All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

Since everything there came right out of Bloomberg's mouth?

It's actually not.

There is no case for that he is not actually doing what he actually says he is doing there.

I never made the argument that either Bloomberg or Hillary are or aren't any of the things that you claim.

Just that everything is familiar because you -- and other Sanders supporters -- are taking the same approach you took in 2016 with regards to the election.

[numberthirty]

I never made the argument that either Bloomberg or Hillary are or aren't any of the things that you claim.

Just that everything is familiar because you -- and other Sanders supporters -- are taking the same approach you took in 2016 with regards to the election.

Which is simply not the case.

The specific instance in green seems familiar for the obvious reason that almost anyone who has ever read/seen anything about Donald Trump could tell you.

[PwrdOn]

Just the fact that so-called liberals would even consider voting for a former Republican oligarch who is blatantly trying to buy this election over the guy who wants to give people healthcare and a living wage tells you everything you need to know about why, for all of our wealth and power, the USA is still a joke to many around the world.

[PaulBullion]

Just the fact that so-called liberals would even consider voting for a former Republican oligarch who is blatantly trying to buy this election over the guy who wants to give people healthcare and a living wage tells you everything you need to know about why, for all of our wealth and power, the USA is still a joke to many around the world.

Other people than those two ass clowns are still running.

[Steel Inquisitor]

At the very least though, Trump doesn't try to hide the disdain that the billionaire class has for regular folks and is completely shameless about promoting policies that enrich him at our expense. The danger with Bloomberg is that he puts a somewhat friendlier face on that, but will continue to rob us blind behind our backs just the same. However, because most members of the media and political establishment, and sadly many voters as well, are so fixated on optics over actual policy, they will deem that getting rid of Trump means that everything is all better now, and drop any pretense of pushing for actual reform.

The distain comes from envy, not because Trump's secretly a leftist. Being up front hasn't stopped him from destroying lives, on an epic scale. It's true Bloomberg may do that, but it's small potatoes to getting the country stable again. The left will get their shot to knock that mask off with President Bloomberg, the status quo for that would be that they have no choice in the matter they lost that battle with Bernie failing to pass the primaries. Optics are a huge asset in politics, you're not going to get elected when everyone thinks you're a dumpster fire. That's something Sanders fails to get, despite his years in congress. We're not going to be saved by politicians who can't grasp why PR is important to getting elected. Optics and policy aren't mutually exclusive. Then it's important for us to remind them of that fact.

The reason most Bernie supporters find it tough to stomach voting for centrist Democrats is because this alliance between neoliberals and progressives has always been an awkward one and only continues because we have somehow allowed an insane quasi-fascist party to monopolize all of the power. In a sane world, the Democrats would be the primary right wing party, and a new left wing party in which Bernie would actually be considered quite moderate would emerge as the opposition, with the Republicans relegated to the same lunatic fringe as those ultranationalist European parties. This would also eliminate the rather ludicrous situation where one party claims to stand for all women, minorities, and LGBT of every stripe, and allow all of those people to align themselves with different parties that accurately reflect their diverse political views instead of being forced to uniformly support a party that doesn't really care about them. We deserve to have better choices than the likes of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, or Pete Buttigieg claiming to represent us.

That goes for every branch in the coalition, it's a part built on alliances because the part is the best option as a nation against the GOP. You weren't "somehow allowed" socialists had a choice to join us long ago but too many chose the path outside the system rather than concentrate inside it, which makes starting a group harder since they haven't been building a bench until very recently while the other groups have. They don't "monopolise" that power, they earned it and have the right defend their authority. The left has had numerous opportunities to overthrow the leadership in elections and failed for many reasons, and in that failure it's wise to reflect on why that happened not think they're entitled to it. We don't live in fantasy worlds, we live in a real one and here the other factions know how to achieve power within the party and the left doesn't. That's up to the left to figure out for themselves. The isn't about "deserving," it's about what you can accomplish with what you have. Don't blame us for the left's failures. We're trying to hold the world together, the left can join in or they can continue to exile themselves into irrelevance.

[aja_christopher]

Which is simply not the case.

The specific instance in green seems familiar for the obvious reason that almost anyone who has ever read/seen anything about Donald Trump could tell you.

People quoted Hillary's "superpredator" comments as a "specific instance" as well, along with quotes about her emails and regarding corporate entities.

I'm really not going to sit here and argue something that is obvious to anyone who watched Sanders supporters in action back in 2016.

Just recognize that many voters likewise saw your candidate as "hot garbage" back then and voted accordingly.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Just the fact that so-called liberals would even consider voting for a former Republican oligarch who is blatantly trying to buy this election over the guy who wants to give people healthcare and a living wage tells you everything you need to know about why, for all of our wealth and power, the USA is still a joke to many around the world.

Please, don't sugar coat Sanders as though he's perfect. That's what he wants, it's not what he's going to give us once he's elected president. You're going to get more progress with Warren, unlike him she knows the intricacies of the system and hasn't burnt every bridge in congress.

[PwrdOn]

Please, don't sugar coat Sanders as though he's perfect. That's what he wants, it's not what he's going to give us once he's elected president. You're going to get more progress with Warren, unlike him she knows the intricacies of the system and hasn't burnt every bridge in congress.

