All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[shooshoomanjoe]

Just received my first $600 weekly unemployment boost pay. Not sure where this money is coming from but I hope it doesn't mean the USD will further devalue or that hyperinflation happens.

[Darkspellmaster]

Didn't you forget the m in smurfs?

Well I was thinking Surfs, as in servants, but Smurfs can work, but then I'd be insulting Gargamel, because he's a lot smarter then the moron we have in office.

I don’t think any of these assumptions are correct to be honest. One is pidgeonholed by Biden saying he would do it, another assumes progressives will be moved by you, another assumes POC’s would be moved by the pick.

Look at the younger voters, a lot want someone progressive, female and a PoC. The ones from the Sandrrs camp made it clear that they want a VP that can push Joe farther into the Left territory. Black voters want a person of color and a lot of Americans want a woman in office.

Let's be honest here, people tend to vote for someone who has a connection to them physically as well. Women want a woman in, black voters want their voice to be heard as do progressives. You're stuck pigeonholed because of how people are swinging. The average voter, outside online, is mostly looking for someone who will help push a better deal into play.

[aja_christopher]

It's not my criticism that she's a "cop" but a significant number of people feel that way.

As was said before -- I'll take statistical evidence over anecdotal evidence.

Especially given the fact that many with said attitude probably wouldn't show up to vote regardless.

The "draw" should be to remove Trump from office -- I don't see the point of wasting sympathy on people who can't see the obvious.

If it takes another four years of Trump to teach them otherwise, then that might be a lesson they have to learn the hard way.

[Darkspellmaster]

I'm inclined to think "That group" isn't going to be happy no matter what is said or done which begs the question: why bother?

Because they tend to be the loudest and push the groupe not like them out of the area. You see it in all forms right now, the louder you are the more others get annoyed the more likely someone will give you what you want to calm you down.

Also the whole "Dont be mean to china, its just Sinophobia"

No.

China is fucking awful.

The government of China is awful, the people, who see through the shitty lies, are not.

The problem is that too many people don't know the difference and attack innocent people from other Asian countries as well as normal American and international citizens.

But I agree that the CCP is awful.

He's dropping, and those relief checks are going to do **** to bring him up.

Positive note President Moon's party won it's election in S.Korea.

[ed2962]

Respectfully, pleading ignorance to data because you don’t like what it says or how it fits with your or your peers’ world view is exactly why we have a bunch of people throwing a tantrum by people voting for Biden as the most electable candidate. The data supported that proposition at the time. Things can change, certainly, but all we can is make the best decisions we can based on the current context. None of us can predict the future.

It's not about me not liking anything...30% simply isn't a high number. I was simply questioning the assertion that Harris being a brown woman is going to attract more minority voters to the Biden campaign than what was already there.

[TheDarman]

Let's be real -- thanks to "conservatives" saying that out loud back then was a good way not to win a national election.

As was pointed out earlier -- it's better to be quiet and get things done than to be loud and achieve little to nothing in the process.

I agree with you. It was a smart political move. And let’s not pretend that Obama’s “let’s get civil unions” position is not better than McCain’s position on the issue, you’re dreaming. It is just a case of increasing polarization that brought Obama’s actual position into the mainstream and allowed him to comfortably say that.

And for the people decrying Obama of being a coward, remember that Lincoln actually had his opinion that women should be able to vote. He did not fight for their suffrage and it wasn’t until fifty years after his death that that was accomplished.

[Darkspellmaster]

Just received my first $600 weekly unemployment boost pay. Not sure where this money is coming from but I hope it doesn't mean the USD will further devalue or that hyperinflation happens.

I doubt that we will get to hyperinflation, but with this moron in the oval office you never know. I'm more concerned about a full on depression. But if that's what it takes for the safety of the world, than so be it.

[aja_christopher]

It's not about me not liking anything...30% simply isn't a high number. I was simply questioning the assertion that Harris being a brown woman is going to attract more minority voters to the Biden campaign than what was already there.

I doubt anyone expects Harris to pull Obama numbers because -- like most politicians including Biden -- she simply lacks his charisma.

Likewise, we already know from the campaigns of everyone from Herman Cain to Alan Keyes to Cory Booker that candidates don't win elections just because they are black.

Harris' strength lies in her ability to attract both moderates and conservatives -- including older black voters who actually show up at the polls.

If the argument is that Democrats should cater more to the progressive wing of the party, my logic is still that it makes absoutely no sense to capitulate to a losing strategy -- let Biden work with Sanders in moving to the "left" as needed but likewise don't forget that the vast majority of voters Democratic, independent, and Republican prefer moderate candidates and political platforms.

That's not my opinion -- that's based on nearly every single election up to and including the most recent 2018 midterms.

[TheDarman]

It's not about me not liking anything...30% simply isn't a high number. I was simply questioning the assertion that Harris being a brown woman is going to attract more minority voters to the Biden campaign than what was already there.

The actual number is 50% to 18% on how many like to how many don’t like her. An above 30% differential between those who like her and those who don’t is quite high. And it will likely widen should Biden, a man many folks like and trust, pick her as Vice President.

[ed2962]

Well I was thinking Surfs, as in servants, but Smurfs can work, but then I'd be insulting Gargamel, because he's a lot smarter then the moron we have in office.



Look at the younger voters, a lot want someone progressive, female and a PoC. The ones from the Sandrrs camp made it clear that they want a VP that can push Joe farther into the Left territory. Black voters want a person of color and a lot of Americans want a woman in office.

