Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2551  
Old 09-01-2019, 05:01 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Biden's take on electability:
Quote:
BIDEN: I think there’s other people in the race who can beat Trump.

CAPEHART: Who?

BIDEN: Well, I think almost anybody.
  #2552  
Old 09-01-2019, 06:22 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
A potted turnip can beat Trump. The question isn't who can; it's who has the best chance.
  #2553  
Old 09-01-2019, 06:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Nice cite. worth reading.


And how many other Candidates would say the same? Joe isnt even saying he has the best chance, but he hints at it.

How many other candidate could resit the chance to attack some other dem? But not Joe. He attacks trump- quite savagely. And quite rightly.
  #2554  
Old 09-01-2019, 07:57 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, this is
CAPEHART: Iíve said on television several times that President Trump is a racist with a white supremacist policy agenda. Am I wrong?


BIDEN: No.

Now, Iím, you know, thereís two things. One, are you a racist because you really believe it and you hate African Americans, etc., and others? Or you are a charlatan and you donít care much about it, but you know you can appeal to people. So Iím not gonna make the judgment whether his policies are racist. And so thatís why Iíve refused to get into the issue of whether or not he personally is a racist. He is promoting policies that are racist policies, he is in fact ...
So, he says he is not going to say, and then he says it. Others put their feet in their mouths, he trips over his tongue.

And this is the most electable candidate.
  #2555  
Old 09-01-2019, 11:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Well, this is
CAPEHART: Iíve said on television several times that President Trump is a racist with a white supremacist policy agenda. Am I wrong?


BIDEN: No.

Now, Iím, you know, thereís two things. One, are you a racist because you really believe it and you hate African Americans, etc., and others? Or you are a charlatan and you donít care much about it, but you know you can appeal to people. So Iím not gonna make the judgment whether his policies are racist. And so thatís why Iíve refused to get into the issue of whether or not he personally is a racist. He is promoting policies that are racist policies, he is in fact ...
So, he says he is not going to say, and then he says it. Others put their feet in their mouths, he trips over his tongue.

And this is the most electable candidate.
No, he didnt say it. You quoted out of context.

And he's likely right. trunp personally might not be a racist, but he is certainly pandering to the racist vote.
  #2556  
Old 09-02-2019, 05:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
A potted turnip can beat Trump. The question isn't who can; it's who has the best chance.
Sorry, but I'm going to include downstream outcomes in the equation. Say Biden has a 75% chance of beating Trump, and Zaphod* has a 70% chance of beating Trump. They both have plans to address global warming that are arguably serious enough, but they obviously have to pass Congress. But Biden will keep the filibuster, and Zaphod is already urging the Senate to get rid of it if he wins.

Let's say there's a 20% chance** of averting global hellscape if Zaphod's elected, and about 0% chance if Biden's elected. I'm gonna give up 5% chance of beating Trump for a 14% chance that we don't fry the planet - I owe that much to my son who could quite possibly be around to ring in the 22nd century.

* I'm tossing Zaphod in here to keep it hypothetical. We can argue about just what the likelihood is that a given candidate will beat Trump, but that's not the point. My point is that at least for some of us, it isn't 100% about beating Trump. There are good reasons to include the differential aftermaths of winning in the equation.

** Pick your number. I figure it's fairly low - even 20% is optimistic, I figure - because it's dependent on winning the Senate AND getting rid of the filibuster AND passing legislation that's big enough to do the job AND successfully implementing it AND its producing technologies that the developing world can adopt with costs in the same ballpark as conventional power.
  #2557  
Old 09-02-2019, 06:26 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
A few words from former DLC Democrat Ed Kilgore:
Quote:
Well, I’ll put my cards on the table as someone with a relatively “centrist” background … I’m not crazy about all of Warren’s “plans” … for example, her Global New Deal trade proposal strikes me as unserious. But what she has that Democrats desperately need is a plan to govern, without which “electability” is a bit barren. Warren has thought deeply and realistically about implementing her agenda, even as Biden has pretended he can bring back bipartisanship and Sanders has pretended he can overwhelm both parties with some imaginary “political revolution.” So that’s an estimable quality for her.

I understand that beating Trump is Job One. But there needs to be a Job Two and Three, or something like Trump could return.
And:
Quote:
Above all, in the end, this is likely to be a base-mobilization contest more than a fight over 10,000 blue collar dudes in Wisconsin. So a unified, energetic party gives you more than you risk.
  #2558  
Old 09-02-2019, 07:48 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Yes it does also matter whether or not one thinks that candidate A or B is more likely to actually result in accomplishing anything, no matter what they actually say they have a plan for.

For many that is a point in Biden's favor over Warren.

