Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 04-06-2019, 02:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
According to a Hill poll, a majority of American voters, Democrats, Independents, women, men, and people aged 35+ say this isn't a deal breaker and Biden should still run. And a plurality of voters 18-34 say the same.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...men-should-not

So it seems a lot of people are shrugging right now.
Pretty entertaining numbers that on any deeper look demonstrate more than anything else that those most likely to call the behavior something that should disqualify were most often those who were never going to vote for him.

Only 18% of Democrats think that it should be disqualifying ... but those who voted for Trump in face of all of his offenses? 32% say this non-sexual touching should disqualify Biden. (Despite the fact that the GOP skews older and younger voters overall are more likely to see it as a deal-breaker.) Independents are pretty close to Dems at 21%. Pretty sure that was 21% that were never going to vote for him.

Overall female and male voters pretty similar too: only 22% of women voters says he should not run because of this and 25% of the men. Yes, that's right. Women are shrugging it off more than the men are. (I explain that by the confounder of women being more likely to be Democrats.)

Interesting ...
  #302  
Old 04-07-2019, 09:00 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes, that's right. Women are shrugging it off more than the men are.
That could be true, but we don't know whether it's true or not. N=482 for men, and N=522 for women, are waaaaaay to small to distinguish 25% from 22%. You'd need on the order of four times as much sample to do that.
  #303  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
A fair cop ... beyond the confounder factor. Certainly there is a lack of evidence for the contention that
Quote:
males among them will shrug, and females will be split between those who will sigh and swallow their disappointment (at being asked, yet again, to simply put up with uninvited touches by those with more power), and those who will reject Biden soundly and decisively.
  #304  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
According to a Hill poll, a majority of American voters, Democrats, Independents, women, men, and people aged 35+ say this isn't a deal breaker and Biden should still run. And a plurality of voters 18-34 say the same.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...men-should-not

So it seems a lot of people are shrugging right now.
It's so obviously a political hit piece, voters are getting smarter.
  #305  
Old 04-08-2019, 05:32 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,819
I don't think the polls that have been cited necessarily tell the whole story. The women in these polls seem to be saying that these aren't disqualifying revelations, but we wouldn't necessarily expect them to be. However, that fact doesn't mean that the allegations haven't damaged the former vice president -- I think they have. The allegations have given him a label at a very early stage in the campaign.
  #306  
Old 04-08-2019, 09:55 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
There's some space between all women either swallowing their disappointment or soundly rejecting, and no damage at all.

In any case new poll out of SC adds more data to the conclusion of if any impact pretty minimal.
Quote:
The poll was taken from March 31-April 4, just after a former member of the Nevada state assembly accused Biden of touching and kissing her. While the poll was being taken, Biden promised in a video to be more mindful about personal space.

The accusation, however, did not hurt Biden with the 744 likely Palmetto State Democratic primary voters polled.

Biden, who is expected to join the race as early as this month, leads in South Carolina with 32 percent, more than twice as much as second-place U.S. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 14 percent. Still, Biden dropped 4 percent from a Change Research 2020 poll in February, while Sanders was unchanged. ...
Bigger stories in that poll though was the strength of undeclared Abrams and doing quite well Buttigieg, both at 7%.

Also this state needs to be a win for Harris to have a path. Her 10% third place pole position aint bad but won't cut it. One assumes though hypothetical Abrams cuts into her numbers even more than it cuts into Biden's.

But as for this thread, the news cycle's damage at least seems to be far from a death blow.
  #307  
Old 04-08-2019, 05:08 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There's some space between all women either swallowing their disappointment or soundly rejecting, and no damage at all. ...
Not when it comes to what matters: voting. When it comes to one candidate's fortunes, voting is binary. Either the voter casts the ballot for Biden, or the voter does not cast the ballot for Biden.




Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't think the polls that have been cited necessarily tell the whole story. The women in these polls seem to be saying that these aren't disqualifying revelations, but we wouldn't necessarily expect them to be. However, that fact doesn't mean that the allegations haven't damaged the former vice president -- I think they have. The allegations have given him a label at a very early stage in the campaign.
Yes, and that label interacts in an unfortunately synergistic way with Biden's age. 'He doesn't get it' is not a helpful image for a candidate of his advanced age.

