dismantle her character, and public opinion over time shows that. She was widely respected and only when she was a threat/destined for greatness did she get targeted. You cant prop up 8 years of carefully calculated hatred deep embedded in the minds of the public in the course of one election cycle.

Clinton lost in 2016 because gray-area voters in purple states “didn’t like her” probably on a count of that near-decade of opposition character dismantling. Don’t forget, the whole thing was painted as “well they’re equally as bad” yada yada. There was no *positive* associated with voting for Clinton, but the “breath of fresh air” “anti-establishment” “not a Clinton/Bush” sentiment that Trump benefitted from certainly wouldn’t have existed if Sanders (or any other wildcard pick) was on the ticket.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:33 PM   #245
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
Yes, I do. He lost a primary system that is absurd in its construction and function, with a campaign that had pitiful resources compared to the Clinton campaign. He made his mistakes along the way, but Sanders had a message that resonated. As mentioned before, he is literally the most popular politician in the United States by quite a wide margin.



He also won Michigan and Wisconsin, which ended up being a bit consequential!
Wisconsin and Michigan wouldn't be quite as consequential without Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania... Where he lost 64 to 33, 56 to 44 and 55 to 43.

He won Michigan by a point. Wisconsin? Yea, he won convincingly there.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:43 PM   #246
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
So, arbitrarily 55-45. Now go revisit every other primary. Aside from 2008, a quick Wikipedia search shows 1912 (Democrats) and 1976 (Republicans) were the only times a challenger managed more than 40% of the vote, aside from the 2008 and 2016 elections featuring Clinton.




And now you’re saying if A beats B in the general election and B beats C in the primary, well B would’ve beaten C in the general election... the factuality of which is uncertain but totally irrelevant.

You seem to think that people would’ve rallied in hatred against Bernie for being a “socialist” in the same way that they rallied against Hillary Clinton for being a Clinton and I disagree. The hatred for Hillary Clinton was a very long-calculated media campaign that goes back all the way to 2008. Opposition took her character and planted seeds in the minds of the voters as early as then to dismantle her character, and public opinion over time shows that. She was widely respected and only when she was a threat/destined for greatness did she get targeted. You cant prop up 8 years of carefully calculated hatred deep embedded in the minds of the public in the course of one election cycle.

Clinton lost in 2016 because gray-area voters in purple states “didn’t like her” probably on a count of that near-decade of opposition character dismantling. Don’t forget, the whole thing was painted as “well they’re equally as bad” yada yada. There was no *positive* associated with voting for Clinton, but the “breath of fresh air” “anti-establishment” “not a Clinton/Bush” sentiment that Trump benefitted from certainly wouldn’t have existed if Sanders (or any other wildcard pick) was on the ticket.
You're making the assumption that every other vote other than the "I just don't like Hillary" voters would have voted the same way in a Bernie vs Trump campaign.

And those same low info voters who hate Hillary have also been told since 1940 that Socialism is the devil's handy work. But that wouldn't have mattered.

Old white people turn elections. Old white people voted for Trump. Old white people weren't voting for a socialist.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:50 PM   #247
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dunk View Post
The point is not to win over Trump voters. The point is to win over non-voters and get them to the polls. There are so many more non-voters than there are "independents."



Why don't people vote?



1. Voter Suppression - This has become even more blatantly obvious since 2017, but this is a major issue that can easily be tackled in 2020 if the Democrats can get aligned on it.

2. Electoral College - How many people don't bother voting because their state is already decided in the general?

3. Lack of Representation - D.C. and Puerto Rico should be granted statehood.

4. Nothing to Vote For - This is what I'm really getting into here. The Democrats are objectively better than the Republicans, but where are the candidates with legitimate concerns about what capitalism has wrought? The American people are to the left of the Democratic Party, polls show, on a number of key issues: healthcare, taxation, climate change. But because they are more concerned about "independents," the whole notion is guffawed at.



