All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Jack Dracula]

1. Medicare for all
2. Free college tuition
Neither will happen even with a Bernie Sanders’ Presidency, because Congress will never go along with it.
Sanders supporters are fooling themselves by thinking these two things will happen.
More than 2/3 of Democrats in both houses will not go along with it either.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m for Medicare-for-all and free tuition two. But I know it’s not happening.

He may have a chance if he tackles campaign finance reform first.

[Gray Lensman]

He may have a chance if he tackles campaign finance reform first.

That means stacking the Supreme Court first. 5 or 6 of them think money is speech and corporations are people. On the plus side for Bernie he said last election that he would only nominate judges who would vote to overturn Citizen's United.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Context changes elections. Using your logic, it'd be totally ok for Buttigieg to get no latino votes and finish with 5% in Nevada. Of course, as we sit today, that would be a disaster not something to cling to. Likewise, Biden's poor performances so far make a solid second a victory going into the states he feels more confident in. I'll remind you...I'm the one who argues from consistency. My views and arguments don't change with the wind, that's your schtick.

Black voters are not a monolith, but South Carolina is our first data point on their sentiments. Every state's voters have their own quirks, but we draw conclusions based on the data we have. And voters in upcoming primaries will draw their conclusions or trends from that data as well. That's why it matters. If Sanders can't make headway with black voters - be it South Carolina or Pennsylvania or nearby Florida - then it's a bad sign long-term. For Buttigieg it's a bad short and long term sign. For Biden it's a death nail. So...yes, there is value because (whether we like it or not) the early elections have ripple effects on the subsequent ones regardless of how reflective they are of the larger voting groups.

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.

[Theleviathan]

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.

It is the first datapoint of any statistical significance. Exit polls couldn't even measure black voter tendencies the percentages were so low. Nevada might be our first indication, but South Carolina will be our first of any real volume. Perhaps, rather than trying to shield Sanders from those results before they happen....you just let them happen. Because if Bernie has a good black voter turnout I'm guessing you'll be quick to forget this post and pretend it never happened. You know, your other schtick.

As for the first paragraph, I'm sorry you can't understand that point but I'm not sure it warrants me laboring to try. I'll give it a short attempt though: Bernie is either the front runner or an underdog, trying to have it both ways whenever it conveniences you is disingenuous. His showing in NH (even according to many Sanders' fans) was not as hoped. Not even remotely a loss, but definitely not as hoped. That is due to his surge and tie/win in Iowa and thus fairly changes the expectations in his backyard. Biden, by getting trounced twice, has changed expectations as well. Nevada will change the expectations again and so will South Carolina. Treating the primary as some static set of observations is baffling.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

It is the first datapoint of any statistical significance. Exit polls couldn't even measure black voter tendencies the percentages were so low. Nevada might be our first indication, but South Carolina will be our first of any real volume. Perhaps, rather than trying to shield Sanders from those results before they happen....you just let them happen. Because if Bernie has a good black voter turnout I'm guessing you'll be quick to forget this post and pretend it never happened. You know, your other schtick.

As for the first paragraph, I'm sorry you can't understand that point but I'm not sure it warrants me laboring to try. I'll give it a short attempt though: Bernie is either the front runner or an underdog, trying to have it both ways whenever it conveniences you is disingenuous. His showing in NH (even according to many Sanders' fans) was not as hoped. Not even remotely a loss, but definitely not as hoped. That is due to his surge and tie/win in Iowa and thus fairly changes the expectations in his backyard. Biden, by getting trounced twice, has changed expectations as well. Nevada will change the expectations again and so will South Carolina. Treating the primary as some static set of observations is baffling.

It's interesting how the only datapoints of any statististical significance to you are one's that you hope might reflect poorly on Sanders. But you know it's coming from the same arbiter of conistency that screamed one day that a close win in NH was bad but a close loss in Nevada is good. So there's that. I guess that's your schtick. Being inconistent and then trying to project and gaslight. Or we can talk about the part where you don't understand basic polling conventions like the significance of head to head polls.

You're right, it's a waste of time discussing this with you. You don't understand elections and you can't see your own hypocrisy over the course of a couple of days.

Also never treated the primary as static.

[Theleviathan]

It's interesting how the only datapoints of any statististical significance to you are one's that you hope might reflect poorly on Sanders. But you know it's coming from the same arbiter of conistency that screamed one day that a close win in NH was bad but a close loss in Nevada is good. So there's that. I guess that's your schtick. Being inconistent and then trying to project and gaslight. Or we can talk about the part where you don't understand basic polling conventions like the significance of head to head polls.