I'll decline debating whether eliminating the filibuster is a good idea but I will note that a president's urging is not of very much much impact ... hell Trump's urged it multiple times and had zero impact even with his toady Moscow Mitch. Obama also encouraged changes and did not get it. A Senate rule change is not something that a president delivers, even with partisan Senate majority to work with.

As to base mobilization. Let's grant for the argument the mobilizing the base above and beyond how the removal of Trump and his fascist authoritarian hateful administration mobilizes the base in and off itself is more important to do than winning over any potentially swingable voters (both Obama -Trump and Romney-Clinton voters, who clearly are not just 10,000 Blue collar dudes in Wisconsin, more like north of 9 million or so vote-switchers, disproportionately concentrated in must-win states and districts). "The base" is a varied crowd, not just a handful of young mostly white progressives scatter across the country. They are not in fact the majority of the base of the party. The base is also Black women and men. The base is also center Left Boomers and center Left highly educated whites in suburbs. "The Base" is not all of one mind and while all of "the base" agree that Trump must go, they disagree on much else, and certainly do not all sign on to the same progressive agenda that excites you and that excites a scattered number of voters not especially concentrated in the must-win states.

I'd point out that every vote flipped is worth twice every vote that does not stay home but I would nevertheless agree with obvious that getting Democratic voters out on Election Day is critical.

What is not clear is that pandering to the self-declared "base" that are loud in your social media bubble is an effective way to deliver that, it is not clear whether that sort of candidate is someone who delivers more unity or instead more divisiveness, more enthused or more turned off, within the actual varied elements of the Democratic base.
  #2559  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:16 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Sure, beating Trump isn't the only issue. You want someone who will do good things with that victory. But it's still a pretty important issue, so it makes sense for the candidate who's the most electable (or at least, perceived as such) to emphasize that as a selling point.
  #2560  
Old 09-02-2019, 12:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
More on that dismissal of those "10,000 blue collar dudes in Wisconsin" ...

Wisconsin was lost by a 24,000 vote margin (12,000 voting the other way would have done it). Pennsylvania by 45,000; Michigan by 11,000.

A few tens of thousands of votes going the other way in those states is of much more potential impact than another million young progressives coming out in California and New York.

Yes, I want as little chance of Trump winning again as possible. But I also want to have the win be an overwhelmingly large one. I want a national repudiation of him, a rejection of his politics of othering and hate. He'll get that floor of thirtysomething percent no matter what. I want that to be all he gets. I want everyone other than that to vote against him. I want a Democratic candidate all of the middle can vote for. Warren might end up being that candidate. It is too early for me to decide for sure she is not. But a candidate who panders to the young progressive base by dismissing any need to appeal to the middle, including those tens of thousands in Wisconsin, would increase the gamble of losing it all and virtually eliminate any chance of achieving that national repudiation.
  #2561  
Old 09-02-2019, 01:25 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
A recent fivethirtyeight article compares Warren's 2018 vote town-by-town in Massachusetts with Clinton's vote there in 2016. Clinton did better than Warren in high-income, college-grad suburbs: 6% better in Weston and Wellesley. But Warren outperformed Clinton in blue-collar towns, 15% better in Middlefield and Hawley. Warren also did slightly better among young people.
  #2562  
Old 09-02-2019, 01:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Sorry, but I'm going to include downstream outcomes in the equation. Say Biden has a 75% chance of beating Trump, and Zaphod* has a 70% chance of beating Trump. They both have plans to address global warming that are arguably serious enough, but they obviously have to pass Congress. But Biden will keep the filibuster, and Zaphod is already urging the Senate to get rid of it if he wins.

..

..
See, the reason why this is nonsensical is the the Pres has no power at all to get the senate to dump the filibuster.

And Biden has been warming to the idea, however, again it wont be up to him.
  #2563  
Old 09-02-2019, 03:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A recent fivethirtyeight article compares Warren's 2018 vote town-by-town in Massachusetts with Clinton's vote there in 2016. Clinton did better than Warren in high-income, college-grad suburbs: 6% better in Weston and Wellesley. But Warren outperformed Clinton in blue-collar towns, 15% better in Middlefield and Hawley. Warren also did slightly better among young people.
Woohoo! Better than Clinton! However, I've been told by a certain Warren booster that we shouldn't care about Warren's previous elections, otherwise we'd have to care bout how she was beat in vote count by her statewide Dem colleagues and the Republican governor in her last election.
  #2564  
Old 09-02-2019, 03:40 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
I am also concerned about Warren's electability, but if we assume that the stumbling and aging Biden is too risky a choice, who is left? The Governors have dropped out; and Harris is probably even less electable than Warren.