Biden's best hope is that the other white, Christian, straight, male candidates drop out, leaving him the Great Could-Appeal-To-Obama/Trump-Voters Hope. (Doubt they'll write a play about that.)
  #308  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:20 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Not when it comes to what matters: voting. When it comes to one candidate's fortunes, voting is binary. Either the voter casts the ballot for Biden, or the voter does not cast the ballot for Biden. ..,
Huh?

We are talking about impact on the population of voters. Some will cast their vote for Biden and some will not. Not quite binary because of course it matters what that not is but fine. When it comes to one candidate’s fortunes however it matters how many more of those nots there are. That is what matters and is not binary. If there are so few nots that your total is not significantly impacted (as polling since so far suggests but it is early) or enough that it matters and how much it matters. Not binary.

So far this seems to be an issue that matters mainly to who were never going to vote for him for the nomination and not to others very much at all. And it appears not a bigger issue to women than men.
  #309  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Another data point.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...l-pack-despite

His lead has grown since the news cycle began.
  #310  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Yes, and that label interacts in an unfortunately synergistic way with Biden's age. 'He doesn't get it' is not a helpful image for a candidate of his advanced age.
I think this is what I'm getting at. We've all known that this is part of who Biden is, so I wouldn't expect voters to be so hypocritical to suddenly find these examples to be disqualifying in and of themselves. But as you say, it speaks to his age, and it reminds people that Biden has a long history of being a very old-fashioned Democratic candidate, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the sense that today's Democratic is done with the centrist model.

FTR, I'm skeptical that they can win without moderates, which is why I unfortunately come to the conclusion that Trump has a very good chance at re-election. I think Biden would probably be formidable in states that Hillary lost, but he has to get there first, and that's far from certain. Obama spoke the other day about the Dems' 'circular firing squad' which tells me he's just as concerned as I am. Sherrod Brown is a very crafty politician and just happens to have a track record of success in the region that Democrats want badly to compete in -- and yet he dropped out, too, probably because he also has those same concerns.

Last edited by asahi; 04-08-2019 at 06:37 PM.
  #311  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Another data point.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...l-pack-despite

His lead has grown since the news cycle began.
I wouldn't read much into it - he could be benefiting just from having the attention.
  #312  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I wouldn't read much into it - he could be benefiting just from having the attention.
"There's no such thing as bad publicity" doesn't usually get applied to politicians.
  #313  
Old 04-08-2019, 06:58 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There's some space between all women either swallowing their disappointment or soundly rejecting, and no damage at all. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Not when it comes to what matters: voting. When it comes to one candidate's fortunes, voting is binary. Either the voter casts the ballot for Biden, or the voter does not cast the ballot for Biden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... We are talking about impact on the population of voters. Some will cast their vote for Biden and some will not. Not quite binary because of course it matters what that not is but fine. When it comes to one candidate’s fortunes however it matters how many more of those nots there are. That is what matters and is not binary. If there are so few nots that your total is not significantly impacted (as polling since so far suggests but it is early) or enough that it matters and how much it matters. Not binary....
I'm not sure you've successfully refuted the proposition "when it comes to one candidate's fortunes, voting is binary. Either the voter casts the ballot for Biden, or the voter does not cast the ballot for Biden."

It still appears to me that for any particular voter, either that voter casts a ballot for Biden, or that voter does not cast a ballot for Biden. Though the latter option can happen in many different ways (all with varying effects on the election overall)-----so far as Biden is concerned, it's a vote he didn't get.

The voter either:
  • votes for Biden or
  • does not vote for Biden.

Do you believe some other option exists? I'm not asking about all the various ways the second option could occur*----- I'm saying that in the universe of things a voter could do, 'votes for Biden' and 'does not vote for Biden' exhausts the possibilities.

If you believe otherwise, could you expand on your argument?



*which would include 'votes for Candidate R', 'votes for Candidate S,' 'votes for Candidate T,' etc. for the entire list of candidates and write-ins, and also 'does not vote,' for various reasons. Again, this list is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was 'vote for Biden' versus 'does not vote for Biden.'
  #314  
Old 04-08-2019, 07:39 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
As much as every vote matters it is the aggregate that determines a candidate’s fortune. Elections are not decided by the voter but by the voters.

Really what are you babbling about?

