2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III - Page 3

Skeptic Ginger · 1st January 2020, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

He didn't cave on Merrick Garland and the nation was further divided. He announced that he would proceed to approve a nomination in 2020 should that possibility arise, thereby further dividing the nation. Moscow Mitch is a disaster. Getting rid of him is ~~second only to~~ tied with getting rid of Trump.

theprestige · 1st January 2020, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

"Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

Who's the unjust man, though?

I'm not asking anyone to meet me in the middle. I'm saying I'm considering taking several steps towards the middle myself. I've got what I think are a couple good reasons for doing so, and I'm wondering if there are any Dem candidates who are somewhat close to the middle, from the other side. This seems like it's worth discussing.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH

tyr_13 · 1st January 2020, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Independents like me pay attention to both parties on a state as well as national basis. In New Hampshire the largest voting block is Indie (unaffiliated).

Most independents vote for one party around 90% of the time. The 'getable' independents are not as large a group as you might believe, and hasn't really changed since the 50s.

Also, you are not like most independents in another way; most of everyone doesn't pay much attention to politics actively. Indeed, self-reporting isn't even a very good indication one actually does pay much attention. Remember that 70% of Republicans and 60 something % of independents claim to be paying 'close attention' to the impeachment inquiry, but most are abjectly ignorant of the most basics points of it. Saying one is paying attention and actually paying attention are just not the same thing.

Again, that she does well with the people least likely to know much at all about her or are least likely to vote for a Dem is not a good metric.

angrysoba · 1st January 2020, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Among people least likely to know much about her and least likely to vote for any Dem, she does well.

Not exactly the best indicator.

I don’t know much about her and I can’t vote, but I would definitely rather see her face on the news everyday instead of that moron who currently sits in the Oval Office.

BrooklynBaby · 1st January 2020, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I have heard from others in real-life that liberals hate conservatives. I see it just the opposite. So I have picked a metric to guage the problem: deaths caused by each side because killing someone over politics seems to me to be the ultimate manifestation of hate. So, give me two numbers BrooklynBaby:

Deaths by conservatives motivated at least in part by politics
Deaths by liberals motivated at least in part by politics

I have my answers ready but will wait for your reply so as to avoid contaminating your response.

ETA: To keep it simple, consider the USA only.

My response is your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

Cabbage · 1st January 2020, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

My response is your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

Actually, it's entirely relevant:

Your comment was

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

No one is going to heal the divide in the country because it is the corrupt mainstream media that is the driving force of hatred toward conservatives/Republicans.

...but this is quite debatable. I, for example, would certainly argue that a much more significant force is the corrupt right wing media that is the driving force of hatred towards liberals/Democrats.

And therefore the comment you just erroneously labeled as irrelevant is specifically relevant as a metric with which to compare these driving forces from the competing media. Of course, it's certainly not the only possible metric, and I don't think it's the best metric, either, but you can't deny that it is relevant.

Well, I guess you can deny it, but you would simply be wrong.

Aridas · 1st January 2020, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

She has missed a lot of votes during her presidential campaign so she was actually not present for those (not that she voted not present).

*raises an eyebrow* Yes, that she was not there is, in fact, what was meant by "voting not present." It's also true that all the relevant candidates for the complaint have been missing plenty of votes, as usual. With that said, the general practice is to go to great lengths to be there for votes when it matters and contribute. She... chose to be there and push cowardly and nonsensical arguments to justify not taking a stand for what's right. She offered up a call for bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, not for bipartisanship in service of doing good.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

As far as her polling, she's at 1.7% as of this morning on the RCP average (9th place). In NH, where she has concentrated her campaigning, she's at 5.7% (5th place).

I support her and Sanders and also like Klobuchar as my third choice.

Okay.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Gabbard is right about a lot of things. This whole impeachment thing will hurt Democrats in the Presidential election.

I think that she's completely wrong about that, on the other hand.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

It did appease (somewhat) the hardline Democratic base, although those were going to vote Dem regardless.