You're right, it's a waste of time discussing this with you. You don't understand elections and you can't see your own hypocrisy over the course of a couple of days.

Also never treated the primary as static.

"Gaslight" - the cry of the empty argument. Um, I'm pretty sure in every post I made note of how the SC could have ramifications for more than just Sanders. So, that pretty much neuters the entire false premise you built this post on. Hell, the very post you quote I noted that Sanders might over-achieve with black voters. Which, if he did and we used your arguments, we'd have to dismiss as unimportant.

I wouldn't put myself in the silly little corner you did. If Sanders has a surge in black voters in south carolina...he should be really damn happy about that. Unfortunately, you've rendered any success he has on that front irrelevant because, apparently, black voters in South Carolina don't matter.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

"Gaslight" - the cry of the empty argument. Um, I'm pretty sure in every post I made note of how the SC could have ramifications for more than just Sanders. So, that pretty much neuters the entire false premise you built this post on. Hell, the very post you quote I noted that Sanders might over-achieve with black voters. Which, if he did and we used your arguments, we'd have to dismiss as unimportant.

I wouldn't put myself in the silly little corner you did. If Sanders has a surge in black voters in south carolina...he should be really damn happy about that. Unfortunately, you've rendered any success he has on that front irrelevant because, apparently, black voters in South Carolina don't matter.

1. The other day we went back and forth because you wanted to desperately argue that Sanders who was not winning NH a month ago ended up winning slightly against a person who was leading it a little over a month ago.

2. Today you are arguing that Biden slightly lisng in Nevada in a state he was winning a week ago is a good thing.

3. You followed that up by saying your views were consistent.

You have no cedibility here, sorry. You only take the statistics that you like and you only take the interpretation that you like. And you can't even turn it around on me because my stance is "a win is good and a loss is bad". Your stance is a "a close win in a state a candidate rallied to come back and win is bad, but a close loss in a state that a candidate gave up a lead until the week of the election is good".

The point on SC is that there is plenty of data all across the country in abundance on how blacks vote. South Carolina is not indicative of that and it's quite frankly a state that is inconsequential to Democrats in a general. Biden winning black voters in South Carolina means very little to black people in California or other swing states. Even if Sanders overachieved with blacks in SC I WOULD dismiss it as unimportant because it won't do a damn thing for him in the general or other states. It would merely signal that Biden is fucked in the primary.

You already put yourself in a "silly little corner" calm down.

[numberthirty]

If Bloomberg is the nominee I'll probably just not vote. At least Trump is too stupid to be slick about how he's trying to oppress and disenfranchise me. Bloomberg would pull the same **** but with none of the bullhorn screaming, "Hey minority, I'm about to f### you for real!"

Voting for the guy is a tough sell.

Anyone else but him, and I could accept the doubts that I have about them. Bloomberg is a whole other deal. The guy was in on screwing things up as recently as 2016, and has just been either blind or not cared about what he was doing more than once.

[Theleviathan]

1. The other day we went back and forth because you wanted to desperately argue that Sanders who was not winning NH a month ago ended up winning slightly against a person who was leading it a little over a month ago.

2. Today you are arguing that Biden slightly lisng in Nevada in a state he was winning a week ago is a good thing.

3. You followed that up by saying your views were consistent.

You have no cedibility here, sorry. You only take the statistics that you like and you only take the interpretation that you like. And you can't even turn it around on me because my stance is "a win is good and a loss is bad". Your stance is a "a close win in a state a candidate rallied to come back and win is bad, but a close loss in a state that a candidate gave up a lead until the week of the election is good".

The point on SC is that there is plenty of data all across the country in abundance on how blacks vote. South Carolina is not indicative of that and it's quite frankly a state that is inconsequential to Democrats in a general. Biden winning black voters in South Carolina means very little to black people in California or other swing states. Even if Sanders overachieved with blacks in SC I WOULD dismiss it as unimportant because it won't do a damn thing for him in the general or other states. It would merely signal that Biden is fucked in the primary.

You already put yourself in a "silly little corner" calm down.

They are consistent, you're incapable of having a discussion without strawmen. I did not, at any point, describe Biden finishing second as "good". (Go ahead, cite where I did. Tell me it's not a strawman. It ain't there slappy, that's your creation) I said that calling his current polling "poor" is too soon. A solid second place finish does help him at this point, sad as that might be for him in the larger context. There is nothing inconsistent about that unless you totally change my actual position into something it's not. Makes it easier for you and I understand why you find that necessary, but it's bad form. You then do it twice more in these paragraphs. Kicked those strawmen's ass. Pat yourself on the back!

