2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III - Page 10

ChristianProgressive · 13th January 2020, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Clearly, you and bb are either trolling or you've bought into that utterly nonsensical right-wing selected caricature. Either way, this is so far beyond inane that it's not even worth the time it would take to rip it to shreds.

agreed on all points

ChristianProgressive · 13th January 2020, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't know. I do think we are better off running a moderate. A lot of people despise Trump but at the same time might be too afraid of what they think is the Doc Brown of Socialism or Warren's messaging. I'm tilting toward Klobuchar/Biden/Bloomberg

FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections.

Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party...

Skeptic Ginger · 13th January 2020, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah but if that applies to everyone else as well, why would it be relevant?

There's a Bob echo in here.

Belz... · 13th January 2020, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There's a Bob echo in here.

You know, all you needed to do was say, for instance, that Booker was worse than the others in that respect, in your opinion, and that would've done it. But instead you turn it immediately personal. You can't even tolerate a minor challenge to one of your claims.

So maybe he wasn't worse than the others in that respect.

theprestige · 13th January 2020, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections.

Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party...

My view is that every election is unique, and every candidate is unique. Even the same candidate is different when they're an incumbent rather than a challenger.

Certain patterns can be observed, but they don't lead to reliable conclusions based on past performance. There's nothing FDR can really tell us about the viability of a non-"moderate" candidate today.

ChristianProgressive · 13th January 2020, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Donal

I mean, FDR had an openly socialist VP in the goddamned 1940s.

And the corporatists within the party made it a point to get rid of him when it became clear that FDR's VP in the '44 campaign would finish out Roosevelt's last term.

THe level of shennanigans they got up to to keep Wallace from being the VP nom were beyond outrageous. This in my opiniion marked the start of the neoliberal era in the party that culminated in BJ Clinton selling out to the Republican agenda during his presidency.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th January 2020, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

That's the thing, though---It's not even evidence. You do know that Obama was elected, don't you?

Twice, in fact.

So you found someone who said he wouldn't vote for Obama. Big Deal. I can find people who say they would never vote for Trump; he won, too. In fact, given any candidate I'm confident you can find people who would never vote for that candidate. It's not unusual and shouldn't convince you that a given candidate would be hard pressed to win an election.

For the record about that bolded part, anecdotal evidence is used all the time. You simply collect it systematically and use ruling out variables. Giving an anecdote along with other evidence is incredibly common in medical science.

That said, WTF? You ignored the whole post except that one anecdote.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The problem with ignoring the socialism label is it triggers a whole slew of voters to run in terror.

My brother who isn't particularly political told me years ago that "Obama is a socialist" and nothing I could say would make him change that view.

And neither Warren nor Sanders have countered the threat the cost of Medicare for all is being cited as. They can be as right as rain but if the messaging fails then no one will know it.

The (right-wing) Hill 2018: Poll: Majority of Americans say they would not vote for a 'socialist'

Quote:

In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would vote for a socialist candidate.

From StartPage Search, take your pick:

Quote:

New poll: Capitalism is more popular than socialism - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...han-socialism/
Jun 25, 2019 ... New poll: Capitalism is more popular than socialism. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at the Poor People's Moral Action Congress ...

Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds | US ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ism-poll-axios
Jun 10, 2019 ... Axios poll says 55% of women aged 18-54 prefer socialism but ... Donald Trump has frequently railed against socialism as he gears up to bid...

Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism - Gallup News
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/...socialism.aspx
May 20, 2019 ... Those results contrast with a 1942 Roper/Fortune survey that found 40% describing socialism as a bad thing, 25% a good thing and 34% not ...

U.S. Support for More Government Inches Up, but Not for Socialism
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/...socialism.aspx
Nov 18, 2019 ... While Americans continue to evaluate socialism negatively, they have become ... Gallup conducted an in-depth survey of U.S. attitudes toward ... people's lives and "1" indicates they favor government providing only the most ...

How Republicans, Democrats view socialism and capitalism | Pew ...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...sm-capitalism/
Jun 25, 2019 ... Republicans express intensely negative views of “socialism” and very ... capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%), according to a new survey by Pew ... Mirroring the age divide among the public overall, younger people in both ...
The attitude is changing, but not enough. It risks people holding their noses and voting for Trump.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th January 2020, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

You know, all you needed to do was say, for instance, that Booker was worse than the others in that respect, in your opinion, and that would've done it. But instead you turn it immediately personal. You can't even tolerate a minor challenge to one of your claims.

So maybe he wasn't worse than the others in that respect.

Hold on here, Booker being worse or not worse was not what I said. I said what I meant, "Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off."

Not sure what's hard to understand there.