So far the evidence is that the voters who have not already decided against Biden are not moved to do decide against him based on this news cycle to at least any significant degree. The move up may be statistical noise but it demonstrates pretty well the lack of a meaningful move down.

asahi you may have a sense but what data do you have to back that sense up?
  #315  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:07 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,819
I guess since I kicked this little nest of hornets, I should respond. And the answer is, no, apparently Joe's campaign is not over before it starts. I suspect he has been damaged, but maybe not. Time will tell.
  #316  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
As much as every vote matters it is the aggregate that determines a candidate’s fortune. Elections are not decided by the voter but by the voters.

Really what are you babbling about?

So far the evidence is that the voters who have not already decided against Biden are not moved to do decide against him based on this news cycle to at least any significant degree. The move up may be statistical noise but it demonstrates pretty well the lack of a meaningful move down.
It's too soon for polling to support the conclusion that the Biden revelations have had no important effect. As you imply, a significant cratering isn't currently evident; whether or not the news will show up in coming days as erosive to Biden's numbers is yet to be determined.

As for 'babbling'--in post #303 you indicated what looked like perturbation at the notion that males and females might have differing reactions to the Biden news. It led you to make statements such as

Quote:
Some will cast their vote for Biden and some will not. Not quite binary because of course it matters what that not is but fine. When it comes to one candidate’s fortunes however it matters how many more of those nots there are. That is what matters and is not binary.
...in which you appeared at pains to refute the notion that 'votes for Biden' and 'does not vote for Biden' could be a binary representation of reality. It seemed reasonable to ask you why you held that belief, and why you saw it as meaningful.

Yes, the total number of votes matters. Are you aware that the total is made up of individual votes? Your comments quoted above do not inspire confidence.
  #317  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:19 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I guess since I kicked this little nest of hornets, I should respond. And the answer is, no, apparently Joe's campaign is not over before it starts. I suspect he has been damaged, but maybe not. Time will tell.
Eric Swalwell announced tonight---another (basically) moderate white male.

This won't help Biden. The more centrist white males there are in the race, the less those who like Biden have a reason to rationalize his problems (of age, of having failed to get the nomination before, of having problems with being handsy, etc.).

I don't hate Biden, but I will admit I don't particularly admire him. More importantly, I see vulnerabilities that lead me to believe he will lose to Trump.

Trump may be visibly suffering from dementia, but his supporters are being protected from that knowledge. All Americans will see Biden's upcoming gaffes and slowness, though.

Those who haven't already made up their mind ('for Trump' OR 'for any functioning adult OTHER than Trump') are not going to be enthusiastic about Biden. He's polling well now because of name-recognition. That won't be enough on November 3, 2020.
  #318  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:05 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It's too soon for polling to support the conclusion that the Biden revelations have had no important effect. As you imply, a significant cratering isn't currently evident; whether or not the news will show up in coming days as erosive to Biden's numbers is yet to be determined....
It is possible for there to be some delayed effect but that it is not how bad news cycles have impacted polling in the past. Usually the impact begins to show pretty much right away, often then recovering back to the politician's mean over another week or so.

So far what we can say is the women voters are (minimally) no more likely to be overly bothered by this item than are male voters (neither bothered very much) and the apples to apples polls done before and after the news cycle are showing no impact on his support.

First sign of any negative impact today - he still leads by as much (32%, 9% above Sanders in second place and 23% above Harris in third, 38% in the early primary states) but the strength of his favorability has softened some. He still has higher ratings there than anyone else but some of his favorability moved from "very" to "somewhat". So there's that.
  #319  
Old 04-09-2019, 12:11 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

...Those who haven't already made up their mind ('for Trump' OR 'for any functioning adult OTHER than Trump') are not going to be enthusiastic about Biden. He's polling well now because of name-recognition. That won't be enough on November 3, 2020.
What demographics do you think these people belong to? And who do you think they would be enthusiastic about and why?

As previously stated I see that group possibly being the Obama-Trump and the Romney-Clinton voters. Do you see them as someone else?

I've made the case why those voters specifically are most likely to be won over by Biden. I would like to hear why any specific other candidates will appeal top those demographics more.
  #320  
Old 04-09-2019, 05:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What demographics do you think these people belong to? And who do you think they would be enthusiastic about and why?

As previously stated I see that group possibly being the Obama-Trump and the Romney-Clinton voters. Do you see them as someone else?

