All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Theleviathan]

Joe Biden and the ‘electability’ delusion — and why the media keep making the same mistake

So he shakes his head at the extensive coverage and commentary that depicts Biden as almost a shoo-in for a nomination that’s more than a year away.

He kicked that strawman's butt! I hear people calling Biden the front runner and the leader for it.

Which he is. By all polling he is currently the most formidable threat, the leader, and all of the other descriptors. What remains to be seen is whether he stays there through the primaries. Anecdotes about who some guy in Iowa is talking to is not a relevant counter-point to the numbers we have.

If anyone likes someone more than Biden, go out there and help them campaign and change the direction of the numbers. But don't create fantasies in favor of reality.

[Gray Lensman]

In a new South Carolina primary poll, Sanders is now in 4th place.

Warren, Buttigieg surge in SC 2020 Democratic presidential poll as Biden still leads

Another one out this weekend even has him down to fifth place behind Kamala Harris.

Not a surprise. Two things are working against Sanders that weren't last time around. He is no longer the sole alternative to the frontrunner like he was before, and he no longer even has exclusivity with his leftist answers - Warren has that too, except in greater detail and doesn't use the Socailist label. Bernie's remaining base oc exclusive support might be the people who think the system is broken and needs to be blown up - the people who were most likely to defect to Cheeto Benito last time around.

[Dalak]

He kicked that strawman's butt! I hear people calling Biden the front runner and the leader for it.

Which he is. By all polling he is currently the most formidable threat, the leader, and all of the other descriptors. What remains to be seen is whether he stays there through the primaries. Anecdotes about who some guy in Iowa is talking to is not a relevant counter-point to the numbers we have.

If anyone likes someone more than Biden, go out there and help them campaign and change the direction of the numbers. But don't create fantasies in favor of reality.

You are aware how much those 2015 'numbers' mattered in the 2016 election right?

[Theleviathan]

You are aware how much those 2015 'numbers' mattered in the 2016 election right?

Absolutely. You are aware of the third sentence in my second paragraph right?

[Dalak]

Absolutely. You are aware of the third sentence in my second paragraph right?

Yes, and my point remains that this far out all polls are fantasies/theories/imagination and not based in reality.

[SquirrelMan]

Not a surprise. Two things are working against Sanders that weren't last time around. He is no longer the sole alternative to the frontrunner like he was before, and he no longer even has exclusivity with his leftist answers - Warren has that too, except in greater detail and doesn't use the Socailist label. Bernie's remaining base oc exclusive support might be the people who think the system is broken and needs to be blown up - the people who were most likely to defect to Cheeto Benito last time around.

Plus he looks unwell. The 18 years since 2016 were rough on all of us.

[Theleviathan]

Yes, and my point remains that this far out all polls are fantasies/theories/imagination and not based in reality.

Well, they are based in reality by definition. They are numbers taken from real people in the real world. They are not adequate grounds for a conclusion, but they are reality. Now, you could argue that reality gets heavily influenced. That we should be skeptical of their measurement. I wouldn't argue those. Nonetheless it is reality.

You don't get to deny that reality on the basis of what one Iowa reporters says about who he talked to and then write a flimsy article about it. And you don't get to equivocate that media reporting him as the leader is the same as calling him the best. I'm sure there are some people arguing that, but every news report that pegs him as the leader is simply accurate based on the best available information.

I'm rooting for Warren and glad to see her rising. Nevertheless, she does have to overcome Biden who is leading and has a strong case.

[PaulBullion]

DNA match led to arrest of suspect in the killing of pro-immigration Kassel district president Lübcke, who was shot in the head June 2nd. Suspect is a 45yo right-wing extremist.

Thread: https://twitter.com/GIRD_S/status/1140270305270784005

[Dalak]

Well, they are based in reality by definition. They are numbers taken from real people in the real world. They are not adequate grounds for a conclusion, but they are reality. Now, you could argue that reality gets heavily influenced. That we should be skeptical of their measurement. I wouldn't argue those. Nonetheless it is reality.

You don't get to deny that reality on the basis of what one Iowa reporters says about who he talked to and then write a flimsy article about it. And you don't get to equivocate that media reporting him as the leader is the same as calling him the best. I'm sure there are some people arguing that, but every news report that pegs him as the leader is simply accurate based on the best available information.

I'm rooting for Warren and glad to see her rising. Nevertheless, she does have to overcome Biden who is leading and has a strong case.

1. I get to deny the 'reality' of a small selection of the electorate being representative of the likelyhood in reality of a certain politician winning very easily. Why are you defending such a flawed system so fervently?