I'm not sure whether to be happy or unhappy that you think that the only people being appeased were the hardline Democratic base when, at last check, most of the country is thinking that Trump should be impeached and removed. If most of the country is made up of the hardline Democratic base, of course, that would make your logic even more problematic. As for your picture, well... ignoring that the Democrats have, in fact, been fighting hard for the American working class this whole time, including quite a lot during the impeachment matters, is not a good sign of how in touch you actually are. It would be far more appropriate to have a turtle biting that hand reaching up over and over, after all, if you wanted a little more accuracy.

Aridas · 1st January 2020, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I, for example, would certainly argue that a much more significant force is the corrupt right wing media that is the driving force of hatred towards liberals/Democrats.

And, as part of that, manufacturing the impression that the MSM is driving liberals to hate conservatives, usually on incredibly tenuous grounds.

To be perfectly clear, there is NO left-wing equivalent of Fox News when it comes to, to use the words of Tobin Smith, long time contributor and insider at Fox News, tribal hate porn. None. Even MSNBC, which is loudly touted as being very partisan in favor of Democrats, mostly as a "see, we're not the only partisans" thing with some very limited truth to that, isn't even remotely in the same league.

Venom · 1st January 2020, 07:28 PM

There's no comparison, I agree.

Even if Obama had Eric Holder meet with Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or the Comcast CEO in private.

SezMe · 1st January 2020, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Independents like me pay attention to both parties on a state as well as national basis.

You're making the mistake of equating political independents with people like you who entertain the positions of both sides, then vote accordingly. Most (nearly all?) independents are such because they don't give a **** about politics and don't bother to vote.

Moreover, while you may pay a lot of political attention, in even numbered years there can be city, county, state and national offices to vote in. There may also be city, county and state judges up for election. There may be city, county and state ballot propositions to vote on, some of which can be quite complex. Even a political junkie cannot be well informed about all of the above.

Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool".

SezMe · 1st January 2020, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Who's the unjust man, though?

I didn't see that as a comment about you personally, at all. Rather, I saw it as a allegory where the "unjust man" is one political party who won't engage the other in honest negotiations. Now, one could paint the Dems or the GOP in that role depending on one's political perspective but the allegory works just the same.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not asking anyone to meet me in the middle. I'm saying I'm considering taking several steps towards the middle myself. I've got what I think are a couple good reasons for doing so, and I'm wondering if there are any Dem candidates who are somewhat close to the middle, from the other side. This seems like it's worth discussing.

It is. Even though I've used up my quota of snark in response to some of your comments, I see you as an honest political observer who differs substantially from my view. That should not prevent us from engaging each other. If I've been one who has interfered with such a dialog, I apologize; let's start over.

Originally Posted by theprestige

What I don't understand is why you are lying about what I'm saying. The unjust man in this conversation isn't me.

True, as I said. Try reading it as the allegory I mentioned above rather than as a personal comment about you..

RoseMontague · 2nd January 2020, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

I'm not sure whether to be happy or unhappy that you think that the only people being appeased were the hardline Democratic base when, at last check, most of the country is thinking that Trump should be impeached and removed. If most of the country is made up of the hardline Democratic base, of course, that would make your logic even more problematic. As for your picture, well... ignoring that the Democrats have, in fact, been fighting hard for the American working class this whole time, including quite a lot during the impeachment matters, is not a good sign of how in touch you actually are. It would be far more appropriate to have a turtle biting that hand reaching up over and over, after all, if you wanted a little more accuracy.

Actually, no. Latest average is a tie...

ETA..RCP allows you to break it down further along party lines. A majority of both Repubs and Indies oppose.

Aridas · 2nd January 2020, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Actually, no. Latest average is a tie...

ETA..RCP allows you to break it down further along party lines. A majority of both Repubs and Indies oppose.

Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied. A majority support the impeachment inquiry itself and a plurality support impeachment and removal. Still, yes, it looks like most independents don't support such and not too many Republicans. The relative lack of Republican support is of no surprise whatsoever, of course. As for independents, that's a much more difficult group to gauge, given that independents, in this case, are simply the people who aren't officially Democrats or Republicans, and that they're not doesn't really doesn't say much of anything useful about them. Nearly 20% of independents are people who are largely disengaged from politics, for example. That, alone would be a notable skewing factor, before getting to the rest.