Those first three things are functional problems that the Dems should tackle when they get back into power. But the fourth is the thing that really seems to be tricky for the Democrats to wrap their heads around. While it is encouraging that there are more candidates refusing to take corporate donations, it cannot just be presidential candidates. The party as a whole needs to sever its ties with big businesses that have wreaked havoc on so many aspects of people's lives. Instead, we get a media class rallying around Joe Biden, who spent the 2018 election season campaigning for Republicans because they paid him well.



Also, the "Kremlin" thing about Sanders is cute. Russia, a country even more capitalist than the United States, would sure love a democratic socialist in office!


Agreed on 1, 2, and 3. And I’m a DC resident.

However.

If the candidacy of Donald Trump was “nothing to vote for (against)” then there is nothing that will move the supposedly liberal, socialism-starved non-voter. They don’t vote because they don’t care, or because they are too busy working three jobs. Let’s start with making Election Day a national holiday.


The Kremlin wants discord and disruption. That achievement has long since been unlocked.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:52 PM   #248
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
You're making the assumption that every other vote other than the "I just don't like Hillary" voters would have voted the same way in a Bernie vs Trump campaign.

And those same low info voters who hate Hillary have also been told since 1940 that Socialism is the devil's handy work. But that wouldn't have mattered.

Old white people turn elections. Old white people voted for Trump. Old white people weren't voting for a socialist.


Well look at it this way: Hillary Clinton won all the gimmes and then like 1 of 10 states that mattered. And some of those states that mattered were the states that Sanders performed better in (which admittedly also doesn’t mean much for the very same argument I’m making about why Clinton beating Sanders in the primary doesn’t mean she’s going to perform better than him in the general election).
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 06:01 PM   #249
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Well look at it this way: Hillary Clinton won all the gimmes and then like 1 of 10 states that mattered. And some of those states that mattered were the states that Sanders performed better in (which admittedly also doesn’t mean much for the very same argument I’m making about why Clinton beating Sanders in the primary doesn’t mean she’s going to perform better than him in the general election).
Of the states that mattered Sanders won 2 of them. One of them by a point. Clinton won Florida Ohio and Pennsylvania comfortably.

Look - it's all educated guesses as to what would ha5be actually happened. I have zero issue acknowledging that maybe I'm wrong and maybe Bernie could have won on the basis of only his not being Hillary.

I'm still waiting for a Bernie supporter to acknowledge that the exact same thing could have easily happened to him.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 06:11 PM   #250
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Of the states that mattered Sanders won 2 of them. One of them by a point. Clinton won Florida Ohio and Pennsylvania comfortably.

Look - it's all educated guesses as to what would ha5be actually happened. I have zero issue acknowledging that maybe I'm wrong and maybe Bernie could have won on the basis of only his not being Hillary.

I'm still waiting for a Bernie supporter to acknowledge that the exact same thing could have easily happened to him.


Or for a Bernie supporter to say “some people will find any reason to not vote for a woman.”
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 07:55 PM   #251
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Of the states that mattered Sanders won 2 of them. One of them by a point. Clinton won Florida Ohio and Pennsylvania comfortably.

Look - it's all educated guesses as to what would ha5be actually happened. I have zero issue acknowledging that maybe I'm wrong and maybe Bernie could have won on the basis of only his not being Hillary.

I'm still waiting for a Bernie supporter to acknowledge that the exact same thing could have easily happened to him.


Well Bernie probably stood no chance in Florida if Clinton couldn’t take it, but I do think Ohio and Pennsylvania are where things could’ve absolutely looked differently. I say could’ve. Not would have. There’s no way to tell without having seen his campaign unfold for the general election.

And don’t worry, there’s plenty of stuff I agree with you on. You bring valid points, like “socialism is the purest of evils” being a thought engrained into the heads of many. I genuinely never decided what candidate I preferred between Clinton and Sanders, and there are many aspects about both of them that I love and that I hate. I have no bias towards Sanders - and I only view his potential success as a thing of hindsight. There are a lot of hindsight views to be expressed - the classical “what if Clinton’s campaign focused on the right places” etc.