2. You're misunderstanding - I'm questioning polls, not defending anyone in Iowa. You seem so fixated on them as hard numbers and I've argued against them in the past, so it's unrelated.

[Theleviathan]

1. I get to deny the 'reality' of a small selection of the electorate being representative of the likelyhood in reality of a certain politician winning very easily. Why are you defending such a flawed system so fervently?

2. You're misunderstanding - I'm questioning polls, not defending anyone in Iowa. You seem so fixated on them as hard numbers and I've argued against them in the past, so it's unrelated.

I'm not fixated, it's what the article used as it's opening salvo. It's poor reasoning. Kudos to you if you feel the same.

As for your first point, you added about 12 caveats to your first sentence to the point that it renders your contention pretty weak. (And borders on the kind of equivocation I'm against. Simply because he is "leading" does not mean he is "Best". Nor does reporting that information mean that)

I'm not using them to judge him winning against Trump. Or how easy it will be. Simply that the polls show him to be the front runner that the most people have cast their lot with so far. Until people start voting they will be our best sense of where the electorate is on each candidate. If you have another suggestion to better gauge the public...I'm all ears.

[Malvolio]

I mean you can try and pull that bs if you like but theres a clear difference between "Your job is promoting a terrible figure who is destabilising our nation and fanning the flames of hate" and "I dont like what you do in the bedroom"

Sanders was refused because of the clear facts showcasing her being ok with the Trump administrations terrible decisions. The other couple were refused because of one person being a bigot.

The argument is that a restaurant has the right to refuse service to any patron. But that refusal has to be based on the individual, such as Sarah Sanders, not the group they belong to, such as the LGBTQ community. Now that reason can be a personal dislike for the particular person, or it can be a fear that the particular person will drive away other customers. In Sanders' case, both may be true.

[Mister Mets]

Well aside from the US, the top countries on that list are all these unstable, gang-ridden Latin American dictatorships. Gee, whoever is supplying their weapons must be making a fortune...

That would be an argument that the representative has to explicitly make.

The argument is that a restaurant has the right to refuse service to any patron. But that refusal has to be based on the individual, such as Sarah Sanders, not the group they belong to, such as the LGBTQ community. Now that reason can be a personal dislike for the particular person, or it can be a fear that the particular person will drive away other customers. In Sanders' case, both may be true.

That's a different argument than the way jetengine had framed it: "Why Americans just refuse to do their jobs I'll never understand."

[Tendrin]

Soooo. Some interesting problems could be coming Glen Greenwald's way.

https://twitter.com/felipebayan/stat...91746758746114

A Brazilian hacker, codenamed "mysterious peacock" has just exposed confidential documents on Twitter claiming to have traced Bitcoin deposits on the sum of 300k USD paid from The Intercept to Evgenyi Bogachev, FBI's most wanted black-hat hacker.

[Dalak]

I'm not fixated, it's what the article used as it's opening salvo. It's poor reasoning. Kudos to you if you feel the same.

As for your first point, you added about 12 caveats to your first sentence to the point that it renders your contention pretty weak. (And borders on the kind of equivocation I'm against. Simply because he is "leading" does not mean he is "Best". Nor does reporting that information mean that)

I'm not using them to judge him winning against Trump. Or how easy it will be. Simply that the polls show him to be the front runner that the most people have cast their lot with so far. Until people start voting they will be our best sense of where the electorate is on each candidate. If you have another suggestion to better gauge the public...I'm all ears.

Caveats? Are you saying a Poll isn't representing a small section of the electorate as how the whole will go in reality? I can easily deny the validity/reality of most polls based on where/who it surveyed, how leadingly it asked it's questions, the actual number of those surveyed, whether it was an online poll subject to being manipulated, and most importantly the length of time until what the poll is focused on comes to pass.

When the elections are closer and the weak candidates have dropped and many more bombshells will have exploded onto the airwaves then the polls might have some actual bearing on what will happen in reality, but until then I've learned not to pay them much mind.

[Theleviathan]

When the elections are closer and the weak candidates have dropped and many more bombshells will have exploded onto the airwaves then the polls might have some actual bearing on what will happen in reality, but until then I've learned not to pay them much mind.

You may be able to do that, but most people are interested. It's not fair, or realistic, to criticize the media for reporting polls. Or for discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. Or of public perception of them. The original article did all of those things.

Since you declined to name a better measure (there isn't one, frankly), the polls will be a part of that discussion. And right now they show Biden leading. I hope that changes, I expect it to narrow, but that's the reality of today on a point many people are interested in.