RoseMontague · 2nd January 2020, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Among people least likely to know much about her and least likely to vote for any Dem, she does well.

Not exactly the best indicator.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied. A majority support the impeachment inquiry itself and a plurality support impeachment and removal. Still, yes, it looks like most independents don't support such and not too many Republicans. The relative lack of Republican support is of no surprise whatsoever, of course. As for independents, that's a much more difficult group to gauge, given that independents, in this case, are simply the people who aren't officially Democrats or Republicans, and that they're not doesn't really doesn't say much of anything useful about them. Nearly 20% of independents are people who are largely disengaged from politics, for example. That, alone would be a notable skewing factor, before getting to the rest.

Actually, 538s numbers are based on impeachment and/or removal, Not both. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

JoeMorgue · 2nd January 2020, 07:46 AM

Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html

varwoche · 2nd January 2020, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied...

That fact check pertains to RCP editorial and news content, not their poll aggregation. I've seen several accusations of bias in their poll aggregation on this forum, but nobody has been able to substantiate it when challenged, or even tried to.

SuburbanTurkey · 2nd January 2020, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states being voting first in the primaries.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html

He's right about the absurd importance that NH and Iowa have just by being the first states to vote, but I don't really see that as the core reason why his campaign failed.

It's a crowded field. He's a good candidate, but didn't really seem to be anyone's first choice. He has polled poorly even outside lily-white states like Iowa.

RoseMontague · 2nd January 2020, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

You're making the mistake of equating political independents with people like you who entertain the positions of both sides, then vote accordingly. Most (nearly all?) independents are such because they don't give a **** about politics and don't bother to vote.

Moreover, while you may pay a lot of political attention, in even numbered years there can be city, county, state and national offices to vote in. There may also be city, county and state judges up for election. There may be city, county and state ballot propositions to vote on, some of which can be quite complex. Even a political junkie cannot be well informed about all of the above.

Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool".

Although there is some truth to what you are saying, a good many of these polls are with "likely voters", meaning they have voted previously and probably recently. Even among the registered voter polls, they cared enough to register. On the adult polls, it may be your argument has more meaning.

theprestige · 2nd January 2020, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I didn't see that as a comment about you personally, at all. Rather, I saw it as a allegory where the "unjust man" is one political party who won't engage the other in honest negotiations. Now, one could paint the Dems or the GOP in that role depending on one's political perspective but the allegory works just the same.

It is. Even though I've used up my quota of snark in response to some of your comments, I see you as an honest political observer who differs substantially from my view. That should not prevent us from engaging each other. If I've been one who has interfered with such a dialog, I apologize; let's start over.

True, as I said. Try reading it as the allegory I mentioned above rather than as a personal comment about you..

Thank you. I appreciate the insight.

I'd be more inclined to accept the "non-personal allegory" explanation, if it weren't for a couple of things. First, we weren't talking about the parties, or their rhetoric (real and imagined). We were talking about my thoughts on voting for a Democrat. Second, JoeMorgue invoked this party rhetoric trope specifically to dismiss my idea, comparing me to an abusive spouse in the process. Other members then started riffing on that theme.

So it seems to me that it was a strawman, deployed to dismiss my idea, insult me to my face, and shout down any attempt at discussion.

Tyr gets a minor pass because apparently he has me on soft ignore, and just doesn't trust me anyway.

RoseMontague · 2nd January 2020, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool".

To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another.

Brainster · 2nd January 2020, 01:46 PM

Fourth quarter fundraising numbers:

Bernie Sanders: $34.5 million
Pete Buttigieg: $24.7 million
Joe Biden: $22.7 million
Andrew Yang: $16.5 million

Apparently Warren hasn't announced a total yet, but she was at about $17 million a week ago.

BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses? Think about how profoundly undemocratic they are: They require a full evening (on a school night in the middle of winter, no less), which means no young parents without hiring a babysitter. If your preferred candidate does not get at least 15% of the vote in your individual caucus, you either have to switch to another candidate or leave. The hard part here is that if your preferred candidate is doing well in other caucuses, you may be undercutting them by switching.

theprestige · 2nd January 2020, 01:50 PM

Party primaries aren't the same as general elections

angrysoba · 2nd January 2020, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Party primaries aren't the same as general elections

No, they are opportunities to model democratic processes that ought to be adopted by the country. To show the rest of America that antiquated processes can be replaced by something more representative and fairer.

theprestige · 2nd January 2020, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

No, they are opportunities to model democratic processes that ought to be adopted by the country. To show the rest of America that antiquated processes can be replaced by something more representative and fairer.

I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared.

In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision.

acbytesla · 2nd January 2020, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Fourth quarter fundraising numbers:

Bernie Sanders: $34.5 million
Pete Buttigieg: $24.7 million
Joe Biden: $22.7 million
Andrew Yang: $16.5 million

Apparently Warren hasn't announced a total yet, but she was at about $17 million a week ago.

BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses? Think about how profoundly undemocratic they are: They require a full evening (on a school night in the middle of winter, no less), which means no young parents without hiring a babysitter. If your preferred candidate does not get at least 15% of the vote in your individual caucus, you either have to switch to another candidate or leave. The hard part here is that if your preferred candidate is doing well in other caucuses, you may be undercutting them by switching.

As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates.

JoeMorgue · 2nd January 2020, 07:04 PM

How the parties run their own internal screening processes (I actually think calling me 'elections' and using associated terminology in reference to them is bad, although I get that it is the established and common way of doing it) is a red herring, it's not the problem.

If the GOP and Dems want to pick their candidate by double elimination poker tournaments, more power to them.

The problem is in an ingrained two party system enabled by first past the post voting that makes them the only viable candidates.

Arcade22 · 2nd January 2020, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html

Quote:

“Some of the people we targeted are people who literally don’t ever vote and could never get included in the political process, people like homeless people,” said a former aide who was laid off when the campaign shuttered its staff in New Hampshire and South Carolina to prioritize Iowa and Nevada.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...primary-093079

Targeting homeless people and others "who literally don’t ever vote" sounds like an very good strategy... but only if you offer them gifts in return and are willing to drive them to voting place.

JoeMorgue · 2nd January 2020, 07:20 PM

"You get in power and then help the powerless, not try and use the powerless to get into power because of ya know the whole 'powerless' thing" is one of those things a lot of Democrats are still having trouble grasping.

angrysoba · 2nd January 2020, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared.

In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision.

Well, there is. I am an outside observer.

Brainster · 2nd January 2020, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates.

Here's something the Democrats could change by themselves to improve fairness and the response, predictably is a tu quoque. I realize it's not as sexy as eliminating the electoral college, combining a few states and getting rid of the Senate, but it is something that is actually achievable, unlike those pipedreams.

And you might want to consider caring about the Iowa caucuses; since 2000 the winner in Iowa has gone on to be the Democratic nominee every time.

d4m10n · 2nd January 2020, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Here's something the Democrats could change by themselves to improve fairness...

Except that any attempt to change the status quo will result in a mass uprising by whomever perceives themselves as disadvantaged thereby.

Suppose you move Nevada to the front of the queue, now what will the Bernie bros do?

Ziggurat · 2nd January 2020, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html

Castro’s Campaign Fails As Democrats Realize His First Name Isn’t Fidel

It's satire... but is it really?

Aridas · 2nd January 2020, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

That fact check pertains to RCP editorial and news content, not their poll aggregation. I've seen several accusations of bias in their poll aggregation on this forum, but nobody has been able to substantiate it when challenged, or even tried to.

Oh? You're saying that it's a situation like Fox's polling? Where the polling itself is rated highly, but Fox puts inane, highly partisan spin on it when it talks about it?

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Actually, 538s numbers are based on impeachment and/or removal, Not both. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Err, not quite. That's only if you're going by the short-hand. To poke at the definitions that they give for the categories -

Impeach = "Polls asking if Congress should impeach/impeach and remove Trump"

Remove = "Polls asking if Congress should remove Trump"

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another.

That is a nice advantage. It'd be nice if it were all states like that, either way. I'm in a state where it's only Democrats for Democrats and Republicans for Republicans.

Originally Posted by Brainster

BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses?