I've made the case why those voters specifically are most likely to be won over by Biden. I would like to hear why any specific other candidates will appeal top those demographics more.
My emphasis. Your remarks imply that there are two possibilities: a particular group of voters will be enthusiastic about Biden, or they will be enthusiastic about some other candidate.

The obvious missing option here is that they will not be enthusiastic about any candidate at all (and would be likely to join the 'not voting' contingent).

As to the particular make-up of the particular group in question: I have no quarrel with your idea about 'people who voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016' (and the same for Romney then Clinton) as being a group who might be seeking a centrist, traditional type of Democrat to vote for. As we get closer to November 2020, no doubt there will be more research published on these types of patterns, and we'll get a better idea of how predictive of 2020 choices such past voting might turn out to be.
  #321  
Old 04-09-2019, 11:57 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
So let me see if I understand you correctly -

You think that those who haven't already made up their mind, which mostly means the Obama-Trump and Romney-Clinton voters, won't be enthusiastic about Biden, and you have no other candidate in mind that you think they would be enthusiastic about, suggesting that maybe they won't be enthusiastic about anyone and just not vote.

Since you think no one may enthuse might they vote for a candidate they are not enthusiastic for instead of not voting/

Of those either running or expected to run who do you think might be most attractive to those two groups (even if they are not enthusiastic), more appealing to both, or failing that, either, than Biden is?
  #322  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:51 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
If the fraction of the voting-eligible population we're looking at is 'those who voted for Obama then for Trump, plus those who voted for Romney then for Clinton'-----

Then I think they'll like Biden until some combination of Biden's foes (including some fans of Trump and some fans of others who are running as Democrats) dissuade them via relentless reminders of the vulnerabilities represented by Biden's record.

Then they'll look to some other person who has the qualities of 'whiteness' and 'maleness' and 'moderateness.' There are plenty to choose from. From that list, Tim Ryan may become a favorite, given that he challenged Nancy Pelosi for the House leadership.

Do we have any numbers on the probable size of your groups, by the way?
  #323  
Old 04-10-2019, 09:49 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post

... Do we have any numbers on the probable size of your groups, by the way?
Yes we do.
Quote:
Nine percent of Obama voters voted for Trump while 5 percent voted for a third-party candidate or a write-in, while 5 percent of Romney voters supported Clinton and 6 percent voted for a third-party candidate or write-in.
This study is also interesting. It looks beyond Obama-Trump and Romney-Clinton and throws in 2018 midterm voting as well.
Quote:
we find that Romney-Trump voters who defected to the Democrats in 2018 typically came from the suburbs, while Obama-Trump voters who returned to the Democrats in 2018 were split between living in suburban and rural areas. A plurality of loyal Republicans in our sample lived in rural areas, while Democrats were split between living in urban and in suburban areas. Consistent with some other work on the 2018 electorate, we find that voters who shifted from President Obama to the Republicans in recent years lopsidedly live in rural areas.

Not surprisingly, self-identified political moderates formed pluralities among the vote switcher categories, and formed an outright majority of Romney voters who have since gone Democratic in 2016 and 2018. But fully 42 percent of Obama-Trump voters who returned to the Democratic Party in 2018 identified as conservative, compared with 33 percent who identified as liberal. Fully 54 percent of Romney-Trump voters who defected to a Democratic candidate in 2018 identified as conservative or very conservative.
On policy Obama-Trump voters tend to want strong border security and support the Green New Deal. Pretty much everyone but the loyal Republicans specifically like the idea of pollution fees charged on businesses that produce high levels of greenhouse gases. Obama-Trump voters are pretty split on gun control but Romney-Clinton ones are strong supporters. And a very interesting one - for both the Obama-Trump and Romney-Clinton voters those who voted D in 2018 show support Medicare for All while those who voted R tend not to.
  #324  
Old 04-15-2019, 10:15 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Well maybe some impact after all? Emerson's today -
Quote:
A new national Emerson poll, including 20 Democratic candidates for President, found Senator Bernie Sanders ahead of the pack with 29%, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 24%. They were followed by Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 9%, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Senator Kamala Harris at 8%, and Senator Elizabeth Warren at 7%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former HUD secretary Julian Castro were at 3%. The poll was conducted April 11-14 of Democratic Primary voters with a subset of n=356, +/- 5.2%.

Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, said “while still early in the nominating process, it looks like Mayor Pete is the candidate capturing voters’ imagination; the numbers had him at 0% in mid-February, 3% in March and now at 9% in April.”