SezMe · 13th January 2020, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

The idea is for the plebs to give up travel, not important bigshots like AOC and Joe Biden. They can jet around all they want; once they are elected they can stop the rise of the seas just by telling the media not to write about it.

Oh, dear, now acbytesla has another stupid post to consider.

TragicMonkey · 13th January 2020, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's nothing FDR can really tell us about the viability of a non-"moderate" candidate today.

I dunno, if FDR returned from the afterlife to dish on the current candidates I think we should give him a listen. I'm not saying we should take what he says as gospel, I'm just saying it'd be worth listening to.

Ziggurat · 13th January 2020, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

if FDR returned from the afterlife to dish on the current candidates I think we should give him a listen.

I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless.

TragicMonkey · 13th January 2020, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless.

FDR was a politician. There's no reason to suppose he'd lose interest in his own field that was such a large part of his life just because he'd died. Do you think Shakespeare wouldn't be interested in talking about theater, or Lister about medicine, or Walt Disney about cryogenics?

Venom · 13th January 2020, 08:16 PM

FDR would tell Bernie he's being too soft on his opponents and the establishment.

acbytesla · 13th January 2020, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections.

Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party...

Different time, different person. Go back and look at the 1932 Presidential election. Hoover had no chance winning reelection after the Bonus Army incident. He was hardly welcome in public. He very often had things thrown at him. And it's kind of hard to believe, but Roosevelt originally ran on belt tightening.

You simply can't compare one election to the next without taking into consideration one hell of a lot of variables. I'm convinced the right candidate can win almost regardless of the policies they espouse. And I dont care how great your solutions might be if you stink at selling it. And the times matter.

I really don't think elections are won or lost on policy positions. I think they are won based on the persuasive capabilities of the candidate more than anything.

Trump is a policy and principle moron. He barely knows anything about anything. Hillary was the greatest political wonk I've ever seen. She knows issues and government probably better than anyone running for POTUS in the last 100 years or more. This should have been a landslide victory for her. That it was not was because Hillary couldn't sell.

Cabbage · 13th January 2020, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

For the record about that bolded part, anecdotal evidence is used all the time. You simply collect it systematically and use ruling out variables. Giving an anecdote along with other evidence is incredibly common in medical science.

Evidence of what? That some people refuse to vote for socialists? I accept that as obvious, the evidence is literally self evident.

On the other hand: Evidence that socialists are unelectable? Then it's a bad choice, as I claimed: Obama won. Twice. And therefore it is not evidence of unelectability.

Skeptic Ginger · 13th January 2020, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Evidence of what? That some people refuse to vote for socialists? I accept that as obvious, the evidence is literally self evident.

On the other hand: Evidence that socialists are unelectable? Then it's a bad choice, as I claimed: Obama won. Twice. And therefore it is not evidence of unelectability.

My brother didn't vote for him.

Let it go Cab. I am not your enemy.

If you have some counter evidence, that the voting public in the US is ready to elect a socialist, does not think socialism is a dirty word, and/or that it's a positive for a candidate and not a negative, let's see it.

Aridas · 13th January 2020, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I had that problem with Beto.

This is why I really like Warren. She has serious ideas on how we should address certain issues. Sometimes I think she is very wrong. But I have to give her credit for thinking about them.

Even moreso, HOW she works to make her plans is one of the best things about her, I think.

Originally Posted by dudalb

And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud.

The better question here is... what feud? Quite literally, at last check, Bernie's pretty much outright forbidden his campaign members from attacking Warren, with penalty attached. I think Warren's done similar, but I haven't looked beyond the pointed instructions not to attack. That doesn't mean that their supporters won't cynically or otherwise go after the other, of course, but it makes it pretty clear that talk of a "feud" is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That is precisely the reason for the feud. They're fighting for the same pool of supporters.

It may surprise you how very distinctly different and complex their pools of supporters actually are, contrary to the narrative that much of the media is trying to sell. The whole "moderate vs. progressive" narrative is overwhelmingly overblown compared to the facts at hand, either way, last I checked... and honestly, I strongly suspect that that's just yet another one of the many ploys by the corporate media to try to reduce or limit support for the actually left leaning Democrats. A bit like CNN tacking on a video of a completely unrelated Democrat getting busted for corruption into an article about AOC that had nothing to do with any crime, but much louder.

Cabbage · 13th January 2020, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My brother didn't vote for him.

Let it go Cab. I am not your enemy.

If you have some counter evidence, that the voting public in the US is ready to elect a socialist, does not think socialism is a dirty word, and/or that it's a positive for a candidate and not a negative, let's see it.

I've already presented evidence that the US is ready to elect a "socialist", given certain definitions of the word (there are so many out there): Many people thought Obama was a socialist and yet he was elected. Twice.