I don't think there's any point considering Warren as a viable candidate now, given that she just finished fourth behind Klobuchar in her own backyard. She probably would have had a much better chance had she run in 2016, but she was too afraid to challenge Hillary then.

[aja_christopher]

Just the fact that so-called liberals would even consider voting for a former Republican oligarch who is blatantly trying to buy this election over the guy who wants to give people healthcare and a living wage tells you everything you need to know about why, for all of our wealth and power, the USA is still a joke to many around the world.

If Americans would put their money where their mouth is with regards to said policies, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

As it stands, many are letting their idealism disconnect them from political reality -- Trump is America's political reality.

None of the information below is meant to attack Sanders, but to point out something that Obama learned a long time ago about "progressive" voters: many just don't show up at the polls when it counts.

Maybe things have changed since then, but the 2018 midterms were still more about moderate Democratic wins than anything else. I'd never make the claim that Sanders doesn't have a chance to win -- taking the Senate is even a possibility as well -- but we likewise have to be realistic about the American population as a whole, and how they tend to vote.

------
"Sanders Spins Young Voter Turnout in Iowa"

"Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed there was a “huge voter turnout” among young caucusgoers in Iowa this year, saying the turnout was “even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008.” In fact, about 10,300 fewer young voters turned out this year than in 2008.

Sanders, who finished in a virtual dead heat for first place with Pete Buttigieg in the contested Feb. 3 Iowa caucus, has made the argument that his grassroots campaign can defeat President Donald Trump.

“To win, we need energy, we need excitement, we need the largest voter turnout in American history,” Sanders told the Des Moines Register before the Iowa caucus. “I think we are the campaign to do that.”

Even though turnout was only slightly better among Democrats in Iowa this year than it was four years ago, Sanders has repeatedly pointed to young voter turnout as a sign his campaign can bring out the youth vote in November. But he’s spinning the figures.

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Feb. 9, Sanders said: “In Iowa, where the turnout was not as high as I wanted it to be, among young people, people under 29 years of age, we increased the voter turnout by some 33%. It’s a huge voter turnout.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Vermont senator said: “The young vote, of people under 29 years of age, increased by 33% over where it was four years ago, and was even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008.” He called it a “great omen for the 2020 campaign.”

Sanders is referring to an increase in the proportion, not the numbers, of young voters.

It’s true that an estimated 24% of this year’s Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were 29 years old or younger — a higher percentage than in 2008 (22%) and 2016 (18%), according to Edison Research, which conducts entrance polls at the Iowa caucus sites for major news organizations. But far more people participated overall in 2008, including more young people.

“In 2016, participation in the Iowa caucuses was around 170,000 voters,” Edison Research said in a blog post prior to the Iowa caucus. “But in 2008, turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa reached record levels; 239,000 voters came out to participate in the caucuses that year.”

That means about 52,580 people ages 17 to 29 participated in the Iowa caucus in 2008 — which is far more than came out this year.

As the Washington Post reported, 176,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, which means about 42,240 of the Democratic caucusgoers were 29 years old or younger. That’s about 11,640 more than participated in 2016 — when Sanders was also a presidential candidate — but it’s about 10,300 fewer younger voters than in 2008.

So, Sanders’ claim that young voter turnout among Iowa Democrats “was even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008” is pure spin."

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/sa...rnout-in-iowa/

[PaulBullion]

I never made the argument that either Bloomberg or Hillary are or aren't any of the things that you claim.

Just that everything is familiar because you -- and other Sanders supporters -- are taking the same approach you took in 2016 with regards to the election.

When 30 cannot defend what Sanders does, he deflects by attacking the other candidates. Rinse, repeat. It's SO boring.

[aja_christopher]

When 30 cannot defend what Sanders does, he deflects by attacking the other candidates. Rinse, repeat. It's SO boring.

I guess the assumption is that posting it in big bold lime green print makes it exciting.

[PwrdOn]

If Americans would put their money where their mouth is with regards to said policies, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.

As it stands, many are letting their idealism disconnect them from political reality -- Trump is America's political reality.

None of the information below is meant to attack Sanders, but to point out something that Obama learned a long time ago about "progressive" voters: many just don't show up at the polls when it counts.

Maybe things have changed since then, but the 2018 midterms were still more about moderate Democratic wins than anything else. I'd never make the claim that Sanders doesn't have a chance to win -- taking the Senate is even a possibility as well -- but we likewise have to be realistic about the American population as a whole, and how they tend to vote.

In wave elections, which 2018 was kind of a weak example but whatever, what voters consider to be the identity of the national party tends to matter a lot more than the specific ideological leaning of your local representative. And the poster girl that year was certainly Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, even though she wasn't running a contested race in the general, the outsized media attention she and similar candidates definitely played a larger role in getting voters to the polls than the largely anonymous and uninspiring candidates people were actually voting for. Admittedly, this didn't always work, as candidates such as Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum lost races that the Democrats probably should have won because their progressive bent galvanized Republican opposition against them.