Kimball also noted that “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5 point lead, 29% to 24%.” ...
Although the onset of his dropping preceded the news and may be independent of it.

Still his not yet campaign is far from "over".
  #325  
Old 04-15-2019, 05:28 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well maybe some impact after all? Emerson's today - Although the onset of his dropping preceded the news and may be independent of it.

Still his not yet campaign is far from "over".
Agreed. (And thanks for the statistical information you posted in your last two posts.)

Last edited by Sherrerd; 04-15-2019 at 05:28 PM.
  #326  
Old 04-16-2019, 01:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well maybe some impact after all? Emerson's today - Although the onset of his dropping preceded the news and may be independent of it.

Still his not yet campaign is far from "over".
Yep. Sanders supporters hit Biden, thus pushing Biden out of first place, increasing Sanders chance of winning the primary, and Trump's chances of winning the election.

Every nasty hit piece on a Dem increases Trump's chance of winning.
  #327  
Old 04-16-2019, 03:32 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
If you think there will be no hit pieces on candidates you live in a dream world. Or do you think only 1 Dem should run and nobody should say anything bad about him/her?
  #328  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:05 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,363
Here's an article from 2017, when there were no axes to grind re Biden and his little peccadilloes. It's pretty fucked up when your Secret Service detail is steering you away from every woman in sight, and they've been doing it for years as a matter of course.
  #329  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
If you think there will be no hit pieces on candidates you live in a dream world. Or do you think only 1 Dem should run and nobody should say anything bad about him/her?
Oh no, not at all. It's perfectly Ok to say that "Bidens Positions on XXXX is bad becuase here is my position which is far better. " Or that "Sanders supports Medicare for all, which is a pipe dream and too expensive>" or anything issue related. Or even "I am supporting Biden because he has the best chance of beating Trump and I dont think xxxx can win against trump."

But cheap below the belt attacks accusing a fellow dem of being a pedophile creep are not.

I hope you can see the difference.
  #330  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Here's an article from 2017, when there were no axes to grind re Biden and his little peccadilloes. It's pretty fucked up when your Secret Service detail is steering you away from every woman in sight, and they've been doing it for years as a matter of course.
An anonymous source from Gateway Pundit? Got anything from World Net Daily?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #331  
Old 04-16-2019, 07:40 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Or maybe Project Veritas has some dirt.
  #332  
Old 04-16-2019, 09:13 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,363
Y'know, funny thing, I recall a lot of people pooh-poohing a story about presidential candidate Gary Hart getting busted getting frisky with a lady not his wife because it ran in the National Enquirer. Anybody else remember how that all shook out in the end in spite of the media outlet that leaked the story? Anyone? How did Gary do in that race, anyone recall?

Trick is that when all the "legitimate" media outlets all belong to the same five or six companies and they all have vested interests in promulgating specific narratives any stories outside of the authorized narrative are, by default, going to show up in some oddball places. That's how media consolidation works.
  #333  
Old 04-16-2019, 09:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Y'know, funny thing, I recall a lot of people pooh-poohing a story about presidential candidate Gary Hart getting busted getting frisky with a lady not his wife because it ran in the National Enquirer. Anybody else remember how that all shook out in the end in spite of the media outlet that leaked the story? Anyone? How did Gary do in that race, anyone recall?

Trick is that when all the "legitimate" media outlets all belong to the same five or six companies and they all have vested interests in promulgating specific narratives any stories outside of the authorized narrative are, by default, going to show up in some oddball places. That's how media consolidation works.