Brainster · 14th January 2020, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections.

Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party...

Yes, a non-moderate was able to win in the early years of the Great Depression. Kind of like how a black man with the middle name of Hussein was able to win in the early years of the Great Recession.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I've already presented evidence that the US is ready to elect a "socialist", given certain definitions of the word (there are so many out there): Many people thought Obama was a socialist and yet he was elected. Twice.

Which post, I'll go look.

If you are claiming some people believed Obama was a socialist yet they still elected him, that is not sufficient.

1) Obama wasn't a socialist.
2) The people who believed it were not a majority.
3) It bears no relevance to the election of a candidate who actually does lean heavily socialist.

Cabbage · 14th January 2020, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which post, I'll go look.

The very post you just quoted.

Quote:

If you are claiming some people believed Obama was a socialist yet they still elected him, that is not sufficient.

1) Obama wasn't a socialist.
2) The people who believed it were not a majority.
3) It bears no relevance to the election of a candidate who actually does lean heavily socialist.

Hey, you are the one who brought up the anecdotal evidence of your brother not voting for Obama because he was a socialist. I merely claimed that was bad evidence because Obama actually got elected. Now you seem to be claiming it's bad evidence because he wasn't a socialist to begin with.

Why bring him up if he was not a socialist and he got elected, then? He doesn't really seem relevant on any level--Indeed, you, yourself said so in point 3).

Hercules Rockefeller · 14th January 2020, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless.

Perhaps he went to hell and only had other politicians to talk to all that time.

Aridas · 14th January 2020, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Hey, you are the one who brought up the anecdotal evidence of your brother not voting for Obama because he was a socialist. I merely claimed that was bad evidence because Obama actually got elected. Now you seem to be claiming it's bad evidence because he wasn't a socialist to begin with.

To poke at this a little, I'm not sure why you think that your responses actually address what she actually said in the first place. Her anecdote about her brother was putting forth an example of a person who refused to vote for Obama because he thought that Obama was a socialist, regardless of whether Obama actually was a socialist or not. She also linked a number of polls dealing with how accepting people are of "socialism," which were of much more value in making the point. Now, as she said, Obama wasn't much of a socialist and most people who actually paid any real attention knew that (at least among the population that might have been willing to vote for him), so your response was a bit wrong-headed, both before and here.

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Why bring him up if he was not a socialist and he got elected, then? He doesn't really seem relevant on any level--Indeed, you, yourself said so in point 3).

And why not bring him up as she did? Her anecdote worked just fine as she used it. That you seem to be having difficulty following along with what she's actually said is probably decent reason to step back for a little, reread for comprehension, and recheck your assumptions.

Cabbage · 14th January 2020, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

To poke at this a little, I'm not sure why you think that your responses actually address what she actually said in the first place. Her anecdote about her brother was putting forth an example of a person who refused to vote for Obama because he thought that Obama was a socialist, regardless of whether Obama actually was a socialist or not. She also linked a number of polls dealing with how accepting people are of "socialism," which were of much more value in making the point. Now, as she said, Obama wasn't much of a socialist and most people who actually paid any real attention knew that (at least among the population that might have been willing to vote for him), so your response was a bit wrong-headed, both before and here.

And why not bring him up as she did? Her anecdote worked just fine as she used it. That you seem to be having difficulty following along with what she's actually said is probably decent reason to step back for a little, reread for comprehension, and recheck your assumptions.

Of course I am aware that some people refuse to vote for a socialist; my only point is that none of this implies that a socialist can not be elected.

Giz · 14th January 2020, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Warren met with Sanders in 2018 and told friends afterward that Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win.

Sanders denies:

Hard to believe that the people talking to CNN are doing so without Warren's approval.

The feud heats up. Who is telling the truth?

SuburbanTurkey · 14th January 2020, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

The feud heats up. Who is telling the truth?

Is this the part where Warren supporters pretend that everyone on the planet wasn't talking about the effects sexism had on HRC's run in 2016 or how sexism might be a general problem for any woman candidate?

The smear that Bernie discouraged a woman from running or thinks Warren shouldn't run because she's a woman is absurd on its face.

Giz · 14th January 2020, 06:53 AM

Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now.

Belz... · 14th January 2020, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Hold on here, Booker being worse or not worse was not what I said. I said what I meant, "Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off."

Not sure what's hard to understand there.

I understood your earlier post about Booker having a specific flaw, which is that he didn't have clear solutions to clear problems. Since the flaw is rather generalised in the current Democratic candidate field, I'm not sure then what your original point was. If it's not a flaw unique to him, then why mention it?

It's really a simple question.