Honestly, I've only really seen unhappiness and complaints when it comes to them from liberal Democrats. You mentioned some of the reasons, too. So the simple answer there is... they don't defend Iowa caucuses. To repeat, I don't think I've seen any liberal Democrats defend them. Feel free to point me at any if you come across them, though.

In other news...

Mmm. Warren's newest plan deals with people with disabilities.

To poke at a couple things it addresses -

Quote:

And government-sanctioned pay discrimination exploits workers with disabilities by allowing employers to pay people with disabilities subminimum wages - some wages as low as 4 cents per hour.

That's... even worse than prison wages in many states, which tend to be more like 20 cents to a bit over a dollar.

Quote:

To build economic security for people with disabilities, we must also rewrite the rules of government programs that trap them in poverty. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are meant to provide financial security to people with disabilities when they are unable to work or are facing structural barriers to engaging in the workforce. But low monthly payments and punitive eligibility terms trap beneficiaries in poverty, punish them for receiving support from friends and family, and can even force them to choose between critical benefits and marrying the person they love.

Yeah, I've lived with a person with a disability before who was too afraid of losing their limited benefits to transition to independence. While he was more motivated to try to better himself, he pretty much ran into the threat of losing the aid and helpers that he depended on and decisively quit his second job.

Cabbage · 3rd January 2020, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared.

In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision.

Wanting a fairer system is most certainly not idealism, it's simple common sense. Now, optimism that it can actually be accepted by enough parties, that may be idealism, but not merely desiring such a system.

ChristianProgressive · 3rd January 2020, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

To that headline, my response is simple.

Not impeaching and removing Trump is likely to cause even greater lasting damage to America.

Of course, on that line, it's well worth noting that plenty of damage has already been done, and that has a fair bit to do with the corrupting of the GOP.

The GOP has always been corrupt. Conservatism IS corrupt at its core.

ChristianProgressive · 3rd January 2020, 03:26 AM

Why is there so little attention paid to Tom Steyer? He has the economic credentials of Buffett as a successful businessman WIHTOUT the elitist overtones, and none of the problematic aspects of Gabbard and Buttigeig's ties to big money and racism.

Venom · 3rd January 2020, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Why is there so little attention paid to Tom Steyer? He has the economic credentials of Buffett as a successful businessman WIHTOUT the elitist overtones, and none of the problematic aspects of Gabbard and Buttigeig's ties to big money and racism.

He doesn't command attention.

Belz... · 3rd January 2020, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Nope.

Yeah, why start acting rationally now?

Belz... · 3rd January 2020, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Biden said we're all dead if we don't get rid of fossil fuels

He doesn't know that for a fact.

But there's a non-zero chance that he's right. But keep testing the limits of the ecosystem, go ahead.

Belz... · 3rd January 2020, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Possible maybe

Wow, Tulsi's groupies are really cult-like, aren't they?

1st January 2020, 01:45 PM	#83
tyr_13 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 16,362	Originally Posted by RoseMontague Independents like me pay attention to both parties on a state as well as national basis. In New Hampshire the largest voting block is Indie (unaffiliated). Most independents vote for one party around 90% of the time. The 'getable' independents are not as large a group as you might believe, and hasn't really changed since the 50s. Also, you are not like most independents in another way; most of everyone doesn't pay much attention to politics actively. Indeed, self-reporting isn't even a very good indication one actually does pay much attention. Remember that 70% of Republicans and 60 something % of independents claim to be paying 'close attention' to the impeachment inquiry, but most are abjectly ignorant of the most basics points of it. Saying one is paying attention and actually paying attention are just not the same thing. Again, that she does well with the people least likely to know much at all about her or are least likely to vote for a Dem is not a good metric.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

1st January 2020, 04:39 PM	#84
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,005	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Among people least likely to know much about her and least likely to vote for any Dem, she does well. Not exactly the best indicator. I don’t know much about her and I can’t vote, but I would definitely rather see her face on the news everyday instead of that moron who currently sits in the Oval Office.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

