All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

So, question. There's been some talk about wanting debates to be about themes rather than traditional debate questions. So like one debate is about immigration and the people asking the questions are immigrants, or minority issues being asked by minority reporters, or things about climate science being asked by scientists.

Personally I don't think this would work, but does anyone think it would work?

There are some upsides but it's going to be hard to stick to with irregular campaign schedules (an early drop-out and late entrant lose a chance to discuss key issues.) There's also the potential for an debate initially meant to be about one topic being dominated by something in the news (which itself may be a mistake; a candidate who won't be President for nearly a full year might not have to spend much time on that topic.)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Republicans: How would this all look under President Sanders?

And yes, this is unlikely. More like a 'What if?' Scenario.

I don't know Bernie Sanders from Colonel Sanders, but I seriously doubt he'd go the tit-for-tat route if elected president, I don't see him as being anywhere near as crooked and underhanded as Trump. And, even if Sanders were to try that tactic, I seriously doubt he'd get very far since Republicans would still have SCOTUS on their side and would readily lean on the Judicial branch to prevent a Democratic president from doing the sort of vile **** Trump has gotten away with. That's why Moscow Mitch was hellbent on getting right wingers like Neil Gorsuch and Brett "Kegger" Kavanaugh on the bench, to protect Republican power, even if they lose the presidency.

[Superbat]

Republicans: How would this all look under President Sanders?

And yes, this is unlikely. More like a 'What if?' Scenario.

More like Republican propaganda.

[Tami]

More like Republican propaganda.

More like a Republican Nightmare (what scares republicans may not make sense to the rest of us).

[Tami]

Global Stocks Plummet Over Coronavirus Concerns

Spreading coronavirus outbreaks in Italy and in South Korea over the weekend incited broad slides in global stock markets on Monday, as investors feared that the economic disruption already seen in China might affect other economies as well.

Futures markets indicated that Wall Street would suffer a steep decline when trading begins in the United States, with airline and technology stocks hit in premarket trading. The S&P 500 is set to fall more than 2 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average tumble more than 800 points. Delta Air Lines and American were both more than 3 percent lower, while shares of Apple were down by 3.5 percent. Oil prices also fell as demand for crude waned because of concerns about a widening economic slowdown.

Investors have been on edge since the start of the crisis because of the outsize role that China’s factories play in global business, as well as being a huge consumer market itself. Markets were sanguine last week, but fresh reports that the virus is not contained are “signaling alarm bells,” a market analyst at Citigroup wrote Monday.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Global Stocks Plummet Over Coronavirus Concerns

The Coronavirus is also affecting manufacturing. Something close to home, Tami: I heard a report on KYW last week that a company over in China that provides smart cards for PATCO had been shut down because of the virus and DRPA was running low on said cards, resulting in emergency measures to get a fresh supply of cards from Great Britain.

Also, on the sports side of the street, the summer Olympics in Tokyo are six months away, don't think officials in Japan aren't sweating mortar shells trying to make sure nothing goes wrong before the games begin. I'm sure execs at NBC who are broadcasting the Games are concerned too, nobody wants to see the Games postponed, perhaps even canceled if the virus spreads to Japan and can't be contained, the money the Peacock stands to lose would be astronomical. Meanwhile, athletes and spectators will certainly be wary about going and might even refuse to come, it would be an all around disaster.

[4saken1]

Twitter is testing new ways to fight misinformation — including a community-based points system

At least they are trying.

I predict that Twitter will suddenly be labeled as having extreme liberal bias by FOX News.

[4saken1]

Except why did Trump beat Hillary?

Mostly because of the Electoral College. She got more votes than any white man in history. Despite population growth, a candidate gets more votes than the one in the previous race only about half the time. If she was such a horrible candidate, she wouldn't have fared better than 50%.

Why is Sanders currently the front runner?

Because there are too many moderates in the race. Sanders won the first 2 races with only 26% of the vote. Now he has momentum, which generally happens after people start to see you as a serious contender.

Why isn't say Biden the front runner?

See previous response. Also, the whole Hunter debacle hurt him in the polls, despite the fact that Joe didn't actually do anything wrong (aside from not defending himself better). I think Bloomberg entering the race probably drew the majority of his supporters from the Biden camp, but have no actual proof of this.

[kidfresh512]

I often bring this up. Lost the popular vote by 3 million. Questionable wins by a few thousand in States with heavy voter suppression, Russian interference at unknown levels....

America never chose him or backed him.

Its a mistake to rely on this, while true, and underestimate his support. He has lost no support from his base while in office. And even managed to silence and solidify the never trumpers to shut up or fall in line. Other than probably Romney you could say. He hasn't tanked Obama's economy and continues to take sole credit for the state of the economy. He probably has even more support than 2016.

If he wins again we cant say America didn't back him. Even if he loses the popular vote again which I don't doubt. The electoral college still hasn't been abolished and everyone knows what it takes to get the white house. A second term for him means not enough people cared enough to vote for the alternative, ANY alternative. And wanted him to have more court appointments and probably a third Supreme Court seat to fill.

[Mister Mets]

Fears grow that Obama can't win

Analysts believe white working class Democrats will defect to McCain if Clinton is not the nominee

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...selections2008

With senator Barack Obama poised this week to clinch his party's nomination for President, there are growing fears in some quarters that the Democratic party may not be choosing its strongest candidate to beat Republican John McCain.

Senator Hillary Clinton has been making that argument for weeks. Now some recent polls and analysis, looking particularly at vital battleground states and support among white voters, have bolstered her case - even as Obama looks certain to become the nominee.