Donal · 14th January 2020, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now.

Because it leaked. Coincidentally, the day before a debate, right as LEv Parnas' lawyer is negotiating with prosecutors, and the day after news of Russians hacking Burisma broke.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Of course I am aware that some people refuse to vote for a socialist; my only point is that none of this implies that a socialist can not be elected.

Given Obama was not a socialist, his being elected does not prove your point. What else you got?

Belz... · 14th January 2020, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Given Obama was not a socialist

"Socialist? He's not even a liberal." - Bill Maher

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now.

I don't see that she did. It looks like the news media (CNN and Politico) brought it up.

bizpacreview (assuming they are a reliable source)

Quote:

Sanders has inched into the lead in the Hawkeye State, just 20 days before the 2020 Iowa Caucuses, and he was broadsided this week with a CNN report alleging that he told Warren during a Dec. 2018 meeting at her apartment in Washington, DC, that a woman could not win against President Donald Trump.

The story cited four people as sources: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting....

Well, Shakir was set for disappointment, as Warren’s campaign responded Monday evening with a statement from the senator to say the report is true and that she does not want to discuss it any further....

It was this story that first came to light:

Quote:

There is also a Politico report from last week that Sanders’ campaign allegedly circulated a script for volunteers to tell people that Warren’s the candidate of the elite and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”

Warren responded by telling reporters she felt “disappointed,” and said that “Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”

Also, there are a slew of stories about Sanders' sexism from the 2016 Primary and the 2018 Senate campaigns.

The news media almost certainly went looking for sexism given the Clinton rivalry. But Sanders made it easy paying female staff less than male staff.

GQ: Women who worked on his 2016 campaign have come forward alleging harassment, sexism, and gender-based pay gaps over the course of the Democratic primaries. The issues were reportedly more systemic than just outright sexual harassment.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

I understood your earlier post about Booker having a specific flaw, which is that he didn't have clear solutions to clear problems. Since the flaw is rather generalised in the current Democratic candidate field, I'm not sure then what your original point was. If it's not a flaw unique to him, then why mention it?

It's really a simple question.

Give it up. I'm sorry you don't understand why I said what I said. It's not that hard. Your objection isn't relevant.

Who cares if other people do or don't have plans for their descriptions of problems. Other candidates did not just drop out.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Donal

Because it leaked. Coincidentally, the day before a debate, right as LEv Parnas' lawyer is negotiating with prosecutors, and the day after news of Russians hacking Burisma broke.

Do you know how it was leaked to Politico? Serious question.

I wonder if Warren was or was not responsible.

Delphic Oracle · 14th January 2020, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Given Obama was not a socialist, his being elected does not prove your point. What else you got?

I guess first we need to firmly nail down is it actually being socialist that's the problem or vulnerability to the label sticking.

Because I'm starting to feel that "hopping back and forth every other go around" vibe.

That describes the conversation as a whole, not saying any single participant is doing so. That makes it hard to have a consistent discussion.

theprestige · 14th January 2020, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Do you know how it was leaked to Politico? Serious question.

I wonder if Warren was or was not responsible.

Donal mentioning Lev Parnas and Russia hacking Burisma suggests that he seriously thinks Trump eavesdropped on the conversation and leaked it now to distract from his own troubles.

Me? I figure it has to have been someone close to Sanders or Warren. Coincidence notwithstanding.

Belz... · 14th January 2020, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Give it up. I'm sorry you don't understand why I said what I said. It's not that hard. Your objection isn't relevant.

Who cares if other people do or don't have plans for their descriptions of problems. Other candidates did not just drop out.

Give what up? I'm trying to understand your point, which had nothing to do with him dropping out, and it wasn't an objection.

You said you didn't support Booker because of the flaw you mentioned. You didn't seem to disagree with me that the other candidates have the same problemn, so I have to ask: do you support any one of them?

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I guess first we need to firmly nail down is it actually being socialist that's the problem or vulnerability to the label sticking.

Because I'm starting to feel that "hopping back and forth every other go around" vibe.

That describes the conversation as a whole, not saying any single participant is doing so. That makes it hard to have a consistent discussion.

It's relative. You know the GOP is going to sling the charge.

But how susceptible the candidates are to the charge depends on how socialist their policies are.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2020, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Give what up? ....

Trying to understand my point. If you don't get it yet, you probably never will. And I have given up trying to explain it to you.

Belz... · 14th January 2020, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trying to understand my point. If you don't get it yet, you probably never will.

Can you ever have a conversation without calling other people idiots?

Quote:

And I have given up trying to explain it to you.

You haven't tried to explain it to me.

How about you answer my last question there? Do you support any of the remaining candidates?