1st January 2020, 05:45 PM	#85
BrooklynBaby Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 1,106	Originally Posted by SezMe I have heard from others in real-life that liberals hate conservatives. I see it just the opposite. So I have picked a metric to guage the problem: deaths caused by each side because killing someone over politics seems to me to be the ultimate manifestation of hate. So, give me two numbers BrooklynBaby: Deaths by conservatives motivated at least in part by politics Deaths by liberals motivated at least in part by politics I have my answers ready but will wait for your reply so as to avoid contaminating your response. ETA: To keep it simple, consider the USA only. My response is your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

1st January 2020, 06:39 PM	#86
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby My response is your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Actually, it's entirely relevant: Your comment was Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby No one is going to heal the divide in the country because it is the corrupt mainstream media that is the driving force of hatred toward conservatives/Republicans. ...but this is quite debatable. I, for example, would certainly argue that a much more significant force is the corrupt right wing media that is the driving force of hatred towards liberals/Democrats. And therefore the comment you just erroneously labeled as irrelevant is specifically relevant as a metric with which to compare these driving forces from the competing media. Of course, it's certainly not the only possible metric, and I don't think it's the best metric, either, but you can't deny that it is relevant. Well, I guess you can deny it, but you would simply be wrong.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

1st January 2020, 06:59 PM	#87
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by RoseMontague She has missed a lot of votes during her presidential campaign so she was actually not present for those (not that she voted not present). raises an eyebrow Yes, that she was not there is, in fact, what was meant by "voting not present." It's also true that all the relevant candidates for the complaint have been missing plenty of votes, as usual. With that said, the general practice is to go to great lengths to be there for votes when it matters and contribute. She... chose to be there and push cowardly and nonsensical arguments to justify not taking a stand for what's right. She offered up a call for bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, not for bipartisanship in service of doing good. Originally Posted by RoseMontague As far as her polling, she's at 1.7% as of this morning on the RCP average (9th place). In NH, where she has concentrated her campaigning, she's at 5.7% (5th place). I support her and Sanders and also like Klobuchar as my third choice. Okay. Originally Posted by RoseMontague Gabbard is right about a lot of things. This whole impeachment thing will hurt Democrats in the Presidential election. I think that she's completely wrong about that, on the other hand. Originally Posted by RoseMontague It did appease (somewhat) the hardline Democratic base, although those were going to vote Dem regardless. I'm not sure whether to be happy or unhappy that you think that the only people being appeased were the hardline Democratic base when, at last check, most of the country is thinking that Trump should be impeached and removed. If most of the country is made up of the hardline Democratic base, of course, that would make your logic even more problematic. As for your picture, well... ignoring that the Democrats have, in fact, been fighting hard for the American working class this whole time, including quite a lot during the impeachment matters, is not a good sign of how in touch you actually are. It would be far more appropriate to have a turtle biting that hand reaching up over and over, after all, if you wanted a little more accuracy.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 1st January 2020 at 07:17 PM.

1st January 2020, 01:28 PM	#81
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,883	Originally Posted by SezMe He didn't cave on Merrick Garland and the nation was further divided. He announced that he would proceed to approve a nomination in 2020 should that possibility arise, thereby further dividing the nation. Moscow Mitch is a disaster. Getting rid of him is ~~second only to~~ tied with getting rid of Trump.

1st January 2020, 07:16 PM	#88
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by Cabbage I, for example, would certainly argue that a much more significant force is the corrupt right wing media that is the driving force of hatred towards liberals/Democrats. And, as part of that, manufacturing the impression that the MSM is driving liberals to hate conservatives, usually on incredibly tenuous grounds. To be perfectly clear, there is NO left-wing equivalent of Fox News when it comes to, to use the words of Tobin Smith, long time contributor and insider at Fox News, tribal hate porn. None. Even MSNBC, which is loudly touted as being very partisan in favor of Democrats, mostly as a "see, we're not the only partisans" thing with some very limited truth to that, isn't even remotely in the same league.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

1st January 2020, 07:28 PM	#89
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,861	There's no comparison, I agree. Even if Obama had Eric Holder meet with Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or the Comcast CEO in private.