I'm sure you just swallow whole all those "drunken Bernie praises Russian bread lines and loves Fidel Castro" stories they run.
  #334  
Old 04-16-2019, 09:53 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,363
Let's just say that an "unreliable" news source tells me that when someone dropped a 50 kilo rock off a twenty story building it landed on a person's head with great force and killed them. I have no problem believing that because, regardless of who said it, it jibes just fine with observed reality and the way that 50 kilo rocks dropped from great heights usually behave. Let's also just say, for the sake of argument, that a very reliable source, like the NY Times for instance, reports that the very same 50 kilo rock, when dropped from another 20 story building, actually bounced right off a person's head and did them no harm at all--in fact, it bounced off several people's heads in sequence doing no harm to anyone at all. Does the reliability of the source automatically lend probity to the otherwise extremely unlikely story?
  #335  
Old 04-16-2019, 10:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Let's just say that an "unreliable" news source tells me that ...
Yeah it's a basic principle - confirmation bias.
  #336  
Old 04-16-2019, 11:05 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,363
It's a logical fallacy--appeal to (dis)trust.
  #337  
Old 04-16-2019, 11:18 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Y'know, funny thing, I recall a lot of people pooh-poohing a story about presidential candidate Gary Hart getting busted getting frisky with a lady not his wife because it ran in the National Enquirer.
Well, yeah, that's how it works. When 99% of your stories are garbage, that's reason to see the rare counter-example as a fluke, not reason to believe that Elvis really did have Dolly Parton's alien lovechild.
  #338  
Old 04-17-2019, 12:08 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
It's a logical fallacy--appeal to (dis)trust.
The logical fallacy would apply if it was stated that something MUST be false because an untrustworthy source stated it, or MUST be true is a trustworthy source states it. It is the absolutism that is the fallacy.

When the fallacy applies to distrust the usually untrustworthy source would be disbelieved no matter how much solid and independently evidence is shown. It would be akin to me saying that if Trump says it it must be a lie, that he nothing he says is truthful ever. That would be a very different thing that me saying that his saying it is not enough to make me believe it and that I am more prone to believe information that I read as an article (not an editorial) in the New York Times. Having relative non-absolute degrees of confidence in different source is not appeal to trust (or distrust).

No the applicable fallacy is conformation bias. You are prone to believe a very untrustworthy source because the story conforms to what you already believe, and you are prone to interpret information in a way that conforms to those extant beliefs as well, while you would be dismissive of information that does not fit those existing constructs no matter how reliable the source giving that information has previously been.
  #339  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:39 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
CNN says he is entering the race next week.
  #340  
Old 04-21-2019, 08:34 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
CNN says he is entering the race next week.
Good reason to drop this in here, then:
Quote:
The problem here is not Biden’s “bipartisanship.” Sometimes you have to work with people whose values you find repellent. Finding points of common interest is basic political political pragmatism (see the bipartisan Yemen resolution shepherded through the Senate by Bernie Sanders). The problem comes when you get so close to the powerful, and spend so long around them, that you cease to be disgusted by disgusting things. At this point, “friendliness” just means a lack of moral seriousness. To be chummy with MBNA is to be cruel to bankrupt debtors. To be chummy with Mike Pence is to be cruel to LGBT people. To be chummy with Frank Upton means helping him beat his Democratic opponent. To be chummy with Israel is to ignore the murder of Palestinian journalists, paramedics, and activists.
This is part of a much longer read that amounts to a devastating indictment of Biden's kind of politics.

If there was a time when, as my father used to say, both parties wanted the same things but differed on the means of achieving them, Biden would have been right for that era. But it's certainly not true now, and the author brings up some examples from Biden's political career in the 1970s and 1980s that show it was often far from the case back then, as well.
  #341  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Good reason to drop this in here, then:
This is part of a much longer read that amounts to a devastating indictment of Biden's kind of politics.

If there was a time when, as my father used to say, both parties wanted the same things but differed on the means of achieving them, Biden would have been right for that era. But it's certainly not true now, and the author brings up some examples from Biden's political career in the 1970s and 1980s that show it was often far from the case back then, as well.
Nice hit piece, written by either a Sandernista or the kremlin.

Yep:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...t-rid-of-trump
Every single Democrat needs to come to terms with the fact that the most sensible plan for getting rid of Donald Trump is to unify behind a Bernie Sanders candidacy...In February 2016, I argued that unless the Democrats nominated Sanders, “a Trump nomination means a Trump presidency.” ..This is why I think Elizabeth Warren would not do well against Donald Trump. ... If you think that just because Donald Trump is pro “law and order,” he won’t use Kamala Harris’ record of defending prosecutorial misconduct against her, you do not understand Trump. He will have a field day with it. It will totally kill her ability to criticize Trump over criminal justice issues. He will read from the damning statements by federal judges about Harris’ office. And he will be right. He’ll do the same with Joe Biden and segregation, or Cory Booker and Wall Street.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...ersuade-anyone
Matthew Yglesias of Vox writes:

"Is it really necessary for highly committed socialists to write long individualized takedowns of each non-Bernie candidate? They’re not bad arguments, exactly, but “as a socialist I think you should vote for Bernie because he’s a socialist rather than [candidate] who is not” doesn’t really need thousands of words to get people geared-up."