13th January 2020, 07:06 PM	#361
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,809	Originally Posted by Aridas Clearly, you and bb are either trolling or you've bought into that utterly nonsensical right-wing selected caricature. Either way, this is so far beyond inane that it's not even worth the time it would take to rip it to shreds. agreed on all points
	__________________ "As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37 "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

13th January 2020, 07:11 PM	#362
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,809	Originally Posted by acbytesla I don't know. I do think we are better off running a moderate. A lot of people despise Trump but at the same time might be too afraid of what they think is the Doc Brown of Socialism or Warren's messaging. I'm tilting toward Klobuchar/Biden/Bloomberg FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections. Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party...
	__________________ "As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37 "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

13th January 2020, 07:18 PM	#364
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger There's a Bob echo in here. You know, all you needed to do was say, for instance, that Booker was worse than the others in that respect, in your opinion, and that would've done it. But instead you turn it immediately personal. You can't even tolerate a minor challenge to one of your claims. So maybe he wasn't worse than the others in that respect.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

13th January 2020, 07:21 PM	#366
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,809	Originally Posted by Donal I mean, FDR had an openly socialist VP in the goddamned 1940s. And the corporatists within the party made it a point to get rid of him when it became clear that FDR's VP in the '44 campaign would finish out Roosevelt's last term. THe level of shennanigans they got up to to keep Wallace from being the VP nom were beyond outrageous. This in my opiniion marked the start of the neoliberal era in the party that culminated in BJ Clinton selling out to the Republican agenda during his presidency.
	__________________ "As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37 "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

13th January 2020, 07:25 PM	#367
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Cabbage That's the thing, though---It's not even evidence. You do know that Obama was elected, don't you? Twice, in fact. So you found someone who said he wouldn't vote for Obama. Big Deal. I can find people who say they would never vote for Trump; he won, too. In fact, given any candidate I'm confident you can find people who would never vote for that candidate. It's not unusual and shouldn't convince you that a given candidate would be hard pressed to win an election. For the record about that bolded part, anecdotal evidence is used all the time. You simply collect it systematically and use ruling out variables. Giving an anecdote along with other evidence is incredibly common in medical science. That said, WTF? You ignored the whole post except that one anecdote. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The problem with ignoring the socialism label is it triggers a whole slew of voters to run in terror. My brother who isn't particularly political told me years ago that "Obama is a socialist" and nothing I could say would make him change that view. And neither Warren nor Sanders have countered the threat the cost of Medicare for all is being cited as. They can be as right as rain but if the messaging fails then no one will know it. The (right-wing) Hill 2018: Poll: Majority of Americans say they would not vote for a 'socialist' Quote: In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would vote for a socialist candidate. From StartPage Search, take your pick: Quote: New poll: Capitalism is more popular than socialism - The ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...han-socialism/ Jun 25, 2019 ... New poll: Capitalism is more popular than socialism. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at the Poor People's Moral Action Congress ... Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds \| US ... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ism-poll-axios Jun 10, 2019 ... Axios poll says 55% of women aged 18-54 prefer socialism but ... Donald Trump has frequently railed against socialism as he gears up to bid... Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism - Gallup News https://news.gallup.com/poll/257639/...socialism.aspx May 20, 2019 ... Those results contrast with a 1942 Roper/Fortune survey that found 40% describing socialism as a bad thing, 25% a good thing and 34% not ... U.S. Support for More Government Inches Up, but Not for Socialism https://news.gallup.com/poll/268295/...socialism.aspx Nov 18, 2019 ... While Americans continue to evaluate socialism negatively, they have become ... Gallup conducted an in-depth survey of U.S. attitudes toward ... people's lives and "1" indicates they favor government providing only the most ... How Republicans, Democrats view socialism and capitalism \| Pew ... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...sm-capitalism/ Jun 25, 2019 ... Republicans express intensely negative views of “socialism” and very ... capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%), according to a new survey by Pew ... Mirroring the age divide among the public overall, younger people in both ... The attitude is changing, but not enough. It risks people holding their noses and voting for Trump.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 13th January 2020 at 07:32 PM.

13th January 2020, 07:16 PM	#363
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Belz... Yeah but if that applies to everyone else as well, why would it be relevant? There's a Bob echo in here.

13th January 2020, 07:19 PM	#365
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections. Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party... My view is that every election is unique, and every candidate is unique. Even the same candidate is different when they're an incumbent rather than a challenger. Certain patterns can be observed, but they don't lead to reliable conclusions based on past performance. There's nothing FDR can really tell us about the viability of a non-"moderate" candidate today.