1st January 2020, 08:19 PM	#90
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,840	Originally Posted by RoseMontague Independents like me pay attention to both parties on a state as well as national basis. You're making the mistake of equating political independents with people like you who entertain the positions of both sides, then vote accordingly. Most (nearly all?) independents are such because they don't give a **** about politics and don't bother to vote. Moreover, while you may pay a lot of political attention, in even numbered years there can be city, county, state and national offices to vote in. There may also be city, county and state judges up for election. There may be city, county and state ballot propositions to vote on, some of which can be quite complex. Even a political junkie cannot be well informed about all of the above. Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool".

1st January 2020, 08:29 PM	#91
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 24,840	Originally Posted by theprestige Who's the unjust man, though? I didn't see that as a comment about you personally, at all. Rather, I saw it as a allegory where the "unjust man" is one political party who won't engage the other in honest negotiations. Now, one could paint the Dems or the GOP in that role depending on one's political perspective but the allegory works just the same. Originally Posted by theprestige I'm not asking anyone to meet me in the middle. I'm saying I'm considering taking several steps towards the middle myself. I've got what I think are a couple good reasons for doing so, and I'm wondering if there are any Dem candidates who are somewhat close to the middle, from the other side. This seems like it's worth discussing. It is. Even though I've used up my quota of snark in response to some of your comments, I see you as an honest political observer who differs substantially from my view. That should not prevent us from engaging each other. If I've been one who has interfered with such a dialog, I apologize; let's start over. Originally Posted by theprestige What I don't understand is why you are lying about what I'm saying. The unjust man in this conversation isn't me. True, as I said. Try reading it as the allegory I mentioned above rather than as a personal comment about you..

2nd January 2020, 03:39 AM	#93
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by RoseMontague Actually, no. Latest average is a tie... ETA..RCP allows you to break it down further along party lines. A majority of both Repubs and Indies oppose. Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied. A majority support the impeachment inquiry itself and a plurality support impeachment and removal. Still, yes, it looks like most independents don't support such and not too many Republicans. The relative lack of Republican support is of no surprise whatsoever, of course. As for independents, that's a much more difficult group to gauge, given that independents, in this case, are simply the people who aren't officially Democrats or Republicans, and that they're not doesn't really doesn't say much of anything useful about them. Nearly 20% of independents are people who are largely disengaged from politics, for example. That, alone would be a notable skewing factor, before getting to the rest.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 2nd January 2020 at 04:32 AM. Reason: missed a comma

2nd January 2020, 05:04 AM	#94
RoseMontague Published Author Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Elon, NC Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Among people least likely to know much about her and least likely to vote for any Dem, she does well. Not exactly the best indicator. Originally Posted by Aridas Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied. A majority support the impeachment inquiry itself and a plurality support impeachment and removal. Still, yes, it looks like most independents don't support such and not too many Republicans. The relative lack of Republican support is of no surprise whatsoever, of course. As for independents, that's a much more difficult group to gauge, given that independents, in this case, are simply the people who aren't officially Democrats or Republicans, and that they're not doesn't really doesn't say much of anything useful about them. Nearly 20% of independents are people who are largely disengaged from politics, for example. That, alone would be a notable skewing factor, before getting to the rest. Actually, 538s numbers are based on impeachment and/or removal, Not both. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

2nd January 2020, 07:46 AM	#95
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,980	Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 2nd January 2020 at 08:14 AM.

2nd January 2020, 08:09 AM	#96
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,372	Originally Posted by Aridas Mmm. I generally don't trust RCP unquestioningly. To poke at Media Bias Fact Check - RCP is center right and with "mixed" accuracy, which is barely above low. For stuff like that, 538 is generally much more trustworthy. Looking at 538, it's not so tied... That fact check pertains to RCP editorial and news content, not their poll aggregation. I've seen several accusations of bias in their poll aggregation on this forum, but nobody has been able to substantiate it when challenged, or even tried to.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. My authority is total - Trump Last edited by varwoche; 2nd January 2020 at 08:10 AM.

