All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

This is false 100%. You guys see what you want instead of looking at the full data.

He won WOMEN.
He won Minorities.
He won Rural areas.
He won Major Cities.
He won Iowa, but Pete got the positive press. You think if Pete didn't that silly ass media push, he wouldn't have gotten stomped?

Bernies biggest weakness is older white voters.

Media is going to try to place this as a loss. As Bernie ran against 400 Democrats. There were TWO when he ran last time.
The winner is the winner, and that's Sanders.

He should have won larger. But I take the last week as a Push for Pete.

Turnout was much higher, by 18%, but it should have been higher.


Here's the numbers.

You might be arguing with some other people here. I'm not saying Sanders' base is white people, but the people giving him 26-27 percent in Iowa about an year ago.

http://emersonpolling.com/2019/02/23...n-sen-shaheen/
https://scholars.unh.edu/survey_center_polls/552/

We've seen in Iowa that there was limited movement from people who voted for nonviable candidates in the first round of the caucuses to Sanders in later rounds.

In New Hampshire, he didn't benefit much from the collapses of Biden or Warren, despite having tremendous name recognition on par with Biden, or being in the same progressive "lane" as Warren. Their supporters seemed to go to Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

It's entirely possible that at some point Sanders will get momentum and dominate in later states. In the Republican primary last time, it took a while for Trump to start getting 50 percent of the vote, but it happened in the latter half.

Given the way Democratic delegates are apportioned, Sanders needs to hit big numbers (or keeping rivals to small numbers) in order to win a majority of pledged delegates.

Of course, there will be much intensity from his supporters if he has a lead in pledged delegates but not the majority necessary to win in the first round, and I do think voters can be persuaded by the claim that it's fair to give the guy in first place the win, even if he benefits from divided opposition. If he's at 40 percent of the popular vote, I doubt there will be an appetite to stop him. If he stays below thirty percent, even if he's first, it likely won't be enough to be the unity choice at the convention.

[aja_christopher]

This is Bloomberg from 2014 -- if you're going to point out the negatives about a candidate (as you should), then you should point out the positives as well.

This shouldn't be a campaign solely of attrition, as that's a classic way to lose an election.

Don't just attack other candidates to avoid addressing through reason why your candidate is the better option -- show your work.

------
"Our Brothers’ Keepers"

"This week, President Barack Obama took an important step in that direction by announcing “My Brother’s Keeper,” a national initiative aimed at helping young men of color succeed. The president deserves great credit for highlighting the issue and calling on cities to take a leading role in this work. Local leaders should jump at the opportunity, because cities suffer when so many young men are locked out of the opportunity to realize their highest potential.

“We just assume this is an inevitable part of American life, instead of the outrage that it is,” Obama said. We couldn’t agree more.

Three years ago, New York City launched the Young Men’s Initiative—the most comprehensive effort any city had ever undertaken to help young black and Latino men succeed. It is a public-private partnership, led by the City of New York with major financial support from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Open Society Foundations. Though the two of us haven’t always agreed on every issue, the urgency of the crisis facing young black and Latino men—and a shared belief that resources paired with commitment and vision can make a real difference—brought us together.

We took a hard, honest look at the barriers young black and Latino men face. We then identified concrete ways the city could eliminate those barriers in four key areas..."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...g-soros-104082

[Mister Mets]

Elections always tend to be an uphill climb for the left because, generally speaking, we have strong principles that we end up tying ourselves into knots trying to uphold, whereas the right quite openly doesn't have any, but aren't afraid to bring the hammer down on any minor inconsistency we display. Trying to reciprocate won't work, because conservatives don't care about getting caught contradicting themselves. Centrists just combine the worst of both sides, because they don't have any principles and so aren't appealing from a policy standpoint, but at the same time will shy away from fighting dirty and so tend to be pretty ineffective at implementing their agenda also. Obama sure could make some great speeches but ended up getting caught up in legislative quagimres time after time because he wouldn't stake out a strong position and would always give ground too easily even when he had leverage he could apply. Today's centrist candidates have all the wishy washy-ness and none of the charisma, so why should we bother giving them the time of day?

The centrist VS liberal argument is a bit off since all of the candidates are really progressive compared to earlier political positions held by mainstream Democrats.

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post notes this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7eb_story.html

But the fact that Mr. Sanders’s and Ms. Warren’s positioning puts them decidedly to the left of others in the race does not make their competitors “centrist.” All, in fact, have put forward ambitious, progressive platforms for reducing inequality and promoting access to health and education.
Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg wants to make college free for pretty much everyone — just not for the wealthiest families. He does not favor Medicare-for-all — but he does propose a generous public health-care option that, he predicts, would eventually drive private insurance companies out of business. He just would not force people to move off private plans, as Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren would.

Former vice president Joe Biden may not favor the precise Green New Deal that some activists desire, but he wants to spend a whopping $1.7 trillion to enable the country to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050, a massive undertaking. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) was the first candidate to roll out a hefty infrastructure plan, proposing $650 billion in federal spending, and she favors legalizing marijuana. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg would add a 5 percent surtax to income over $5 million per year, raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and tax investment income of high earners at the same rate as ordinary income.

In fact, every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.