I'm starting to think that asking Michelle Obama to make a huge sacrifice may be America's best chance. Of course she should make clear that she'll count on her husband for a lot of advice!
  #2565  
Old 09-02-2019, 03:48 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 190
Michelle shouldn't be asked to be a saviour. The right wing hate machine acted truly evil towards her for eight years. Now is her time to relax.

If Al Franken hadn't got caught up in his thing I bet he'd have joined the race and would humiliate Trump. Electability and the idea of it resides in personality. There are some solid policy guys in the race who are just too dull for people to think they can take on a made by reality tv president. Michael Bennet for example. Sound platform but dry. Unfortunately being a wisecrack is important more than ever.
  #2566  
Old 09-02-2019, 03:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I am also concerned about Warren's electability, but if we assume that the stumbling and aging Biden is too risky a choice, who is left? The Governors have dropped out; and Harris is probably even less electable than Warren.

I'm starting to think that asking Michelle Obama to make a huge sacrifice may be America's best chance. Of course she should make clear that she'll count on her husband for a lot of advice!
Biden isnt too old and his gaffes are as normal for several decades.

But yes, Michelle would make a great Veep.
  #2567  
Old 09-02-2019, 05:18 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Woohoo! Better than Clinton! However, I've been told by a certain Warren booster that we shouldn't care about Warren's previous elections, otherwise we'd have to care bout how she was beat in vote count by her statewide Dem colleagues and the Republican governor in her last election.
I do wonder why Silver did not bother to shift by the partisan lean of each election (4 more D-ward in 2018 than 2016).

Still making that shift, and noting as he does in that article that her net totals were actually underwhelming given the state's degree of Blue hue, it still tells us ... something.

Even correcting by that 4 point greater election lean she not only still healthily outperformed Clinton in the lower income non-college educated white communities, she did as well or better than Obama had done. To make that very clear: she won back Obama-Trump voters and maybe a bit more.

Now mind you she may have lost a few Romney-Clinton ones in those wealthiest most highly educated zip codes in the process. The state perhaps has an over-representation of those wealthy highly educated voters, who trend to not prefer an economic populist candidate who promises to disrupt the status quo some, but I personally think that against Trump they'd stay voting D.

Her performance with voters of color "wasnít actively bad" and she, no surprise, did fine with the younger voters that some mistake as the only base that counts.

That's a pretty good data-driven bit of support for her electability. It does not dismiss the importance of those (actually many millions of) Blue collar workers in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even Ohio ... it gives some reason to believe that she instead can resonate with them.
  #2568  
Old 09-02-2019, 05:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
I an extremely dubious. As far as I can see, she won back the Obama-Trump vote in a few precincts, hardly a state wide thing. And a serious look at Warren's ability would have included how the other statewide winning Dems did for a comparison, so we can see how much of that swing can be laid at other factors. If everyone else beat Clinton in blue collar neighborhoods, it doesn't tell us much at all about her abilities.
  #2569  
Old 09-02-2019, 07:23 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes it does also matter whether or not one thinks that candidate A or B is more likely to actually result in accomplishing anything, no matter what they actually say they have a plan for.

For many that is a point in Biden's favor over Warren.
I don't understand it, but I'll take your word for it.
Quote:
I'll decline debating whether eliminating the filibuster is a good idea but I will note that a president's urging is not of very much much impact ... hell Trump's urged it multiple times and had zero impact even with his toady Moscow Mitch. Obama also encouraged changes and did not get it. A Senate rule change is not something that a president delivers, even with partisan Senate majority to work with.
Tru dat, but my point is that there's a positive chance if the nominee makes a big deal of it on the campaign trail, and a zero chance if the nominee doesn't.

I think the Obama example has relevance, but Trump/Mitch? I think you're confused over who's the toady: if Mitch is anyone's toady, he's the toady of much bigger money than Trump has; he's definitely not Trump's toady. Mitch keeps the filibuster because he can get the big things he wants without it (huge tax cuts, Federalist Society judges), and wants to leave it there because he can kill every Dem bill from here to Kingdom Come if the Dems don't have the guts and the initiative to get rid of it on their own. That's what he's banking on for when Trump leaves office, and like you say, it's a pretty good bet.
  #2570  
Old 09-02-2019, 07:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Like I said, "pretty good" ... it certainly is not slam dunk level and dubious is a reasonable take. But I'll stand by describing it as "some reason to believe" ...
  #2571  
Old 09-02-2019, 07:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
RTF, let's play out that "positive chance" ... assume that somehow the Ds pull out a narrow Senate win (includes Manchin) ... what do you think is the amount of that "positive chance"? No Rs will vote for it and quite a few Ds are on record as being dead set against it. Nothing is I guess impossible, but if you estimate that as higher than one out of thousand I'd say you are being way too generous. That is the case no matter how much the president had campaigned on it or pushes for it.