13th January 2020, 07:28 PM	#368
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Belz... You know, all you needed to do was say, for instance, that Booker was worse than the others in that respect, in your opinion, and that would've done it. But instead you turn it immediately personal. You can't even tolerate a minor challenge to one of your claims. So maybe he wasn't worse than the others in that respect. Hold on here, Booker being worse or not worse was not what I said. I said what I meant, "Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off." Not sure what's hard to understand there.

13th January 2020, 07:35 PM	#369
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,840	Originally Posted by Brainster The idea is for the plebs to give up travel, not important bigshots like AOC and Joe Biden. They can jet around all they want; once they are elected they can stop the rise of the seas just by telling the media not to write about it. Oh, dear, now acbytesla has another stupid post to consider.

13th January 2020, 07:38 PM	#370
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,972	Originally Posted by theprestige There's nothing FDR can really tell us about the viability of a non-"moderate" candidate today. I dunno, if FDR returned from the afterlife to dish on the current candidates I think we should give him a listen. I'm not saying we should take what he says as gospel, I'm just saying it'd be worth listening to.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

13th January 2020, 07:44 PM	#371
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,030	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey if FDR returned from the afterlife to dish on the current candidates I think we should give him a listen. I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

13th January 2020, 07:59 PM	#372
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 58,972	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless. FDR was a politician. There's no reason to suppose he'd lose interest in his own field that was such a large part of his life just because he'd died. Do you think Shakespeare wouldn't be interested in talking about theater, or Lister about medicine, or Walt Disney about cryogenics?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

13th January 2020, 08:16 PM	#373
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,861	FDR would tell Bernie he's being too soft on his opponents and the establishment.

13th January 2020, 08:25 PM	#374
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,986	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections. Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party... Different time, different person. Go back and look at the 1932 Presidential election. Hoover had no chance winning reelection after the Bonus Army incident. He was hardly welcome in public. He very often had things thrown at him. And it's kind of hard to believe, but Roosevelt originally ran on belt tightening. You simply can't compare one election to the next without taking into consideration one hell of a lot of variables. I'm convinced the right candidate can win almost regardless of the policies they espouse. And I dont care how great your solutions might be if you stink at selling it. And the times matter. I really don't think elections are won or lost on policy positions. I think they are won based on the persuasive capabilities of the candidate more than anything. Trump is a policy and principle moron. He barely knows anything about anything. Hillary was the greatest political wonk I've ever seen. She knows issues and government probably better than anyone running for POTUS in the last 100 years or more. This should have been a landslide victory for her. That it was not was because Hillary couldn't sell.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 13th January 2020 at 08:26 PM.

13th January 2020, 08:31 PM	#375
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger For the record about that bolded part, anecdotal evidence is used all the time. You simply collect it systematically and use ruling out variables. Giving an anecdote along with other evidence is incredibly common in medical science. Evidence of what? That some people refuse to vote for socialists? I accept that as obvious, the evidence is literally self evident. On the other hand: Evidence that socialists are unelectable? Then it's a bad choice, as I claimed: Obama won. Twice. And therefore it is not evidence of unelectability.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

13th January 2020, 09:05 PM	#376
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Cabbage Evidence of what? That some people refuse to vote for socialists? I accept that as obvious, the evidence is literally self evident. On the other hand: Evidence that socialists are unelectable? Then it's a bad choice, as I claimed: Obama won. Twice. And therefore it is not evidence of unelectability. My brother didn't vote for him. Let it go Cab. I am not your enemy. If you have some counter evidence, that the voting public in the US is ready to elect a socialist, does not think socialism is a dirty word, and/or that it's a positive for a candidate and not a negative, let's see it.

13th January 2020, 09:44 PM	#377
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by acbytesla I had that problem with Beto. This is why I really like Warren. She has serious ideas on how we should address certain issues. Sometimes I think she is very wrong. But I have to give her credit for thinking about them. Even moreso, HOW she works to make her plans is one of the best things about her, I think. Originally Posted by dudalb And I don't get the Warren/Sanders feud. The better question here is... what feud? Quite literally, at last check, Bernie's pretty much outright forbidden his campaign members from attacking Warren, with penalty attached. I think Warren's done similar, but I haven't looked beyond the pointed instructions not to attack. That doesn't mean that their supporters won't cynically or otherwise go after the other, of course, but it makes it pretty clear that talk of a "feud" is nonsense. Originally Posted by Ziggurat That is precisely the reason for the feud. They're fighting for the same pool of supporters. It may surprise you how very distinctly different and complex their pools of supporters actually are, contrary to the narrative that much of the media is trying to sell. The whole "moderate vs. progressive" narrative is overwhelmingly overblown compared to the facts at hand, either way, last I checked... and honestly, I strongly suspect that that's just yet another one of the many ploys by the corporate media to try to reduce or limit support for the actually left leaning Democrats. A bit like CNN tacking on a video of a completely unrelated Democrat getting busted for corruption into an article about AOC that had nothing to do with any crime, but much louder.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 13th January 2020 at 09:47 PM.