It isn't a case of the left VS the center in the Democratic primary but the far-left VS the left.

[Billy Batson]

No such thing as far-left in U.S. politics.

[Theleviathan]

I'm just gonna ignore you, as you're one of the two.

Translation: You're pouting because your fact-less propaganda keeps being called out.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...new-hampshire/

Several of the supposed facts you listed were full on false. Which goes to show you listen or read what you want to hear, do nothing to research or confirm it, and regurgitate.

[aja_christopher]

No such thing as far-left in U.S. politics.

They exist.

Americans just don't vote them into office.

[Tami]

No such thing as far-left in U.S. politics.

It's a matter of perspective. It's easier to see 'Far Left' if you are on the 'Right' like Mets. If you are on the 'Left', the 'Far Left' might not seem all that 'Far'. If you are looking at it from a position outside the US, the 'Far Left' might be on your 'Right'.

[Tendrin]

OH WBEeeeeeee-

State Rep. Micah Van Huss, R-Jonesborough, has filed a bill in the General Assembly that would allow local governments to take a voluntary census of “unborn children,” which would be factored into the proportion of funding they receive from the state.

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Gov...ate-funds.html

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

It's a matter of perspective. It's easier to see 'Far Left' if you are on the 'Right' like Mets. If you are on the 'Left', the 'Far Left' might not seem all that 'Far'. If you are looking at it from a position outside the US, the 'Far Left' might be on your 'Right'.

The US is a right wing country. Moderate Democrats are center right by any universal standard. AOC and Sanders are at best center left on a global scale.

[Mister Mets]

It's a matter of perspective. It's easier to see 'Far Left' if you are on the 'Right' like Mets. If you are on the 'Left', the 'Far Left' might not seem all that 'Far'. If you are looking at it from a position outside the US, the 'Far Left' might be on your 'Right'.

My comments about political positions are in the context of American elected officials, particularly those who are capable of winning statewide office.

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with being a conservative, and being more sensitive to the distinctions between various left-wing figures compared to someone who would see both Kirstin Sinema and Barack Obama as to the right of where they want to be. I do think I would be able to differentiate between the standard right and the far-right. These questions can be muddied by the differences of affect VS policy. Republicans have welcomes Congressman Jeff Van Drew because he forcefully backed Trump on impeachment, rather than a conservative voting record.

Determining where candidates stand, one measure is to compare elected officials. If someone is not clearly among the 30 most centrists members of the Senate, they're probably not in the center.

Another measure is to look at positions now versus in the past, and this would show a massive leftward tilt among Democrats. How do the positions on elected officials of the accepted practices for opponents of gay marriage compare to what they were ten years ago? How does the amount of money adjusted for income/ percentage of the GDP Democrats want to spend on Medicaid differ to what they wanted to do in the past?

[Tami]

2020-02-12 Bill Pascrell, Jr on Twitter This morning the House Intelligence Committee is holding.jpg

Twitter Link

[Theleviathan]

Comparing exit polling from 2016 to 2020:

There were less voters (21 compared to 26) that identified as "very liberal". There were also less voters under 44 (37 compared to 41). If the argument for Bernie is that he's going to galvanize independents, liberals who don't vote, and young people.....these are not good first signs correct?

All the turnout trends are bad for Dems in general as well. It's just one primary, but something to chew on.

[Tami]

2020-02-12 Bill Pascrell, Jr on Twitter This morning the House Intelligence Committee is holding.jpg

Twitter Link

Republicans boycott House Intel hearing

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee boycotted a hearing Wednesday on emerging technology and national security, calling it a "distraction" and contending that the panel should be focused on "urgent and critical concerns" like a recent watchdog report identifying errors and abuses in the FBI's domestic surveillance program.

Republicans outlined their concerns in a letter to the committee's chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and the GOP side of the dais sat empty as the hearing began.

"Given the committee's access to highly sensitive information, it is concerning that you prioritize publicity events rather than the more productive work that occurs in the committee's classified spaces," they wrote, in a missive led by ranking GOP member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and signed by the panel's eight other Republicans.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who chaired Wednesday's hearing, called the GOP boycott a "sad and dangerous" break from the committee's long history of compartmentalizing politically charged feuds to handle the nuts and bolts of intelligence work."

"That rubicon has been crossed," he said, calling the GOP's letter "as wrong-headed as it is mendacious."

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Comparing exit polling from 2016 to 2020:

There were less voters (21 compared to 26) that identified as "very liberal". There were also less voters under 44 (37 compared to 41). If the argument for Bernie is that he's going to galvanize independents, liberals who don't vote, and young people.....these are not good first signs correct?

All the turnout trends are bad for Dems in general as well. It's just one primary, but something to chew on.

If the argument is that any candidate is going to galvanize anyone it’s a bad sign.

It’s really not wise to compare 2016 to 2020 because the dynamic is different. Last year it was clear long time establishment candidate vs a clear single progressive. Now it’s two progressives, a person trying to be the middle man, an establishment figure, a centrist, and two businessmen angling for progressive and centrist lanes.

Also he won. So if it’s a bad sign for him, it’s an awful sign for everyone else

[Billy Batson]

Not to mention voter suppression among students that make some of the liberal voters.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...all-it-n892906