And factor in that every president has a bit of a honeymoon period and some limited political capital to spend in their first few months. Would that sure to fail windmill tilting be the best use of that limited capital?

If you believe that Zaphod has a significantly greater risk of losing to Trump than Candidate A then that near zero hope that Zaphod will result in elimination of the filibuster is way offset by that risk.
  #2572  
Old 09-02-2019, 09:09 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A recent fivethirtyeight article compares Warren's 2018 vote town-by-town in Massachusetts with Clinton's vote there in 2016. Clinton did better than Warren in high-income, college-grad suburbs: 6% better in Weston and Wellesley. But Warren outperformed Clinton in blue-collar towns, 15% better in Middlefield and Hawley. Warren also did slightly better among young people.
Okay, but who was Warren running against? Oranges and apples.
  #2573  
Old 09-03-2019, 07:01 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 190
Interesting take by a Bernie supporter I heard on a podcast today.

I'm paraphrasing but in effect he was arguing "The right wing keeps moving further right but the onus is only on the democrats to stay in the middle. Only democrats get told by party leaders and think tanks they can't move too further left but republican party leaders embrace moving further right."

The natural response is elections are won in the middle but he believes 2016 showed that to be a dated point of view and now populism is the new formula.
  #2574  
Old 09-03-2019, 07:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
"Let's throw out every common wisdom because Trump won" is actually not a very uninteresting take.
  #2575  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:22 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
I assume you mean interesting rather than uninteresting?


I strongly endorse several of DSeidís recent posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Oh wait, you keep saying all sorts of leading Dem candidates aren't electable. Now I guess you're saying they are? Or only if the candidate is on your preferred list?

Actually, I have said repeatedly that probably any conceivable Democratic nominee is going to beat Trump. But that means we are also choosing our 2024 nominee, and those candidates you are referring to are not very RE-electable. You may feel now that this is a distant concern next to the urgency of voting Trump out next year, but the next election will come sooner than you think and it wonít feel so great if some other Republican is back in the Oval Office in 2025, after a House and Senate GOP sweep in 2022.
  #2576  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:01 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,082
Assuming that the presidential candidates will be Trump vs. Biden or Warren or Bernie: Is this the first presidential election in which both party's nominees will be 70+ years of age?
  #2577  
Old 09-06-2019, 11:59 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Actually, I have said repeatedly that probably any conceivable Democratic nominee is going to beat Trump.
I'd missed that, but it sure seems you've been saying that you're not sanguine of the 2020 general election prospects of most of the top Dem candidates for the nomination.

Anyway, fair enough, I'll take that for granted going forward.
Quote:
But that means we are also choosing our 2024 nominee, and those candidates you are referring to are not very RE-electable. You may feel now that this is a distant concern next to the urgency of voting Trump out next year, but the next election will come sooner than you think and it wonít feel so great if some other Republican is back in the Oval Office in 2025, after a House and Senate GOP sweep in 2022.
I fully expect that sweep, if we get the usual Dem ineffectuality.

You know, if things are in shitty shape in 1994 or 2010, and the Dems in office have only theoretically made people's lives better, but they're still unemployed (or getting crappy wages), losing their homes, and are unable to save for retirement, of course the Dems get blown away in the midterms.

Same deal in 2022. Nobody out there will think, "It's all Mitch McConnell's fault for filibustering all the Dem legislation." They're going to think, "we elected Dems, why aren't they making my life better?"

The Dems need to (a) win the White House and Senate, (b) kill the filibuster, and (c) pass legislation that makes a difference to people fast. Sure, chances are they'll lose a few House seats in 2022 no matter what (probably not Senate, though, given the map), but they don't have to be a disaster. But they need to give people who voted for them in 2020 plenty of reason to show up and vote for them again in 2022. If they succeed in that, they'll do OK in 2022, and likely again in 2024.
  #2578  
Old 09-06-2019, 07:57 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/statu...388151297?s=21

So in the crucial tipping point state of Wisconsin, Warren is tied with Trump but Biden is nine points ahead. This research from MIT may help explain why:

https://politicalwire.com/2019/09/06...entful-voters/
Quote:
But the counterintuitive feat Biden has achieved, as reflected in this data, might hint at the possibility of an effective general-election strategy: appealing to African Americans, a core Democratic base, while also stemming if not recouping losses from racially resentful voters who fled the Democratic Party in 2016.”