Nationally 25-30% of black voters support Bernie. In South Carolina polling shows about 35%. That's not some massive outlier, it's fairly representative of the black electorate's support. So dismissing it as some kind of freak state that doesn't matter is silly. It'll be even more silly if Bernie pulls 30-40% of black voters and you trip over all your strawmen to flip your arguments.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

They are consistent, you're incapable of having a discussion without strawmen. I did not, at any point, describe Biden finishing second as "good". (Go ahead, cite where I did. Tell me it's not a strawman. It ain't there slappy, that's your creation) I said that calling his current polling "poor" is too soon. A solid second place finish does help him at this point, sad as that might be for him in the larger context. There is nothing inconsistent about that unless you totally change my actual position into something it's not. Makes it easier for you and I understand why you find that necessary, but it's bad form. You then do it twice more in these paragraphs. Kicked those strawmen's ass. Pat yourself on the back!

Nationally 25-30% of black voters support Bernie. In South Carolina polling shows about 35%. That's not some massive outlier, it's fairly representative of the black electorate's support. So dismissing it as some kind of freak state that doesn't matter is silly. It'll be even more silly if Bernie pulls 30-40% of black voters and you trip over all your strawmen to flip your arguments.

There is no reasonable metric that they are consistent. And if you can't admit to that there's really no point in arguing. Also people in this thread should educate themselves on what a strawman actually is. Because way too many people (like you) just use it for not liking an argument and having no real recourse.

As far as Biden, his current polling is poor. One month ago, all of this was true of his campaign.

1. He was leading nationally. He held that lead until early this month. He was often 10 points ahead of his next best competitor. That is gone now. Sanders is ahead of him and now Bloomberg is 5 points behind him.

2. He was in the mix to be one of the top finishes in New Hampshire(often leading in some polls as late as September and October). He was often in the 20 point range. He finished with 8 in a terrible finish.

3. In Iowa he was jockeying for 1st along with Buttigieg as late as January. He tanked in the last stretch and finished 4th.

4. In Nevada he was leading. He was between +6 and +10 in every poll.... until the last few weeks. Now RCP has him coming in second and he decided to not even go there.

5. In South Carolina, his best state he was up big. Biden almost never had a poll where he wasn't +20 on the next candidate. Now it's shrunk to +6.

6. Meanwhile by virtually every metric Bloomberg is starting to cut into his Super Tuesday support.

There is no way to dismiss that as anything but poor. One month ago if you asked me what my thoughts on the election were, and I actually said this on here, I would have said something to the effect of "Biden is in the lead and Bernie or Warren really need to win Iowa and NH and turn that into a momentum to have any chance and Buttigieg actually has a shot there and if he wins it guarantees Biden".

The biggest factor I didn't predict was Bloomberg.

But as far as Nevada, second place doesn't mean a thing for him. It doesn't help him in the slightest. He wanted that state to be a win. He wants to go into SC strong. He doesn't want 3 losses and the go there weak and then have a light showing in the state he was always up big in (bigger than any candidate was up in any state) and then look like he went 1 out of 4 and got lucky for that while Bloomberg is trying to take his lane for Super Tuesday.

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

Also I haven't flipped any of my arguments. So if you need to continue to lie we can stop

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Voting for the guy is a tough sell.

Anyone else but him, and I could accept the doubts that I have about them. Bloomberg is a whole other deal. The guy was in on screwing things up as recently as 2016, and has just been either blind or not cared about what he was doing more than once.

Here's what I'll say about Bloomberg, by the end of his Presidency, Democrats will have lost any moral superiority they had over Trump and they likely will lose progressives for a long time

[Malvolio]

So what we're saying basically is that Bloomberg and Trump are both New York billionaires who care little for Black people, poor people, women or homosexuals, and the only difference between them is that Bloomberg won't tweet nine stupid things before breakfast. Just so we're clear.

[PaulBullion]

It's like this. Let's take nationally polls

Let's not, because they are basically meaningless.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Let's not, because they are basically meaningless.

They aren't meaningless. Very useful actually. Maybe you should study elections a bit more and understand why they are used.

[PaulBullion]

Because some consider Bloomberg and Trump the same.

sOmE cONsIDer BlOOmbErG aNd tRumP tHE SamE