[Tami]

The night the Rolling Stones fired Trump: Keith Richards once pulled a knife to get him out of Atlantic City venue

In 1989, The Rolling Stones’ original members ended their seven-year hiatus and embarked on an ambitious and profitable 115-show tour of Europe and North America. The American leg, named after their comeback album “Steel Wheels,” began in August in Philadelphia and ended in December in Atlantic City.

The final show, at the Boardwalk Hall (f.k.a Convention Center), aired on pay-per-view and — like the Miss America Pageant, also held at the Hall — was to be sponsored by the adjacent Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.

Even in the late-‘80s, however, The Stones didn’t want to be associated with Trump. So they cut a deal with him, stipulating he wouldn’t be involved in any promotional capacity outside of Atlantic City and, amazingly, wouldn’t be allowed at the show itself.

On the night of the event, “I get word that I have to come to the press room in the next building,” Michael Cohl, the tour’s promoter, told Pollstar last August. “I run to the press room in the next building and what do you think is happening? There’s Donald Trump giving a press conference, in our room!”

According to Cohl, Trump then tried to convince him that “they begged me to go up, Michael.”

“Stop it,” Cohl replied. “Don’t make a liar of yourself.”

[Mister Mets]

Just the fact that so-called liberals would even consider voting for a former Republican oligarch who is blatantly trying to buy this election over the guy who wants to give people healthcare and a living wage tells you everything you need to know about why, for all of our wealth and power, the USA is still a joke to many around the world.

Sanders would win the primary in a massive landslide if people believed he would give them adequate healthcare and a living wage.

Wanting to do that does't mean much.

Do you just not know black people in real life? Like not a single one ever? That's the only way your perception of anything black people say or how issues impact us makes sense.

Though I guess you could be indifferent or out right hostile.

I certainly don't think African-Americans are a hivemind. The post above yours showed Bloomberg with 19 percent.

If someone says they certainly won't vote for Bloomberg over Trump, there are three possibilities.
1. Trump's reelection isn't that big a deal. This is reassuring.
2. Bloomberg is uniquely terrible in a way that the overwhelming majority of officeholders are not. This case hasn't quite been made.
3. The person has a flawed understanding of politics, and we should not take what they say seriously. This seems rude to believe.

A day or so ago you fought me tooth and nail trying to argue that Sanders who didn't lead in NH until a month ago only had a small margin of VICTORY against someone who was leading in the state not too long ago. Today you are saying that Biden LOSING and coming in second in a state he was WINNING a week ago is somehow a good thing. You followed that up by saying you argue from consistency. Even you can't be blind enough not to see the laugable irony and hypocrisy from you here.

South Carolina isn't our first datapoints. It's are first view of voting in a sizeable black population sure. But we have polls all over the country. We have results from states with smaller numbers of black people in them. You can't hang your hat on the most conservative groupings of black voters just because they are concentrated more in that state. Esepcially when they historically tend to be ideologically different from African American's in states that are actually winnable for Democrats (South Carolina and Alabama will never go blue, but some of the swing states might). For Biden it's a death nail simply because his base of support is concentrated there and if he can't hold onto that he won't win the primary. Black voters in CA and Illinois don't give the slightest **** what black voters in South Carolina are doing. They are two different worlds. Sanders already makes headway with the black voters in states Democrats have a shot at winning. Even with smaller numbers, the black voters in NH are more indicative of who he needs to turn out in swing states to have a shot.

Sanders did lead many polls in New Hampshire throughout the primary.

But you guys might be arguing past one another on the significance of polls. These are largely based on expectations and how it shapes the race, but I'm not sure it's been established what you guys think the numbers mean. Theleviathan hasn't really given (or been asked about) his perception about Sanders' odds of winning. Biden finishing second in Nevada means he's likelier to be the nominee than if he finished outside the top three, but it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be likelier than Sanders.

[Theleviathan]

Also do me a favor and get the definition of strawman before you use it again.

With pleasure because it's a waste of time responding to another one since you don't understand what they are:

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

You do this nearly every post. Please knock it off. I'll say my point again: Given where we are (Bernie the front runner but the delegate count largely split) a close second and a win in South Carolina is not "poor" for Joe Biden. It's not good, but it's not poor. That would be enough to snare delegates, present himself as being back in the race, and make Super Tuesday quite different. A distant second, or a tight South Carolina, would be poor. I said, and you can look this up if you decide to argue what I'm actually saying this time, that it's too soon to know. Over time the polls are trending negatively for Biden, but given the nature of caucuses and the erratic polling of Nevada from the start, it might be best to hold off.

And South Carolina? Bernie has gained to some degree, but if you look at the polls that is anywhere between 2-10%. There is a rather large gulf there. 2% would represent nearly no gain from being the front-runner while 10% would be a huge step. We're going to have to see which end of that gulf he's on and where his support among black voters there lands. For Biden we'll have to see if the Steyer push holds up once the voting begins because it appears all of his lead was sapped by Steyer. If it holds and he only gets a narrow win in South Carolina it might be a win and it might net him delegates, but I'll be the first to say it's a loss relative to what he had hoped. We'll just have to see how the votes fall.