That’s quite the twofer! Whereas both groups are weak demos for Warren.
  #2579  
Old 09-06-2019, 08:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Does the current however inform about November?

Is it assured that Black turnout/share would be higher for Biden than for Warren? Heck at this point in the '08 cycle the Black demographic was more for Clinton than Obama - they were concerned about electability and skeptical until Iowa proved them otherwise.

Did those non-college educated white voters who voted for Obama leave primarily out racial resentment? And is an establishment return to normalcy candidate better positioned ro regain them than one who promises "change" yet again?

I'm really not sure of the answers to these questions. Warren may be the best choice but she needs to still show it. I'm guessing she will. Until then Biden is the default. IMHO.
  #2580  
Old 09-07-2019, 04:58 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
I have been very negative about Biden, but the political ability to have strong appeal to both blacks and racist whites is pretty impressive. That’s some FDR type shit right there.
  #2581  
Old 09-07-2019, 10:39 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 222
Yeah that definitely sounds like an extremely stable coalition that will certainly hold steady in the over a year left before Election day. Racists & blacks! Just holding hands together at Biden rallies as we all giddily anticipate our national return to normalcy and decency.

These are people who aren't paying any attention at all to the primary race. They don't even know what state Biden is from. I guess it's nice that uninformed boomers who read local paper newspapers (if at all), spend all day staring at Facebook and have landlines have chosen their candidate this early.

This is so tired. Do you know what a do-nothing corporatist democrat nominee or president gets us in 5 or 9 years? A president that's worse than Trump. I am tired of these seat warmers occuping the white house in between progressively more horrible Republican presidents. We need someone to drastically change the way this country is governed. Abolish the EC, expand the House, give DC & Pierto Rican statehood, pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, make mail-in voting the norm, the works. Biden will not do this- he can barely handle a campaign event without muttering incoherently or bleeding from random orifices. The democratic party under his leadership will not do this- it will collapse shortly after Biden is sworn in as white suburbanites slowly return to the GOP and GenXers and millennials become completely disillusioned with yet another incompetent, ineffective Democratic administration.

So get ready for a President Joe Arpaio, Steve King, or Martin Shkreli in 2024 or 2028. I assume those are the heir apparents, just judging by the awful trajectory of the GOP pver the past 50 years. Anyone else in the running? Maybe a couple of the Duck Dynasty guys I guess.

Last edited by pjacks; 09-07-2019 at 10:41 AM.
  #2582  
Old 09-07-2019, 02:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I have been very negative about Biden, but the political ability to have strong appeal to both blacks and racist whites is pretty impressive. That’s some FDR type shit right there.
Really? Racist whites? Trump MAGA voters are joining the Biden campaign?
suuuuuuure.

Last edited by DrDeth; 09-07-2019 at 02:45 PM.
  #2583  
Old 09-07-2019, 03:11 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
If every white racist votes for Trump, then Trump will win easily.
If every gun owner annoyed by talk of gun control votes for Trump, then Trump will win easily.
If all Americans happy with their private health insurance vote for Trump, then Trump will win easily.

Trump will be defeated easily if Generation Z turns out to vote in the same proportion as Baby Boomers ... but they won't.
Trump will be defeated easily if the Kremlin-Facebook Lie Machines turn against Trump ... but they won't.
  #2584  
Old 09-07-2019, 03:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
See following the link to its source we see that "racial resentment" is defined based on
Quote:
One question probed whether the survey taker agreed that slavery and discrimination have made progress difficult for black Americans; the other asked whether blacks should learn to work and live without “special favors.” About 20 percent of likely Democratic primary voters scored on the higher end of these prejudice measures (that is, above the neutral point on the scales), but responses on the high and low ends still substantially predicted candidate choices.
The actual result?
Quote:
All else being equal, Biden’s vote share increases by 27 points going from the least to the most racially resentful primary voter.
Not sure that relatively low scores vs relatively high scores (for a Democratic voter) on those two questions capture being a racist, or even racially resentful, voter. Honestly lower scores on that scale seem most likely to correlate highest with being younger and progressive and higher with older and moderate to conservative more than how motivated a voter is by "racial resentment". He does best with the latter, we know that.

But yes, Biden currently polls well with Black voters (more so older Black voters) and less progressive white voters.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-07-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #2585  
Old 09-07-2019, 03:51 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Trump will be defeated easily if Generation Z turns out to vote in the same proportion as Baby Boomers ... but they won't.
Why should "Gen Z" turn out to vote for Biden, who is older than their grandparents, and who would do next to nothing about things that affect their lives, like climate change, the coming automation crisis, marijuana legalization and college debt? They are screwed either way. Boomers will continue to get massive wealth redistributed to them in the form of Medicare & Social Security, as well as reap the benefits that affordable housing/college & a better job market gave them years ago, while we are left with nothing. Medicare for All? Lol. With the ways things are going, basic Medicare and Social Security won't even be around when we are your age.

