US Politics XIX: Just an Echo Chamber Living In Your Heads - 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 02-05-2020, 09:33 PM   #1
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 63,742
Local Time: 11:27 PM
US Politics XIX: Just an Echo Chamber Living In Your Heads

Continue
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:36 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,602
Local Time: 11:27 PM
So who do:

Sanders
Warren
Biden
Buttheadguy
Klobuchar
Bloomberg

pick for their VPs?
__________________

LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:44 PM   #3
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 63,742
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Harris and Abrams will be the popular choices, but call me crazy for reeeeeeeally wanting to see Pence have to debate Buttigieg.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:55 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 5,249
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
So who do:

Sanders
Warren
Biden
Buttheadguy
Klobuchar
Bloomberg

pick for their VPs?
Sanders - tough one here. Like Biden, i think Abrams would be decent choice.
Warren - Well Castro is workin for it. And not a bad choice at all. Or Booker
Biden - Abrams or Harris or even Warren would be great.
Buttheadguy - Harris or Maybe Tammy Baldwin if they are running a midwest strategy
Klobuchar - Booker or Castro
Bloomberg - god that's tough. But maybe Klobuchar or Harris
womanfish is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:03 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,602
Local Time: 11:27 PM
I think Tammy Baldwin or Elizabeth Warren are the obvious choices for Sanders, or if he wants to really jump off the deep end... Gabbard.

As for the rest, it’s harder to say. Baldwin is probably a common pick if she’s up for the task. A Pete + Tammy would be an all gay ticket. It would redeem him for me. Not that I wouldn’t vote for him, but he’s probably the candidate I want the least right now.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:19 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 5,249
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I think Tammy Baldwin or Elizabeth Warren are the obvious choices for Sanders, or if he wants to really jump off the deep end... Gabbard.

As for the rest, it’s harder to say. Baldwin is probably a common pick if she’s up for the task. A Pete + Tammy would be an all gay ticket. It would redeem him for me. Not that I wouldn’t vote for him, but he’s probably the candidate I want the least right now.
Oh wow, I'd totally forgotten about that. LOL. Yeah, Baldwin would be good with Sanders. I don't really think Warren would be. For one, Sanders needs a choice that is more moderate, the other... I just don't really think they get along that well.
I think Abrams standing next to Pete would just look way too calculated. But i kinda think Harris would fit with him well.
womanfish is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:20 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,602
Local Time: 11:27 PM
I disagree that Sanders needs a moderate. Sanders needs a stable like-minded politician who is eligible to become president in 4 years if his health isn’t up to par.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:38 PM   #8
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 63,742
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I disagree that Sanders needs a moderate. Sanders needs a stable like-minded politician who is eligible to become president in 4 years if his health isn’t up to par.
Sanders needs someone to give reassurance to old white rust belt voters that he isn't a communist.

That sounds dumb, but it's also true, because America is dumb.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:43 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,602
Local Time: 11:27 PM
I also disagree with that. I don’t think that middle group of voters gives a shit.

I think the problem you’re describing exists more in places like Florida, not the rust belt. I think it’s pretty damn hard for Sanders to win Florida. Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin? I think that’s what he brings back to the Democratic Party.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:53 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: martinaise, behind the whirling-in-rags
Posts: 20,437
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I think the problem you’re describing exists more in places like Florida, not the rust belt. I think it’s pretty damn hard for Sanders to win Florida. Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin? I think that’s what he brings back to the Democratic Party.
this is a good take.

based on the iowa results, it seems he appeals at least somewhat to the midwestern states. families of cuban exiles in miami, probably not so much.
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:06 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: martinaise, behind the whirling-in-rags
Posts: 20,437
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Conspiracism is an ideology or family of ideologies as much as socialism or liberalism, in my view; it has a clear historical genealogy and provides many people with a complete view of the world. It is also my contention that due to systematic and structural features of conspiracism, that more often than not the deeper someone goes (or the higher up Barkun's pyramid) the further rightward they will swing. People may retain some aesthetic trappings of being left wing, but conspiracism's unique theories of history, economics, politics and cultural change cannot really co-exist with any sort of left-wing analysis, and conspiracism's basic praxis (to spread 'information' until some critical tipping point is reached where society suddenly realises the truth of the conspiracy and spontaneously re-organises itself into an untainted form) isn't too great either.