Let's be honest here, people tend to vote for someone who has a connection to them physically as well. Women want a woman in, black voters want their voice to be heard as do progressives. You're stuck pigeonholed because of how people are swinging. The average voter, outside online, is mostly looking for someone who will help push a better deal into play.

This is kinda what I question...women aren't going to vote for someone just because that person is a woman and the same for minorities. McCain had a woman on his ticket and Hillary was woman and they didn't win. Barrack won, but early in his run many black folks thought he didn't have a chance, they got on board win he proved to have staying power. Like you say, people vote for the person they think will further their interest, and that's not always someone who shares your race or gender.

[ed2962]

I doubt anyone expects Harris to pull Obama numbers because -- like most politicians including Biden -- she simply lacks his charisma.

Likewise, we already know from the campaigns of everyone from Herman Cain to Alan Keyes to Cory Booker that candidates don't win elections just because they are black.

Harris' strength lies in her ability to attract both moderates and conservatives -- including older black voters who actually show up at the polls.

If the argument is that Democrats should cater more to the progressive wing of the party, my logic is still that it makes absoutely no sense to capitulate to a losing strategy -- let Biden work with Sanders in moving to the "left" as needed but likewise don't forget that the vast majority of voters Democratic, independent, and Republican prefer moderate candidates and political platforms.

That's not my opinion -- that's based on nearly every single election up to and including the most recent 2018 midterms.

Oh, that's not my argument in regards to Harris, that's a whole another can of worms!

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Well I was thinking Surfs, as in servants, but Smurfs can work, but then I'd be insulting Gargamel, because he's a lot smarter then the moron we have in office.



Look at the younger voters, a lot want someone progressive, female and a PoC. The ones from the Sandrrs camp made it clear that they want a VP that can push Joe farther into the Left territory. Black voters want a person of color and a lot of Americans want a woman in office.

Let's be honest here, people tend to vote for someone who has a connection to them physically as well. Women want a woman in, black voters want their voice to be heard as do progressives. You're stuck pigeonholed because of how people are swinging. The average voter, outside online, is mostly looking for someone who will help push a better deal into play.

Problems with this

-Biden isn’t going to pick anyone uncomfortable enough for HIM to sway progressives who were hesitant to vote for him. You are talking a Nins Turner type or Sanders himself.

Also I disagree. A white woman ran for President four years ago and her worst voting Demographic among woman was white women.

[ed2962]

The actual number is 50% to 18% on how many like to how many don’t like her. An above 30% differential between those who like her and those who don’t is quite high. And it will likely widen should Biden, a man many folks like and trust, pick her as Vice President.

Do you have a link to that poll? I am not being argumentative...I'm legit interested in in this data...

[Mister Mets]

You're the one who didn't consider the "context" -- s/he brought up voter suppression and similar issues relevant to Republican election chicanery, which have repeatedly been deemed illegal by courts of law, and you just ignored them.

Your party literally struck down the Voting Rights Act so that they can continue to routinely engage in voter suppression against minority voters.

Why? Because they know one of best ways for them to win election and re-election is to suppress African-American votes.

He seemed to suggest candidate strength is exclusively based on outcomes, and the political environment which influences people's decisions doesn't matter.

I was responding to that portion, rather than misunderstandings about the voting rights act, which is still around.

The Supreme Court decision was about whether one provision should affect states and localities differently based on the situation fifty years earlier.

Regarding Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a problem is the lack of a strong clearly articulated rationale. It seems there are two arguments for the Democratic position, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The first is that voting rights are important, so anything that restricts a locality's ability to restrict voting rights in any way is a good thing, even if the locality is treated to different standards than other areas. One could say that it might be ideal for every area to be treated to that level of scrutiny. The second argument is that the areas that were deemed as objectionable in 1964 remain objectionable now, and should still be officially recognized as bad and racist places. I do not believe it would be politically helpful for Democrats to make it an official position that Virginians, Floridians and Texans are racist scum.

Another key point of context: 2016 was the first election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act since 1966. This allowed for new laws that suppressed a number of votes in key states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—all of whom had been working for years, under Republican governors and gerrymandered legislatures to disenfranchise voters were they couldn’t be contained to districts that were packed or cracked.

For further context, Wisconsin gerrymandered their state districts so much that a 55% win stateside for the Democratic Party only resulted in Democrats holding a little over a third of the state house seats. That is absolutely ludicrous. Admittedly, especially in states like Wisconsin, it is more likely that Democrats would have fewer seats relative to their vote share given their propensity to pack districts anyway. But a 20% vote differential between vote share and representation allocated is clearly a bit of foul play.

The Supreme Court decision was about whether contemporary data should determine whether a state or locality requires greater scrutiny, rather than behaviors in those regions fifty years earlier.

No county in Pennsylvania appeared to be covered.
http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2017/01/...ng-rights-act/

None of the articles on the topic in Wisconsin Public Radio reference any changes in policy to Wisconsin.
https://www.wpr.org/tags/voting-rights-act

In Michigan, it affected two townships with a total population of less than 10,000.
https://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...igan-townships

Michigan was close, but even if every single person in those towns would have voted for Hillary Clinton, and was prevented from doing so by restrictions that would have been legal anywhere else in the state, but needed preclearance from the justice department in these towns, it would not have affected the outcome.

[Tami]

Just received my first $600 weekly unemployment boost pay. Not sure where this money is coming from but I hope it doesn't mean the USD will further devalue or that hyperinflation happens.

Don't look a gift horse (donkey) in the mouth.