All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Billy Batson]

She is a "real" progressive, being progressive isn't defined by backing Sanders.

For the spite thing, that's a double standard. It was fine for sanders to do that in '16, he certainly wasn't staying in past Super Tuesday because he had a path to the nomination.

She tries to appear as one but she isn't. She was a republican most of her life, called herself "a capitalist to my bones", approved Trump military spending, continues attacking Sanders while not saying much about Biden.

[Otto Gruenwald]

You guys need to keep it together. With all this infighting Trump is going to walk in like Fortinbras ready for a fight just to find everyone but Horatio dead.

[JackDaw]

I'm not going to lie. Going into ST now I'm feeling depressed.

2 days ago I thought Bernie was on track to dominate but the other moderates dropping out/endorsing Biden, and Warren staying in the race tilt things to Biden. Texas is gone, and Bernie won't even win California by much.

Biden getting the nomination is bad enough, my family needs Medicare for All and deportations to stop, but it gets worse because Biden's got no chance of beating Trump in the general.

I think that (Biden probably losing to Trump) is probably true...he looks (in policy terms) to have a similar offer to Hilary, but seems (to me at least) to have less ability.

[SquirrelMan]

I think that (Biden probably losing to Trump) is probably true...he looks (in policy terms) to have a similar offer to Hilary, but seems (to me at least) to have less ability.

He does have a penis, which alone should get him those extra 60,000 votes Hill would have needed for the electoral college.

[Steel Inquisitor]

She tries to appear as one but she isn't. She was a republican most of her life, called herself "a capitalist to my bones", approved Trump military spending, continues attacking Sanders while not saying much about Biden.

Something which she grew out of through facts as she went to university and devoted her life to protecting the little guy from corporations and Sanders himself didn't think it was that bad given that he wanted her to run in '16. Being a capitalist is bipartisan in America, not a trait exclude to the GOP. No politician gets far by not doing bills like that, including Sanders - who backed a $1.5 trillion military project in Vermont for Lockheed Martin.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-...oondoggle.html

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II is a radar-evading stealth fighter jet whose cost overruns and development delays have generated many headlines. This program, which has yet to be deployed in a combat capacity, was commissioned by the Pentagon in 1995 and has a projected cost of $1.5 trillion over the next 55 years, making it the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history. What hasn’t been the subject of as much ink, however, is the antiwar Democratic socialist senator who supports keeping the program in his state of Vermont: Bernie Sanders.

Sanders is the front runner, of course she's going to attack him more. The truce is over. She's not there to be his cheerleader, she's in it to win.

Edit: This attack on her comes off as wrong considering in the debates she was the one taking down Bloomberg, not Sanders. His credibility about "fighting" is overblown.

[The Darknight Detective]

He does have a penis, which alone should get him those extra 60,000 votes Hill would have needed for the electoral college.

I think her high negatives hurt her far more than her gender, IMO. Had that percentage been much lower, she would have won four years ago.

[aja_christopher]

I think that (Biden probably losing to Trump) is probably true...he looks (in policy terms) to have a similar offer to Hilary, but seems (to me at least) to have less ability.

If anything, he has a similar offer to Obama -- since he claims he will continue what they started together -- while having far less historical baggage than Hillary and also being a male in a contest where evevy other winner has been male as well.

There's no way of knowing who really has the better chance of beating Trump until the actual election happens but it's clear even from reading posts on this forum that a Sanders win will motivate both Republicans and independents who oppose his policies either not to vote or to vote against his progressive agenda.

The counter argument is that progressives -- and others -- will show up to propel Sanders to an historical victory, but there's no real evidence that this is true.

To the contrary, most people who aren't Sanders supporters feel it hurts chances at winning the Senate, and could result in Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives due to the lack of support for progressive candidates in congressional elections, along with potentially losing even more Supreme Court picks and and judicial seats if their progressive experiement doesn't connect with the general public.

Even if Sanders wins, there's plenty of evidence that he won't be able to pass any progressive legislation so long as Republicans control the Senate.

Regardless, the most recent elections reaffirmed that moderates are the key to taking back Congress and the White House, not progressive candidates.

It makes more sense to go with a winning formula than to bet it all on a poltical movement that crashed and burned in the last election cycle.

[Theleviathan]

I think that (Biden probably losing to Trump) is probably true...he looks (in policy terms) to have a similar offer to Hilary, but seems (to me at least) to have less ability.

If it is Biden there are two key things: WAY less negatives in public perception and his platform is basically what won 2018.

No guaratees, but he has a strong chance.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

She tries to appear as one but she isn't. She was a republican most of her life, called herself "a capitalist to my bones", approved Trump military spending, continues attacking Sanders while not saying much about Biden.

Warren is a progressive

[Billy Batson]

Warren is a progressive

Just like she is a native American.

[aja_christopher]

If it is Biden there are two key things: WAY less negatives in public perception and his platform is basically what won 2018.

No guaratees, but he has a strong chance.

The reality is that both candidates are likely to lose given historical precedent, especially if the party remains divided.