13th January 2020, 11:35 PM	#378
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My brother didn't vote for him. Let it go Cab. I am not your enemy. If you have some counter evidence, that the voting public in the US is ready to elect a socialist, does not think socialism is a dirty word, and/or that it's a positive for a candidate and not a negative, let's see it. I've already presented evidence that the US is ready to elect a "socialist", given certain definitions of the word (there are so many out there): Many people thought Obama was a socialist and yet he was elected. Twice.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

14th January 2020, 12:20 AM	#379
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive FDR was no moderate, and he won four elections. Tell me again how Centrists (in actuality Left-wing Republicans) are best for the party... Yes, a non-moderate was able to win in the early years of the Great Depression. Kind of like how a black man with the middle name of Hussein was able to win in the early years of the Great Recession.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

14th January 2020, 12:47 AM	#380
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Cabbage I've already presented evidence that the US is ready to elect a "socialist", given certain definitions of the word (there are so many out there): Many people thought Obama was a socialist and yet he was elected. Twice. Which post, I'll go look. If you are claiming some people believed Obama was a socialist yet they still elected him, that is not sufficient. 1) Obama wasn't a socialist. 2) The people who believed it were not a majority. 3) It bears no relevance to the election of a candidate who actually does lean heavily socialist.

14th January 2020, 01:24 AM	#381
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Which post, I'll go look. The very post you just quoted. Quote: If you are claiming some people believed Obama was a socialist yet they still elected him, that is not sufficient. 1) Obama wasn't a socialist. 2) The people who believed it were not a majority. 3) It bears no relevance to the election of a candidate who actually does lean heavily socialist. Hey, you are the one who brought up the anecdotal evidence of your brother not voting for Obama because he was a socialist. I merely claimed that was bad evidence because Obama actually got elected. Now you seem to be claiming it's bad evidence because he wasn't a socialist to begin with. Why bring him up if he was not a socialist and he got elected, then? He doesn't really seem relevant on any level--Indeed, you, yourself said so in point 3).
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

14th January 2020, 02:30 AM	#382
Hercules Rockefeller Woof! Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I don't. Seriously, imagine for a moment that you could come back from the afterlife. You know what happens after death. You know how to communicate with the living. Is politics what you'd "dish on"? If it is, your judgment is worthless. Perhaps he went to hell and only had other politicians to talk to all that time.
	__________________ Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra

14th January 2020, 03:11 AM	#383
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by Cabbage Hey, you are the one who brought up the anecdotal evidence of your brother not voting for Obama because he was a socialist. I merely claimed that was bad evidence because Obama actually got elected. Now you seem to be claiming it's bad evidence because he wasn't a socialist to begin with. To poke at this a little, I'm not sure why you think that your responses actually address what she actually said in the first place. Her anecdote about her brother was putting forth an example of a person who refused to vote for Obama because he thought that Obama was a socialist, regardless of whether Obama actually was a socialist or not. She also linked a number of polls dealing with how accepting people are of "socialism," which were of much more value in making the point. Now, as she said, Obama wasn't much of a socialist and most people who actually paid any real attention knew that (at least among the population that might have been willing to vote for him), so your response was a bit wrong-headed, both before and here. Originally Posted by Cabbage Why bring him up if he was not a socialist and he got elected, then? He doesn't really seem relevant on any level--Indeed, you, yourself said so in point 3). And why not bring him up as she did? Her anecdote worked just fine as she used it. That you seem to be having difficulty following along with what she's actually said is probably decent reason to step back for a little, reread for comprehension, and recheck your assumptions.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 14th January 2020 at 03:15 AM.

14th January 2020, 04:54 AM	#384
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by Aridas To poke at this a little, I'm not sure why you think that your responses actually address what she actually said in the first place. Her anecdote about her brother was putting forth an example of a person who refused to vote for Obama because he thought that Obama was a socialist, regardless of whether Obama actually was a socialist or not. She also linked a number of polls dealing with how accepting people are of "socialism," which were of much more value in making the point. Now, as she said, Obama wasn't much of a socialist and most people who actually paid any real attention knew that (at least among the population that might have been willing to vote for him), so your response was a bit wrong-headed, both before and here. And why not bring him up as she did? Her anecdote worked just fine as she used it. That you seem to be having difficulty following along with what she's actually said is probably decent reason to step back for a little, reread for comprehension, and recheck your assumptions. Of course I am aware that some people refuse to vote for a socialist; my only point is that none of this implies that a socialist can not be elected.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