I assume he is referring in part to my gigantic dissection of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Now, I could give the glib reply (“perhaps instead of deep dives into candidates’ records and writings, we socialists should publish things like ‘Beto O’Rourke Standing On Countertops, Explained.’”) But I take earnest questions seriously. And I’ll admit, spending two-and-a-half days writing over 10,000 words on a longshot presidential candidate did feel a bit like madness at the time I was churning it out. Why bother doing this? Why pay attention to Pete Buttigieg, instead of just saying “as a socialist I think you should vote for Bernie Sanders because he’s a socialist”?


So, he has done hits on Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Beto & Booker.

And yet you quote that unprincipled piece of crap who is dedicated to "Bernie or Bust" and thus will help Trump back in office?
  #342  
Old 04-21-2019, 07:22 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
... So, he has done hits on Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Beto & Booker.
A major flaw in what appears to be the Sanders campaign strategy of emphasizing hits on competitors (instead of emphasizing Sanders' own policy proposals) is that it carries an implicit assumption that is unwarranted. The hits on competitors all hinge on 'Trump will find plenty of material to attack in Candidate _______' The unwarranted assumption is that Trump will not find plenty of material to attack Bernie Sanders.

The fact that everyone pulling for Trump in 2016 laid off Sanders was NOT due to a dearth of Sanders vulnerabilities. It was due to a recognition that Sanders' continued presence in the race was, in a practical if unintended sense, helping Trump.

The GOP and its overseas allies have plenty on Bernie Sanders. They're just holding off using it until Sanders is the nominee.

The attack pieces on Sanders' competitors serve quite well to remind well-informed voters of this reality.
  #343  
Old 04-21-2019, 08:46 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And yet you quote that unprincipled piece of crap who is dedicated to "Bernie or Bust" and thus will help Trump back in office?
OK, where's he wrong? He gives lots of facts (or what he claims are facts) in that article. If it's a 'hit job' for real, then it should be easy enough to find the lies and exaggerations.

Because either he's lying through his teeth about stuff that can be disproved, or his case against Biden is extremely well supported, and Biden has no business being the nominee.

I really don't give a shit what you call him, and I'll quote him if I damn well feel like it until someone disproves his facts.
  #344  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:26 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
It's embarrassed that we don't have Medicare For All.

I just saw a hit peace on it today, which is BS.

I can't copy and paste it, but it was NYTime.

1. They keep comparing Medicare with private insurance. How about we compare Medicare to the costs? The article later states that Medicare pays $0.87 on the dollar where private pays $1.45.

2. What about all of the unpaid bill's, or bills that are settled for far less than $0.87 on the dollar because Joe Smith didnt have ANY insurance?

3. *Most* hospitals are for profit...giving HUGE bonuses to high level executives, those wouldn't factor in if hospitals werent for profit and instead existed solely to care for the people.
  #345  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:29 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Also, Bernie has some reach, as evident in his performance at Fox's town hall.
  #346  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
OK, where's he wrong? He gives lots of facts (or what he claims are facts) in that article. If it's a 'hit job' for real, then it should be easy enough to find the lies and exaggerations.

Because either he's lying through his teeth about stuff that can be disproved, or his case against Biden is extremely well supported, and Biden has no business being the nominee.

I really don't give a shit what you call him, and I'll quote him if I damn well feel like it until someone disproves his facts.
OK, tell you what, let us say you belong to a company and are an executive, working there for a couple decades. One of the other Vice presidents was a real assholes , but recently he has truly tried to change his life, become a better man. You are called upon to speak at his funeral. Do you talk about all his failing and assholishness in the past, or do you talk about his more recent attempts to redeem himself.

Because that is what Joe did. But Biden even mentioned- Thurman's Failure sn the past:
Born into an era of essentially unchallenged and unexamined mores of the South, reaching his full maturity in a era of fully challenged and critically exam[in]ed bankrupt mores of his beloved South, and living out his final three decades in a South that had formally rejected its past on race. That's flat calling out Strom for being morally bankrupt in the past.