Every 4 years you all tell us to shut up because you know better. Maybe for once ask your kids and grandkids who they are supporting, and then vote for their chosen candidate yourself.

Last edited by pjacks; 09-07-2019 at 03:51 PM.
  #2586  
Old 09-07-2019, 05:36 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
RTF, let's play out that "positive chance" ... assume that somehow the Ds pull out a narrow Senate win (includes Manchin) ... what do you think is the amount of that "positive chance"?
I guess it depends on what you believe about global warming.

If you believe it's a major threat to civilization as we know it (which I do) and believe we have maybe a decade to do enough so we don't hit the positive feedback loop where the world keeps on getting warmer even after we stop putting carbon in the atmosphere, and you know you're not going to get 60 Senate votes in 2021 for anything big enough to do the job - all of which I take pretty much for granted - then whatever slim chance that win the White House AND the Senate AND kill the filibuster is the slender route that gets us to where we can - not will, but can - save the world from that fate.

But if we fail to do all three, then we're screwed.

I also take it for granted that the initiative, the pressure, to get rid of the filibuster won't come from the Senate. Someone else will have to light a fire under them. Maybe the President can't. Quite possibly. But who else can?

So there's this thin path to saving the world. Defeating Trump is part of that path. But defeating Trump in a way that takes us off the path right after that is no good AFAIAC.
  #2587  
Old 09-08-2019, 01:02 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Itís such a terrible idea to present this Chicken Little narrative that will in 10 years lead to young progressives checking out of politics because we failed to ďsave the worldĒ, and centrists feeling that warnings about environmental dangers are easily ignored because the world did not end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
I am tired of these seat warmers occuping the white house in between progressively more horrible Republican presidents.

I donít agree with your politics but I have to give you credit for a nicely worded talking point.

However, voting by mail is a terrible idea. In addition to the fact that it gives domineering patriarchs too much power over their wives and adult children living at home, it can lead to straight up fraud as we saw in North Carolina last fall.
  #2588  
Old 09-08-2019, 07:10 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
Climate change is not a simple Yes/No or Succeed/Fail matter. Yes, there are positive feedbacks threatening, but there are several of them, which will inflect at different points and nobody is sure where those points are. Anyway, when Global Warning is too obvious to deny, there will be a rush to inject coolants (e.g. sulfate aerosols) into the atmosphere; this won't fix the problems but will dramatically affect the parameters.

Anyway, will it matter much which Dem is sitting in the Oval Office? IIRC only Inslee made climate change a top priority. Congress, industry, the media, etc. will all be key, not just the President.

Ridding the U.S.A. of the Orange Abomination is a huge priority. U.S. Government science is being decimated; this impacts climate research and much more. A Dem President in 2021 might invite back those scientists who quit or were fired, perhaps with a substantial pay raise. Wait until 2025 and the damage will be much more permanent. Similar arguments apply to the diplomatic corps, the opinion of our allies, etc.

Optimists expect the Dems to win easily in 2020, both Senate and White House, and to kill the filibuster. I sure hope you're right. I tend to be a pessimist, but oddsmakers agree with me: Trump will probably be re-elected unless there's a recession or other major mishap. The Dems need to nominate the candidate with best electoral chance. (Unfortunately I don't know who that is. Biden, if the risk of age-related mishap weren't so great.)
  #2589  
Old 09-08-2019, 07:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
However, voting by mail is a terrible idea. In addition to the fact that it gives domineering patriarchs too much power over their wives and adult children living at home, it can lead to straight up fraud as we saw in North Carolina last fall.
At last! Someone agrees with me. When I make this point I get zero acknowledgement, just self-congratulations about how easy vote-by-mail is.
  #2590  
Old 09-08-2019, 10:11 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I guess it depends on what you believe about global warming. ...
I believe the consensus of the scientific panels. The panel statements do not quite say the same things you do. septimus states it well.

The overall risk of greater catastrophic changes are MUCH higher with another term of Trump than with any Democrat in the White House.

The best outcome in my mind is a complete rejection Trumpism and the GOP as it currently brands. A very solid defeat of Trump, more gains in the House, and control of the Senate.

IF that rebuke occurs then GOP leadership and rank and file has a reasonable chance of listening to their messaging experts Frank Luntz and others who argue that Climate Change Denial is politically more costly than beneficial.
Quote:
... ďWeíre definitely sending a message to younger voters that we donít care about things that are very important to them,Ē said Douglas Heye, a former communications director at the Republican National Committee. ďThis spells certain doom in the long term if there isnít a plan to admit reality and have legislative prescriptions for it.Ē ...