-----
"President Trump has beaten his biggest political threat to date after being recently acquitted in the Senate’s impeachment trial. The latest Gallup Poll shows Trump reached a job approval rating of 49%, a record.

Presiding over an economy that continues to expand during an election year will likely get Trump re-elected, according to Brad Neuman, director of market strategy at Alger, an investment management company.

“We’ve looked into this and done quite a bit of research on it,” Neuman told Yahoo Finance’s “On the Move.” “If you look back at the past century and you look at all the incumbent races where there was an incumbent president seeking re-election, if there was a recession within the two years leading up to the election, that incumbent has not been re-elected and there’s been a new president.”

In recent history, Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush lost their reelection bids, while Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama won. The most recent 2008 recession hit at the end of George W. Bush’s second term.

“If there was no recession, then the incumbent actually won re-election. It has virtually a flawless track record back to 1932,” Neuman said."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-e...144031765.html

[Jackmando7]

Are they? The article I found called is "auspicious". Where did it say "a real garbage move"???

Well that wasnt a direct quote from Huffington Post. You could tell from their headlines, particularly just after one declared their support for Sanders, they thought it was dirty pool from the established Democrats.

I'm a registered independent, and I think it's kind of stupid and I might change soon. Did you guys know, I can not vote in primaries? Thoughts?

[ed2962]

Well that wasnt a direct quote from Huffington Post. You could tell from their headlines, particularly just after one declared their support for Sanders, they thought it was dirty pool from the established Democrats.

I'm a registered independent, and I think it's kind of stupid and I might change soon. Did you guys know, I can not vote in primaries? Thoughts?

Someone started a thread about this. While I think primaries should be open to anyone, some folks think you should have to register with that party in order to cut down on possible shenanigans.

[Darkspellmaster]

It's getting ugly here, isn't it? Let's get something straight. Bernie would not lead us down a path toward a Soviet style authoritarian government, and Biden is not as clueless as he seems at times. One of them is most likely going to be the nominee, so we better not whip ourselves into a Bernie or bust mentality or Biden or bust mentality that won't let us vote for the other guy. Don't let your ego keep you from doing the right thing come November.

Thank you for this. It needs to be said a lot.

She is a "real" progressive, being progressive isn't defined by backing Sanders.

For the spite thing, that's a double standard. It was fine for sanders to do that in '16, he certainly wasn't staying in past Super Tuesday because he had a path to the nomination.

Thing is AOC and several others were from areas that already skewed blue, so the jump over was far easier. From what I understand this young lady is running in a district where there is a conservative bend. So you need someone who skews a bit more right in regard to money or other things.

Also has she endorsed anyone recently at all? I dont think anyone outside of Bernie has been directly doing that, because most politicians don't until the summer or fall. At least around here.

She tries to appear as one but she isn't. She was a republican most of her life, called herself "a capitalist to my bones", approved Trump military spending, continues attacking Sanders while not saying much about Biden.

Most people in her age bracket grew up in a US where being conservative was on a local level not national. And a lot of conservatives used to skew more left in social obligations in regard to Social security, vaccines, and regulations. So it was not like the arch conservatives we see today.

A lot of young people change their views in college, and its true today too. Again calling yourself Republican was not a bad thing for a very long time. It's only been since the 70s that its become this mess and a lot of local former Republicans are now calling themselves independents 9r some other group name.

You guys need to keep it together. With all this infighting Trump is going to walk in like Fortinbras ready for a fight just to find everyone but Horatio dead.

Yup. This is something that the Republicans have in lock step.

Just like she is a native American.

I know some Jewish people who do not consider him Jewish as much. Even with a family that has ties to the Holocaust.

And yes, she is not. But a lot 9f people have this kind of thing in their family because, unfortunately there were things going down that lead to people thinking that they may have a Native American blood tie in their family.

What's your point here? I can argue that AOC isn't a true progressive either, but that would get me no where.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The reality is that both candidates are likely to lose given historical precedent, especially if the party remains divided.

-----
"President Trump has beaten his biggest political threat to date after being recently acquitted in the Senate’s impeachment trial. The latest Gallup Poll shows Trump reached a job approval rating of 49%, a record.

Presiding over an economy that continues to expand during an election year will likely get Trump re-elected, according to Brad Neuman, director of market strategy at Alger, an investment management company.

“We’ve looked into this and done quite a bit of research on it,” Neuman told Yahoo Finance’s “On the Move.” “If you look back at the past century and you look at all the incumbent races where there was an incumbent president seeking re-election, if there was a recession within the two years leading up to the election, that incumbent has not been re-elected and there’s been a new president.”

In recent history, Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush lost their reelection bids, while Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama won. The most recent 2008 recession hit at the end of George W. Bush’s second term.

“If there was no recession, then the incumbent actually won re-election. It has virtually a flawless track record back to 1932,” Neuman said."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-e...144031765.html

Which explains why Trump was shitting bricks last week when coronavirus reports caused the markets to tank and tank hard. He knows the economy is the ONLY thing keeping his poll numbers from dropping under 40 percent, perhaps well under.