In my view it has to do with conspiracism's historical origins, and as an outgrowth of the ideas about authority and the natural moral order of the universe that pervade all sorts of right-wing politics to some extent. For right wingers, the best of all possible worlds is one in which, by whatever method they favour, everyone has an appropriate place in the social heirarchy, creating an ordered society from which everyone benefits, living in a mutually agreeable arrangement in which each class benefits from each other. Much of right-wing politics is actually devoted to trying to identify reasons why this doesn't happen, without placing the blame on the inherent madness, immorality and inefficiency of the heirarchical systems themselves. A lot of the time the blame falls on their political enemies upsetting the natural order in some way by openly or secretly creating systems that upset the natural heirarchy by elevating the unworthy above the worthy, or by seeking to abolish heirarchy altogether, or on outsider groups who are seen as not being able to fit into the system or are dissatisfied with their place within it due to some inherent moral deficiency.

Conspiracism is a particularly pathological form of this. You can see aspects of 'proto-conspiracism' in medieval pogroms and witch-panics, which often functioned as a way for authorities to deflect blame for various calamities or mismanagements on to scapegoats. Recall that modern conspiracism though has its origins in the reaction against the French revolution, and particularly what John Roberts calls the 'Mythology of the Secret Societies'; this was the idea that the fall of the ancien regime, and the various revolutions that followed it in waves were not due to the very understandable dissatisfaction of the lower and middle classes with their lot, or their anger at the decadent incompetence of the European aristocracy and the moneyed classes that were replacing them, or a reaction against the terrible social upheavals that accompanied industrialisation, or anything like that, but were actually the result of various secretive groups, often consisting of various sorts of outsiders (Jews, religious minorities, radical eccentrics, perverts), who were involved in disrupting the good order of society, duping the lower classes into overthrowing the upper so they could assume their place as societies secret or open rulers.

Thus, conspiracism is very much an illness of elites, and especially traditional elites, as much as it is the broader populace. You can see very clearly that the history of conspiracism and the history of organised opposition to communism and socialism are so closely intertwined as to often be the same thing. A lot of conspiracism functions to divert people's misgivings about capitalism (which arise naturally from their experience of being on the business end of it) and to funnel it into ire against some institution or group that is tainting or perhaps even restraining capitalism (which they believe should be an engine of meritocracy); the Rothschilds, central banks, income tax, fiat currency or whatever.

In the modern era in the US particularly conspiracism is defined in many ways by its extreme paranoia towards anything that can be identified as 'collectivism'. It does well of course to bear in mind the particular definition of 'elite' which those on the right use, especially in the context of the US, when they are pouring scorn. They don't mean the owner class; they mean an intellectual and cultural elite of academics, artists, writers, left-wing politicans, actors and musicians; all groups that are often seen as being in league with the same 'outsider' forces as the secret societies; Jews, queers, uppity blacks and so on, the immoral and unworthy groups who seek to overthrow the rightful, natural, god-given order of things.

Conspiracism in practice very often serves the interest of the bourgeoisie to some extent; it's almost inherently anti-intellectual (because to maintain its counterfactual view of history conspiracism must eschew conventional learning and turn to one of a number of well-developed parallel scholarships) and socially conservative (because all new social and cultural developments are likely to be products of the conspiracy). Like so many other things on the right, it's always calling back to this imaginary golden age before the conspiracy really took grip. Sometimes this golden age is recent (the post-war boom), sometimes it might be in a distant, imaginary past (more so when you get to the very esoteric end of things). The most progressive thing you could hope to come out of conspiracist thinking, in my mind, is some sort of primitivism, which isn't saying much.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfR...?context=10000
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:18 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 5,249
Local Time: 04:27 AM
333 to 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I disagree that Sanders needs a moderate. Sanders needs a stable like-minded politician who is eligible to become president in 4 years if his health isn’t up to par.
I think Sanders best bet would to run almost something of a unity ticket.

