All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

"They Will Both Probably Lose, But Let Me Tell You About How One Of Them Will Lose Sooner..."

Sure...

It's factual information -- statistically the incumbent wins and statistically Sanders continues to lose primary elections.

Want to change those facts -- find a way to get Sanders more votes.

Like I keep pointing out -- all he has to do to get my vote in the general is to win the nomination.

You and the other Sanders supporters are the ones trying to make it about Sanders rather than winning while he keeps losing.

[Malvolio]

Unbelievable:

Oh, well of course. Trump would love to be able to say that while the rest of the world is dying, the US is safe and sound and he's the one, the only one, who made it that way.

[The Overlord]

You have this ridiculous obsession with losing the election -- you should get over it as history says it's highly likely that any Democratic nominee would lose the upcoming election.

Including Sanders, who doesn't even have enough votes to win the primaries.

It's just a way for many of his supporters to pre-emptively say "I told you so" instead of reflecting on why Sanders doesn't win.

Because Biden's whole argument was about electability and you say defeating Trump is the most important thing we have to do, but if he loses you are just going to say "Oh well" and pick another "electable" paper tiger next time? How often do you want this cycle to continue, of monstrous Republicans and mediocre Democrats?

[PwrdOn]

And yet he became Speaker of the House and did fulfilled his promise to the Tea Party by delivering an unpopular and highly criticized (even by the President) sweeping tax cut.
Because that's how it works. Grass-roots movements get their people elected to the house and build a coalition until, eventually they make things happen.
That's how progressives can get healthcare changes pushed through no matter what the President at the time happens to think about it.
Because

My point is that the Tea Party was NEVER a genuine grass roots movement and always had the backing of the elites that they were supposedly opposing, why would they have had such an easy go of it when American politics is so set in its ways and immediately quashes any movement with even a hint of revolutionary sentiment? Frankly the grassroots progressive movement is about as strong as it's ever been and hopefully the deteriorating state of the country will open more and more eyes to the problems we face and the radical solutions needed to fix them. However, if the attitudes of Biden supporters here and elsewhere are any indication, most Americans are just too lazy and fearful to jump on board and would rather die with their heads buried in the sands. What does this say about us as a society?

Because Biden's whole argument was about electability and you say defeating Trump is the most important thing we have to do, but if he loses you are just going to say "Oh well" and pick another "electable" paper tiger next time? How often do you want this cycle to continue, of monstrous Republicans and mediocre Democrats?

They didn't learn with Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, or Clinton, what makes you think they'll learn this time around? Remember that both Bill Clinton and Obama were considered to be these "insurgent" candidates that the party absolutely did NOT want to run, though they of course proved to be far more moderate in their governance than what they campaigned on.

[TheDarman]

"They Will Both Probably Lose, But Let Me Tell You About How One Of Them Will Lose Sooner..."

Sure...

The truth of the matter is that Sanders electability argument depended on him saying that he could win states like Michigan and recapture white working class voters that went for Trump in 2016. The issue is that Biden actually did exceptionally well with that demographic in Michigan this time.

We need to stop drawing comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Regardless of what we think about their policies, they aren’t the same candidate. Not only is it obvious in the way they talk and articulate their thoughts, but it is obvious in the data too. Biden is vastly outperforming Clinton post-South-Carolina than Clinton did in 2016. Of course, Clinton had the disadvantage of more undemocratic caucuses which broke for Sanders (who does better in lower voter turnout and undemocratic processes, which does not help his electability argument either), but Biden is even outperforming her in base primaries, like Michigan and Minnesota.

As for Trump winning, Trump has the incumbent advantage. Typically, independent voters like to stay the course with an incumbent candidate, because they know what they are getting and don't like to upset the status quo. This is especially true when an economy looks good. Of course, Trump has a lot of drawbacks that aren’t associated with incumbents, like he has not had a net approval rating since February of 2017. He also lost the popular vote (a point I wish Democrats would focus more on to tear down the specter of legitimacy) by the widest margin of any electoral college winner to the second-most unpopular candidate in American presidential history.

So, while we should assume that Trump still has a fighting chance, we shouldn’t presume that history is a good indicator that either Sanders or Biden are likely to lose to him. There are many variables that got Trump elected and he is still historically unpopular for an incumbent. However, Biden is drawing out quite incredible turnout for him, especially among the people who drove Democrats to a ten point victory in the House. And Biden is also looking strong in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—as well as all the states that Clinton took in 2016.

[aja_christopher]

Because Biden's whole argument was about electability and you say defeating Trump is the most important thing we have to do, but if he loses you are just going to say "Oh well" and pick another "electable" paper tiger next time? How often do you want this cycle to continue, of monstrous Republicans and mediocre Democrats?

So now you're going to fight the political cycle -- that should be fun to watch until you finally realize that's part of the cycle itself.

Or just get more conservative as you get older and vote accordingly.

I will give you credit though -- your strawmen are more melodramatic than most and have a lot of character as a result.

[PaulBullion]

I think they are doing what they can to set up Biden for as much sucess as possible. I think everyone knows Biden will PROBABLY be the nominee, and the worse the better things are for Trump in November. But you can only help Biden so much ... whatever format they use, in the end he still needs to step up and deliver. And I don't get the sense at all that Benrie will go eas on him, which is probably a good thing because Trump sure as heck won't. We'll get our answer one way or the other soon enough.

Are you... are you saying uninviting the audience is not to stop the spread of covid-19, but a conspiracy to stop Sanders?