"Strom Thurmond was also a brave man, who in the end made his choice and moved to the good side. I disagreed deeply with Strom on the issue of civil rights and on many other issues, but I watched him change. We became good friends. ..."Strom ... is a man who was opposed to the poll tax. This is a man who I watched vote for the extension of the Voting Rights Act. This is a man who I watched vote for the Martin Luther King Holiday. ..His offices were next door to mine in the Russell Building, or more appropriately mine were next to his. And over the years, I remember seeing a lot change, including the number of African-Americans on his staff and African-Americans who sought his help."

Because that's what you do in a eulogy. Only assholes say bad things about the man they were asked to eulogize. Now, Biden did mention Thurmonds asshole past, but rather offhand. And then Biden did what any decent human being would do, he grabbed on to the few decent things Thurmond did in his declining years. Because Biden is a decent human being, something NATHAN J. ROBINSON isnt.

And this is his big attack on Biden? That Biden is a decent human being? And when called upon to eulogize a man, a political opponent, a man who was frankly a racist asshole at times, that you find a few scraps of decency among the cesspool of a evil mans life, and mention those. Because that's what people do at eulogies.

If Biden had come to that funeral and listed the horrible, racist things that Thurmon did- then Biden would be a asshole, and not a decent human being.

Call me to eulogize President G W Bush, and I will wax poetic upon the fact two weeks before leaving office, Bush designated nearly 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as national monuments. I will not talk about the many, many bad things he did- because you don't do that at a fucking eulogy. And boy howdy- are there a LOT of really bad things the Shrub did. But damme if I can't say nice things about that 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean now national monuments for 15 minutes, and sure, I , just like Joe, will slip in the odd "bankrupt mores " comment, but hide that in 15 minutes of saying how wonderful those 200 thousand square miles of protected marine area is.


And that's Robinsons big attack on Biden. That he is a decent man, who knows you dont trash talk someone at a fucking eulogy.

Makes me like Biden even more.
  #347  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
Oh, and guess what?
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/41...to-bush-family
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined other political figures in sending their condolences to the Bush family on Saturday following the death of their patriarch, former President George H.W. Bush.

"President George H.W. Bush served our country honorably," Sanders tweeted. "He and Barbara will be remembered for their humble and devoted service to the country they loved. Jane and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Bush family."


I guess that means Bernie has embraced and agreed with all the thing Pres Bush did while President , eh?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-legacy-222730
Perhaps the worst act of Bush’s career came at the end of his presidency when he pardoned a bevy of Iran-Contra defendants—including Caspar Weinberger, Robert MacFarlane and Elliott Abrams—to protect himself from further investigation.

By Robinsons logic, Bernie, his Saint Sanders, just accepted and gave his blessing to that act.

Because when you say anything nice about a man when you are giving condolences, you of course are condoning every bad thing that person ever did, right?
  #348  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,217
And people wonder why us Democrats dont like Bernie-bros.

This kind of crap is why. Hit pieces by some asshole who started his own Bernie or Bust Magazine.

Not just Biden- but Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Beto & Booker.
  #349  
Old 04-21-2019, 10:01 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And people wonder why us Democrats dont like Bernie-bros.

This kind of crap is why. Hit pieces by some asshole who started his own Bernie or Bust Magazine.

Not just Biden- but Buttigieg, Warren, Harris, Beto & Booker.
You seem awfully upset.

Like I said in the other thread, many of the younger people wouldn't even be voting at all if it weren't for his enthusiasm. You're getting mad is NOT going to help. We are aloud to vote for who we want. You don't intimidate us.

I can't control Bernie Or Bust people, I don't blame them for being disillusioned. The media and the corporate Dems are not appealing to them.

You're allowed to vote for whomever, but I think Biden's chances against Trump are not nearly as good as Bernies.
  #350  
Old 04-21-2019, 10:07 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Good reason to drop this in here, then:
This is part of a much longer read that amounts to a devastating indictment of Biden's kind of politics....
Count me as another who fails to see the “devastating” about his style of politics there.

His style, chummy, bipartisan, comprising, trying to see the good even in people who are in many ways abhorrent, has gotten things done. It is of course fair to argue that you don’t like all the things it has gotten done. The Sanders style alternative of pure positions, few chums, and no compromises, has few less ideal results to complain about ... and nothing of note to tout either. Is it better or worse to have a mixed record of things achieved, or a record of nothing accomplished?

Which is the more effective style?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017