Listen, Sanders has his base. butwe've seen that his base is easily split when another talented and charismatic progressive is running. Warren won't bring any new people to Bernie. She will just release her supporters back to him if and when she drops out.

The same would go for Warren, if by some crazy twist of fate she is the nominee.

Sanders could go full unity type ticket and have Klobuchar as the VP pick. He could lock in the midwest, but not sure about PA. It would be a solid ticket to take MI, WI, and possibly Iowa.

But Sanders still scares me because no matter who he chooses, I'm thinking NC will be a no go for him. AZ would not swing to him, Even if he picks up those three midwest states, he would still lose. I don't really think he would win PA.

Shit, looking at this interactive map and running different scenarios, I am having a hell of tie seeing a path for Bernie to win.

He could get WI, MI, IA, and all delegates from Maine and still lose.

Anyone see a believable path for him to win?

Lets look at Pete

Plausible path for Pete would be if he could win WI, MI, and Indiana. He would just squeak it out. Even if he somehow pulled out Iowa, it would be a really close win.

Warren, maybe even worse. I can't confidently say she would win ANY midwest state back. If she did get either MI or WI, no pennsylvania, She could maybe pick up AZ if Castro is on the ticket, That would still be a loss by about 45 points.

Shit this is depressing.

This is why I am lamenting the loss of Biden. He is the only one that I see a natural path for. He would take WI, MI, PA, most likely FL and NC, and with the right running mate, GA would be on the table. If he won all of those except GA, he would win 317 to 214
If he could swing GA, he would win 333 to 198. THAT is an ass whooping.

Seriously, go to https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/interactive_map

And share what path you think is possible for each candidate still in the race

Right now, I'm a little shook.
womanfish is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:20 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: martinaise, behind the whirling-in-rags
Posts: 20,437
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
Seriously, go to https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/interactive_map

And share what path you think is possible for each candidate still in the race

Right now, I'm a little shook.
instead of despairing about the 2016 map maybe try looking at the one based on current polls where the toss up delegates favour the democrats by 44.

https://www.270towin.com/
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:42 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 5,249
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
instead of despairing about the 2016 map maybe try looking at the one based on current polls where the toss up delegates favour the democrats by 44.

https://www.270towin.com/
Yeah, that doesn't help. Just reiterates to me the tossups are likely to be won by Trump if its against Bernie or Warren.
This map shows OH as light pink, "lean republican" That is preposterous. No way in hell any of the current batch is winning OH.

Can you lay out a viable, reasonable map that would give Bernie a path to winning?
A Poll based map is great, but those don't mean anything until it is the chosen Dem candidate vs. Trump. People always lean towards the party not in power in hypothetical polling.
womanfish is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:01 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: martinaise, behind the whirling-in-rags
Posts: 20,437
Local Time: 11:27 PM
yes indeed the sky is falling.
DaveC is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:33 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,827
Local Time: 04:27 AM
Whoever wins the dem Nomination is going to have 50 investigations opened against them

They will be smeared worse than any other candidate in history.

Which candidate is the strongest to survive that?

Sure looks like it worked against Biden in Iowa.
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:37 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,038
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
So who do:

Sanders
Warren
Biden
Buttheadguy
Klobuchar
Bloomberg

pick for their VPs?
Mrs. Clinton is willing to serve in that role.
Bluer White is online now  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:42 AM   #18
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 63,742
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Ho hooooo we've got a comedian!
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:42 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,827
Local Time: 04:27 AM
https://twitter.com/tylerpager/statu...255645184?s=21

Who needs a foreign country help!!!
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:45 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 63,742
Local Time: 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I also disagree with that. I don’t think that middle group of voters gives a shit.

I think the problem you’re describing exists more in places like Florida, not the rust belt. I think it’s pretty damn hard for Sanders to win Florida. Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin? I think that’s what he brings back to the Democratic Party.
I think the problem I'm describing exists everywhere. I also think that the Obama Trump voters, who may have cast their vote as a dick you to the system, are doing to look for something a little less revolutionary this go around.

Alas... we're allowed to disagree.
__________________

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 11:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×