... the party stands to lose voters to Democrats in 2020 and beyond ó a prospect they said was particularly worrisome in swing districts that Republicans must win to recapture a majority in the House of Representatives.

The polling bears out Mr. Heyeís prediction of a backlash. Nearly 60 percent of Republicans between the ages of 23 and 38 say that climate change is having an effect on the United States, and 36 percent believe humans are the cause. Thatís about double the numbers of Republicans over age 52.

But younger generations are also now outvoting their elders. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, voters under the age of 53 cast 62.5 million votes in the 2018 midterm elections. Those 53 and older, by contrast, were responsible for 60.1 million votes.

ďAmericans believe climate change is real, and that number goes up every single month,Ē Frank Luntz, a veteran Republican strategist, told a Congressional panel recently. He also circulated a memo to congressional Republicans in June warning that climate change was ďa G.O.P. vulnerability and a G.O.P. opportunity.Ē ...
There is virtually no chance that the filibuster will be eliminated, with or without a President champion for its demise. There is some less small chance that in the face of a resounding loss the GOP listens to these messaging experts as to what is in their political best interests going forward.

I want the candidate who I believe can best facilitate that level of resounding GOP loss as the best path forward for our planet. Not yet sure who that is.
  #2591  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:03 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Anyway, will it matter much which Dem is sitting in the Oval Office? IIRC only Inslee made climate change a top priority.
Seems to me like a number of them have.
Quote:
Congress, industry, the media, etc. will all be key, not just the President.
Tell me significant action on climate change is going to happen without the President making a big push for it.

Then pull the other one.

Sure, once the President makes a big push for it, then the others are important. But not until.

And if the filibuster remains in place, then even the President doesn't matter. And the Senate won't suddenly up and kill the filibuster of its own accord; it will need to be pushed. And again, the push has to come from the President; nobody else has enough push. And even she will need a lot of pressure from the rest of us. So a President that doesn't push to kill the filibuster effectively ends the possibility of meaningful climate change legislation from the start.
Quote:
Optimists expect the Dems to win easily in 2020, both Senate and White House, and to kill the filibuster. I sure hope you're right.
If you're talking to me, I've said that the path to accomplishing all three is a slender path. I'm not optimistic at all. I have concluded we need all three, so that's what I'm fighting for.
Quote:
Ridding the U.S.A. of the Orange Abomination is a huge priority. U.S. Government science is being decimated; this impacts climate research and much more. A Dem President in 2021 might invite back those scientists who quit or were fired, perhaps with a substantial pay raise. Wait until 2025 and the damage will be much more permanent. Similar arguments apply to the diplomatic corps, the opinion of our allies, etc.
Tru dat. The real question is, is the Presidency the whole ball of wax, or are there other things that override the difference of a few percentage points in 'electability' likelihood? I say the latter. The filibuster is clearly key, and two of the top four candidates want to keep it, and the other two want to get rid of it. AFAIAC, wanting to keep it is disqualifying, absent some enormously greater likelihood of being elected.

And we can argue until the cows come home about who's most and least electable, but we really don't know. Ditto for who's the best to help us win the Senate, though with respect to that, I'd note that only one of the possible pickups (Iowa) is in the Midwest, so winning the Senate isn't likely to be about the WWC. But we do know that Warren and Harris are not only for killing the filibuster, but consider it to be a priority, while Biden and Sanders are against killing it.
  #2592  
Old 09-08-2019, 11:16 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
I so appreciate your positions, RTFirefly. But if the D's do win the Senate it will only be 50-50 or 51-49. Will all D Senators (or all but one) vote to abolish the filibuster?

And must the rule change be made on opening day? If the R's block an important bill in March, can a majority of the Senate stand up and demand a rule change then?

At a minimum, filibusters should be changed to require real filibustering, like in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Let the CNN cameras show R's babbling while a panel chats about how the R's are doing this to prevent poor people from having healthcare.