Obama supporters reject this argument and point to his record of boosting Democratic voter turnout, especially among the young. But sceptics in the party, already nervous about nominating Obama after the furore over outspoken pastor Jeremiah Wright, are growing increasingly concerned. 'There is an element of buyer's remorse in some areas. The question is whether it gets really strong now or in September - or even after the election is over, if he loses,' said Steve Mitchell, head of political consultancy Mitchell Research.

Another boost to Clinton's case came late last week after a pro-Obama preacher gave a race-tinged rant against her at Obama's church in Chicago. In a recent sermon Michael Pfleger - a long-term Obama backer who is white - mocked Clinton as an entitled white person angry at a black man having beaten her. His angry, red-faced speech, in which he mimicked Clinton weeping, was played repeatedly across American cable channels and the internet.

The news sent shock waves through Democratic circles; many had hoped Obama had put 'pastor problems' behind him. 'It is more of the same problem as Wright. It reinforces the image among some voters that Obama does not share their values,' said Mitchell.

The uproar also lent a disturbingly antagonistic tone to scenes in Washington DC where Clinton and Obama supporters gathered yesterday outside a party rules meeting called to resolve the problem of the disputed Michigan and Florida primaries, which Clinton claims as victories. Clinton supporters chanted 'Count our votes!' and waved placards and banners. Clinton wants those states' delegations seated at the Denver convention, even though they broke party rules by holding early contests.

Obama is now to some extent limping to the finishing line. Clinton's refusal to bow out even though her odds of victory have become almost impossible has seen her win several of the most recent contests. In fact, since 4 March, Clinton has won around half a million more votes than Obama. That run of victories should easily continue today when Puerto Rico goes to the polls, and could even extend to the final primaries - South Dakota and Montana - which vote on Tuesday. Obama had been expected to win there, but Clinton has been campaigning furiously and it could be close.

Clinton has been making the case for several months, as her support has grown stronger among white working class voters, that those voters will not support Obama in a general election. By contrast, experts believe Obama's core - educated Democrats and blacks - will remain loyal to the party no matter who the nominee is. There is strong data to back that up, especially from recent votes in West Virginia and Kentucky where large proportions of Clinton voters said they would not back Obama in November.

There is also a growing fear that many of the women backing Clinton are turning against Obama. Clinton and her supporters have controversially accused their rival, and the media, of being misogynistic in the last few weeks of the race. A recent Pew Poll showed Obama's support among white women collapsing from 56 per cent to 43 per cent.

But the electoral fact remains the same. The dramatic Obama vs Clinton contest is now down to a few hundred uncommitted party 'superdelegates', who are under huge pressure to make their decisions in the next few days. Senior party figures, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been working privately to convince them to make that decision as soon as possible, ideally this week. With Obama's delegate lead unassailable, the vast majority are almost certain to come over to his side.

Republican analysts, meanwhile, are surprised about how healthy their party's prospects look in a year when almost all indicators suggested they should lose. McCain remains competitive against Obama. He even leads in some key states. Indeed, some research predicts he could romp home against Obama.

It is that prospect, Clinton supporters say, that leads them to keep fighting. They point to Obama's performance in North Carolina as a bellwether: it was his strong win there earlier this month that dealt an almost fatal blow to Clinton's chances. Yet, two weeks after that win, polls showed Clinton easily outperformed Obama there when measured against McCain. 'Clinton has a very strong argument that she is a stronger candidate against McCain. It is just that it has fallen on deaf ears,' said Mitchell.

We don't know how well or poorly Obama would have done of not for an economic crisis two months before the election.

US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated assessment of 2020 Russian interference https://cnn.it/3cbE8fw

That's worth noting. This is something many in the media exaggerate.

Why is everyone treating trumps victory like it doesn't have a thousand asteriks next to it ?

Some of the asterisks are overrated, but it also doesn't matter if the goal is to win.

Twitter is testing new ways to fight misinformation — including a community-based points system

At least they are trying.

It'll be interesting to see if this works. It is prone to abuse by bad actors, as well as those who can't distinguish between disagreement and being disagreeable.

More like a Republican Nightmare (what scares republicans may not make sense to the rest of us).

It seemed the point was to explain to Republicans the objections to Trump's behavior.

[Tami]

We don't know how well or poorly Obama would have done of not for an economic crisis two months before the election.

That's worth noting. This is something many in the media exaggerate.

Some of the asterisks are overrated, but it also doesn't matter if the goal is to win.

It'll be interesting to see if this works. It is prone to abuse by bad actors, as well as those who can't distinguish between disagreement and being disagreeable.

It seemed the point was to explain to Republicans the objections to Trump's behavior.

That was the point of the Opinion Article, to emphasize how easily all that the Republicans are doing to turn Trump into a Monarch can in turn be used against them. The author could have used any Democratic Candidate, but Sanders made the most sense since his is the current front runner and because of the way Sanders andn 'Socialism' is viewed by Republicans.

[shooshoomanjoe]

I guess Bernie Bros aren't aware that columnists write opinion pieces cause they are dragging that WAPO column all over the net.

[Tami]

I guess Bernie Bros aren't aware that columnists write opinion pieces cause they are dragging that WAPO column all over the net.

They don't understand that the column isn't about Sanders, it's about what the Republicans are doing now with Trump.

[PaulBullion]

Nevada GOP activist reveals how he ‘caucused for Bernie’ to help Trump win: ‘It would be a dream election’

So basically Sanders is the candidate Trump supporters want, the candidate Putin wants and his American supporters don't worry about that.

[PaulBullion]

Take this however you want

Bernie Sanders defends his 1980s comments about Fidel Castro in an interview on 60 Minutes.
-----

Twitter Link

Interesting how all of this is starting to come to the surface. Not all of it are from Trolls.

Sanders would lose Florida to Trump 35 to 60.