[XPac]

Because Biden's whole argument was about electability and you say defeating Trump is the most important thing we have to do, but if he loses you are just going to say "Oh well" and pick another "electable" paper tiger next time? How often do you want this cycle to continue, of monstrous Republicans and mediocre Democrats?

The "cycle" really isn't that bad for either party if you think about it.

We likely will have a two term republican president as we speak, but we had a 2 term democratic president before that, and a 2 term republican president before that, etc. I'm not sure in recent decades at least you can credibly argue the cycle itself is necessarily favoring one side or the other. If the recent pattern holds, we'll probably have a 2 term democratic president after Trump.

[XPac]

Are you... are you saying uninviting the audience is not to stop the spread of covid-19, but a conspiracy to stop Sanders?

Probably all of the above. Some people were pulling to cancel the debate altogether even prior to the push of cancelling events.

[TheDarman]

Are you... are you saying uninviting the audience is not to stop the spread of covid-19, but a conspiracy to stop Sanders?

I have someone at work that thinks exactly like this. She tried to convince me that voter suppression led to Bernie losing Texas. I’m still trying to explain to her that Republicans, who have long preferred Sanders to be the nominee (even asking their voters to turnout for him in open primaries), were the ones running the election in Texas and targeted majority black areas, which turned out for Biden, not Sanders. Then, she hits me with the whole “votes found” in Dallas thing and told her the margin of Biden’s victory was so large that even in the statistically improbable case of all the votes found going to Sanders, he would still lose the state and county. Finally, she just says the process was rigged against Sanders because other moderates, realizing they’d never get elected, dropped out and endorsed a moderate. I simply said that if Sanders’ wing of the party was never large enough to be the biggest in a non-divided field, he didn’t deserve to win. And, also, she was the same one begging for an endorsement for Bernie by Warren and how was that any different from what happened to Biden.

I tell ya what, it’s exhausting dismantling conspiracy theories.

[PwrdOn]

The truth of the matter is that Sanders electability argument depended on him saying that he could win states like Michigan and recapture white working class voters that went for Trump in 2016. The issue is that Biden actually did exceptionally well with that demographic in Michigan this time.

We need to stop drawing comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Regardless of what we think about their policies, they aren’t the same candidate. Not only is it obvious in the way they talk and articulate their thoughts, but it is obvious in the data too. Biden is vastly outperforming Clinton post-South-Carolina than Clinton did in 2016. Of course, Clinton had the disadvantage of more undemocratic caucuses which broke for Sanders (who does better in lower voter turnout and undemocratic processes, which does not help his electability argument either), but Biden is even outperforming her in base primaries, like Michigan and Minnesota.

As for Trump winning, Trump has the incumbent advantage. Typically, independent voters like to stay the course with an incumbent candidate, because they know what they are getting and don't like to upset the status quo. This is especially true when an economy looks good. Of course, Trump has a lot of drawbacks that aren’t associated with incumbents, like he has not had a net approval rating since February of 2017. He also lost the popular vote (a point I wish Democrats would focus more on to tear down the specter of legitimacy) by the widest margin of any electoral college winner to the second-most unpopular candidate in American presidential history.

So, while we should assume that Trump still has a fighting chance, we shouldn’t presume that history is a good indicator that either Sanders or Biden are likely to lose to him. There are many variables that got Trump elected and he is still historically unpopular for an incumbent. However, Biden is drawing out quite incredible turnout for him, especially among the people who drove Democrats to a ten point victory in the House. And Biden is also looking strong in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—as well as all the states that Clinton took in 2016.

Biden won those primaries because the Democratic talking heads bombarded the airwaves and social media with this #BernieBros nonsense trying to paint Sanders as some kind closet racist who was going to screw over minorities in order to give handouts to the white working class, and people unfortunately fell for it.

[Tendrin]

That is a ridiculous assertion.

[kidfresh512]

Are you... are you saying uninviting the audience is not to stop the spread of covid-19, but a conspiracy to stop Sanders?

More DEM conspiracy nonsense. Its so much easier to believe a conspiracy than it is to realize that in a country where rallies have been cancelled every major sports season is cancelled. Somehow a debate is a DNC conspiracy. Reality people lets try to grasp it sometimes.

[XPac]

Biden won those primaries because the Democratic talking heads bombarded the airwaves and social media with this #BernieBros nonsense trying to paint Sanders as some kind closet racist who was going to screw over minorities in order to give handouts to the white working class, and people unfortunately fell for it.

That is what happens in an election. People tend to say not nice things about the other candidate. Both sides are getting quite a beating to be honest... one comes off as a communist while the other sounds senile. It's not like the GOP will be any nicer on either Bernie or Bidden than they were on each other.

[The Overlord]

So now you're going to fight the political cycle -- that should be fun to watch until you finally realize that's part of the cycle itself.

Or just get more conservative as you get older and vote accordingly.

I will give you credit though -- your strawmen are more melodramatic than most and have a lot of character as a result.

You are man to talk about straw man arguments.

And really how is not been the cycle we have been since the 80s? How many "electable" Democrats have lost to Republicans?

When they get into power, what do they do, just cave into Republicans. Look at what Bill Clinton did, the crime bill, welfare cuts, ending Glass Stegalle, etc. Trumpism grew under the Obama administration, why didn't they counter it.

This system does not work because you want everyone to play by rules that do not work because the GOP will ignore them:

This is why your party will always be weaker than the GOP:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A

The GOP plays for keeps and the Dems do not. Anyone who plays a game where the other side can ignore the rules is playing a fool's game.