Last edited by septimus; 09-08-2019 at 11:17 AM.
  #2593  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:17 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Climate change is not a simple Yes/No or Succeed/Fail matter. Yes, there are positive feedbacks threatening, but there are several of them, which will inflect at different points and nobody is sure where those points are.
Tru dat. But what we do know is that global warming has been consistently outrunning the middle-of-the-road predictions. Do we have climate scientists that say we'll be OK if we only do kinda middling stuff (e.g. carbon tax) for the next decade, before getting serious?
Quote:
Anyway, when Global Warning is too obvious to deny,
You mean, like last year? Or the year before last?
Quote:
there will be a rush to inject coolants (e.g. sulfate aerosols) into the atmosphere; this won't fix the problems but will dramatically affect the parameters.
on two counts: (1) Yeah, everyone knows about this, no citation needed, right? (2) Absent one, I'm going to just assume this is the flavor of the month of "we're going to mitigate global warming after the fact," along the lines of building big mirrors in space.
  #2594  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:23 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I so appreciate your positions, RTFirefly. But if the D's do win the Senate it will only be 50-50 or 51-49. Will all D Senators (or all but one) vote to abolish the filibuster?
I'm all too aware of the degree of difficulty.
But if the only way from Point A to Point B is through some hideously difficult terrain, then that's what you have to deal with.
Quote:
At a minimum, filibusters should be changed to require real filibustering, like in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Let the CNN cameras show R's babbling while a panel chats about how the R's are doing this to prevent poor people from having healthcare.
We all have our magic pony plans to fix the filibuster. I certainly have mine.
But opening up that debate is just one more thing to suck up time and quite potentially just get people to throw up their hands and give up, and we get stuck where we are.
  #2595  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:47 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Tru dat. But what we do know is that global warming has been consistently outrunning the middle-of-the-road predictions. Do we have climate scientists that say we'll be OK if we only do kinda middling stuff (e.g. carbon tax) for the next decade, before getting serious?
You mean, like last year? Or the year before last? on two counts: (1) Yeah, everyone knows about this, no citation needed, right? (2) Absent one, I'm going to just assume this is the flavor of the month of "we're going to mitigate global warming after the fact," along the lines of building big mirrors in space.
I agree that mitigating climate change is urgent. It is worth a X% risk of re-electing Trump if it means running a better candidate. We're in agreement there. I just think X is rather small.

Recall that U.S. CO2 emissions are down 15% since 2000 while China's have tripled over the same period. Taken together, India and Russia emit almost as much as U.S.A. Building amity and cooperation among the world's countries ó in contrast to Trump's 'America First' outlook ó may do more to reduce global CO2 emissions than unilateral U.S. actions.

Citation that sulfate injection might suspend global warming for only $5 to $10 billion per year. I am not suggesting that this is a good plan. I am suggesting that desperate governments will end up doing something like this, but projections do not take that into account.
  #2596  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:20 PM
Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,146
I encourage those who want or expect Michelle Obama to run for POTUS, or to consent to be nominated as VPOTUS, to read her excellent memoir Becoming. You'll see, I think, that there's almost a zero-percent chance of her deciding to do either.
  #2597  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:48 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
The utilitarian cost to America and the World of another 4 years of Trump, Pence or Moscow Mitch would be difficult to quantify, but is surely at least a trillion dollars and probably closer to $2 trillion. (Ballpark of $800 per person-year.)

If Michelle's running would improve chances by 2%, then that action would have expected value of some $40 billion. Yes, we'd be asking Ms. Obama to make a huge sacrifice, but it's her chance to make a colossal gift to the American people and humanity.

I do not expect this to happen, and do realize that 'generic Democrat' is favored over Trump. (Unfortunately we don't have 'generic Democrat'; we have front-runners all with potentially severe flaws. I think Michelle would indeed improve victory chance by at least 2%.)
  #2598  
Old 09-09-2019, 06:37 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 190
I predict Trump will agree to do just one debate rather than the now customary three. He'll be derided by everyone including right wing media if he pulls out completely. But one debate will be billed as a blockbuster and he's all about ratings. And then there's the self-guard because if his opponent has one flat night it's a win for him and similarly if he is perceived to have lost the debate then it doesn't matter because it was widely accepted Clinton performed better in 2016. All Trump needs is to throw in a few soundbites for the media to lap up like a dog with a bone.

1960: Vice President Richard Nixon vs Senator John Kennedy (x4)
1976: President Gerald Ford vs Former Governor Jimmy Carter (x3)
1980: President Jimmy Carter vs Former Governor Ronald Reagan (x1)
1984: President Ronald Reagan vs Former Vice President Walter Mondale (x2)
1988: Vice President George Bush vs Governor Michael Dukakis (x2)
1992: President George Bush vs Governor Bill Clinton vs Ross Perot (x3)
1996: President Bill Clinton vs Former Senator Bob Dole (x2)
2000: Vice President Al Gore vs Governor George W Bush (x3)
2004: President George W Bush vs Senator John Kerry (x3)
2008: Senator Barack Obama vs Senator John McCain (x3)
2012: President Barack Obama vs Former Governor Mitt Romney (x3)
2016: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump (x3)
Reply

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 08:20 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017