14th January 2020, 06:06 AM	#385
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by Brainster Warren met with Sanders in 2018 and told friends afterward that Sanders told her he didn't think a woman could win. Sanders denies: Hard to believe that the people talking to CNN are doing so without Warren's approval. The feud heats up. Who is telling the truth?
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

14th January 2020, 06:22 AM	#386
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,305	Originally Posted by Giz The feud heats up. Who is telling the truth? Is this the part where Warren supporters pretend that everyone on the planet wasn't talking about the effects sexism had on HRC's run in 2016 or how sexism might be a general problem for any woman candidate? The smear that Bernie discouraged a woman from running or thinks Warren shouldn't run because she's a woman is absurd on its face.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

14th January 2020, 06:53 AM	#387
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now.
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

14th January 2020, 08:45 AM	#388
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Hold on here, Booker being worse or not worse was not what I said. I said what I meant, "Umm, because Booker just dropped out and I was posting my reaction to why his campaign failed to take off." Not sure what's hard to understand there. I understood your earlier post about Booker having a specific flaw, which is that he didn't have clear solutions to clear problems. Since the flaw is rather generalised in the current Democratic candidate field, I'm not sure then what your original point was. If it's not a flaw unique to him, then why mention it? It's really a simple question.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th January 2020, 09:11 AM	#389
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	Originally Posted by Giz Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now. Because it leaked. Coincidentally, the day before a debate, right as LEv Parnas' lawyer is negotiating with prosecutors, and the day after news of Russians hacking Burisma broke.
Donal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,332	__________________ SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense

14th January 2020, 09:40 AM	#390
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Cabbage Of course I am aware that some people refuse to vote for a socialist; my only point is that none of this implies that a socialist can not be elected. Given Obama was not a socialist, his being elected does not prove your point. What else you got?

14th January 2020, 09:57 AM	#391
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Given Obama was not a socialist "Socialist? He's not even a liberal." - Bill Maher
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th January 2020, 10:10 AM	#392
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Giz Well the conversation happened over a year ago, so there has to be a reason warren thought it was worth bringing up now. I don't see that she did. It looks like the news media (CNN and Politico) brought it up. bizpacreview (assuming they are a reliable source) Quote: Sanders has inched into the lead in the Hawkeye State, just 20 days before the 2020 Iowa Caucuses, and he was broadsided this week with a CNN report alleging that he told Warren during a Dec. 2018 meeting at her apartment in Washington, DC, that a woman could not win against President Donald Trump. The story cited four people as sources: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.... Well, Shakir was set for disappointment, as Warren’s campaign responded Monday evening with a statement from the senator to say the report is true and that she does not want to discuss it any further.... It was this story that first came to light: Quote: There is also a Politico report from last week that Sanders’ campaign allegedly circulated a script for volunteers to tell people that Warren’s the candidate of the elite and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” Warren responded by telling reporters she felt “disappointed,” and said that “Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.” Also, there are a slew of stories about Sanders' sexism from the 2016 Primary and the 2018 Senate campaigns. The news media almost certainly went looking for sexism given the Clinton rivalry. But Sanders made it easy paying female staff less than male staff. GQ: Women who worked on his 2016 campaign have come forward alleging harassment, sexism, and gender-based pay gaps over the course of the Democratic primaries. The issues were reportedly more systemic than just outright sexual harassment.

14th January 2020, 10:16 AM	#393
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Belz... I understood your earlier post about Booker having a specific flaw, which is that he didn't have clear solutions to clear problems. Since the flaw is rather generalised in the current Democratic candidate field, I'm not sure then what your original point was. If it's not a flaw unique to him, then why mention it? It's really a simple question. Give it up. I'm sorry you don't understand why I said what I said. It's not that hard. Your objection isn't relevant. Who cares if other people do or don't have plans for their descriptions of problems. Other candidates did not just drop out.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th January 2020 at 10:20 AM.

14th January 2020, 10:18 AM	#394
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by Donal Because it leaked. Coincidentally, the day before a debate, right as LEv Parnas' lawyer is negotiating with prosecutors, and the day after news of Russians hacking Burisma broke. Do you know how it was leaked to Politico? Serious question. I wonder if Warren was or was not responsible.

14th January 2020, 10:18 AM	#395
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,293	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Given Obama was not a socialist, his being elected does not prove your point. What else you got? I guess first we need to firmly nail down is it actually being socialist that's the problem or vulnerability to the label sticking. Because I'm starting to feel that "hopping back and forth every other go around" vibe. That describes the conversation as a whole, not saying any single participant is doing so. That makes it hard to have a consistent discussion.