Of course the same thing could’ve and probably would’ve happened to him. I’m just not seeing how it really could’ve been worse, but I can find a lot of what-ifs and suppositions that suggest that really, despite winning the popular vote, Clinton’s campaign was a total electoral disaster and it’s hard to imagine, outside of Virginia, how it could’ve gone any worse. And honesty after living here on both ends plus the thriving liberal strongholds out west, it’s easy to see how Virginia is naturally turning blue. So I don’t really know if that was her.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:21 PM   #252
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:48 AM
This donation thing is really weak.

Every wealthy person with a business that relies in some way on government functions (which is every one) and 2 brain cells to rub together donates to multiple candidates typically. We are not talking about the naked partisans like the Kochs who are themselves politically active. But the vast majority of businesses and their CEOs and other EOs will shell out the max under the law. In fact many times it is corporate POLICY to donate equally to all major parties. So who cares who the Trump Org or Steven Mnuchin's wife gave $ to? If this is a sign of "corruption" then no political candidate should take any $ from anybody other than Joe Shmoe on the street who is shelling out $20 and will never come to collect on that. And if there is such a principled candidate out there then I'd love to see them.

I have nothing personally invested in Kamala Harris, nor do I have any idea where she will stack up ultimately when all of the candidates have openly declared, start campaigning and we see fleshed out policy statements. Maybe she ends up in the front of the pack, maybe she ends up sitting at the kids' debate. Political futures change in the blink of an eye. But this particular line of criticism is just really naive in my opinion.
anitram is offline  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:29 PM   #253
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Well Bernie probably stood no chance in Florida if Clinton couldn’t take it, but I do think Ohio and Pennsylvania are where things could’ve absolutely looked differently. I say could’ve. Not would have. There’s no way to tell without having seen his campaign unfold for the general election.

And don’t worry, there’s plenty of stuff I agree with you on. You bring valid points, like “socialism is the purest of evils” being a thought engrained into the heads of many. I genuinely never decided what candidate I preferred between Clinton and Sanders, and there are many aspects about both of them that I love and that I hate. I have no bias towards Sanders - and I only view his potential success as a thing of hindsight. There are a lot of hindsight views to be expressed - the classical “what if Clinton’s campaign focused on the right places” etc.

Of course the same thing could’ve and probably would’ve happened to him. I’m just not seeing how it really could’ve been worse, but I can find a lot of what-ifs and suppositions that suggest that really, despite winning the popular vote, Clinton’s campaign was a total electoral disaster and it’s hard to imagine, outside of Virginia, how it could’ve gone any worse. And honesty after living here on both ends plus the thriving liberal strongholds out west, it’s easy to see how Virginia is naturally turning blue. So I don’t really know if that was her.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:54 AM   #254
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 11:48 AM
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...532059136?s=21

Maybe we can build the wall out of aluminum foil???
BEAL is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:45 AM   #255
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:48 AM
Nah this was Trump getting a good trade deal on foil hats for his supporters to block out the fake news.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:57 AM   #256
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
I hope the Mexicans don't have microwaves
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:51 AM   #257
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:48 AM
Yeah, its so fucking pathetic to see this assholes. The committees they haven't staffed yet:

Intelligence
Environmental
and you guessed it... Ethics
womanfish is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:54 AM   #258
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 32,070
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
Yeah, its so fucking pathetic to see this assholes. The committees they haven't staffed yet:

Intelligence
Environmental
and you guessed it... Ethics
Well, since they lack intelligence and ethics, its appropriate they haven't staffed those committees.
Hewson is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 12:07 PM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,974
Local Time: 06:48 AM
so the federal government lost 11 billion dollars during the shutdown that happened because of a battle over the federal government spending 5 billion dollars.

DaveC is offline  
Old 01-28-2019, 12:22 PM   #260
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:48 AM
Art Of The Deal
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×