2nd January 2020, 08:15 AM	#97
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,305	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states being voting first in the primaries. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html He's right about the absurd importance that NH and Iowa have just by being the first states to vote, but I don't really see that as the core reason why his campaign failed. It's a crowded field. He's a good candidate, but didn't really seem to be anyone's first choice. He has polled poorly even outside lily-white states like Iowa.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

2nd January 2020, 09:07 AM	#98
RoseMontague Published Author Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Elon, NC Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by SezMe You're making the mistake of equating political independents with people like you who entertain the positions of both sides, then vote accordingly. Most (nearly all?) independents are such because they don't give a **** about politics and don't bother to vote. Moreover, while you may pay a lot of political attention, in even numbered years there can be city, county, state and national offices to vote in. There may also be city, county and state judges up for election. There may be city, county and state ballot propositions to vote on, some of which can be quite complex. Even a political junkie cannot be well informed about all of the above. Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool". Although there is some truth to what you are saying, a good many of these polls are with "likely voters", meaning they have voted previously and probably recently. Even among the registered voter polls, they cared enough to register. On the adult polls, it may be your argument has more meaning.

2nd January 2020, 09:48 AM	#99
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640	Originally Posted by SezMe I didn't see that as a comment about you personally, at all. Rather, I saw it as a allegory where the "unjust man" is one political party who won't engage the other in honest negotiations. Now, one could paint the Dems or the GOP in that role depending on one's political perspective but the allegory works just the same. It is. Even though I've used up my quota of snark in response to some of your comments, I see you as an honest political observer who differs substantially from my view. That should not prevent us from engaging each other. If I've been one who has interfered with such a dialog, I apologize; let's start over. True, as I said. Try reading it as the allegory I mentioned above rather than as a personal comment about you.. Thank you. I appreciate the insight. I'd be more inclined to accept the "non-personal allegory" explanation, if it weren't for a couple of things. First, we weren't talking about the parties, or their rhetoric (real and imagined). We were talking about my thoughts on voting for a Democrat. Second, JoeMorgue invoked this party rhetoric trope specifically to dismiss my idea, comparing me to an abusive spouse in the process. Other members then started riffing on that theme. So it seems to me that it was a strawman, deployed to dismiss my idea, insult me to my face, and shout down any attempt at discussion. Tyr gets a minor pass because apparently he has me on soft ignore, and just doesn't trust me anyway.

2nd January 2020, 10:20 AM	#100
RoseMontague Published Author Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Elon, NC Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by SezMe Finally, I question whether one can be fully independent in a Dem/GOP race, especially these days. The two parties are quite far apart. If one cannot see a difference between the two, one is not "independent" but rather has no overarching political perspective by which to make political judgements and thus might better be labeled a "fool". To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another.

2nd January 2020, 01:46 PM	#101
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Fourth quarter fundraising numbers: Bernie Sanders: $34.5 million Pete Buttigieg: $24.7 million Joe Biden: $22.7 million Andrew Yang: $16.5 million Apparently Warren hasn't announced a total yet, but she was at about $17 million a week ago. BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses? Think about how profoundly undemocratic they are: They require a full evening (on a school night in the middle of winter, no less), which means no young parents without hiring a babysitter. If your preferred candidate does not get at least 15% of the vote in your individual caucus, you either have to switch to another candidate or leave. The hard part here is that if your preferred candidate is doing well in other caucuses, you may be undercutting them by switching.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

2nd January 2020, 01:50 PM	#102
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640	Party primaries aren't the same as general elections

2nd January 2020, 04:27 PM	#103
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,005	Originally Posted by theprestige Party primaries aren't the same as general elections No, they are opportunities to model democratic processes that ought to be adopted by the country. To show the rest of America that antiquated processes can be replaced by something more representative and fairer.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd January 2020, 05:00 PM	#104
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640	Originally Posted by angrysoba No, they are opportunities to model democratic processes that ought to be adopted by the country. To show the rest of America that antiquated processes can be replaced by something more representative and fairer. I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared. In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision.

2nd January 2020, 07:01 PM	#105
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,986	Originally Posted by Brainster Fourth quarter fundraising numbers: Bernie Sanders: $34.5 million Pete Buttigieg: $24.7 million Joe Biden: $22.7 million Andrew Yang: $16.5 million Apparently Warren hasn't announced a total yet, but she was at about $17 million a week ago. BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses? Think about how profoundly undemocratic they are: They require a full evening (on a school night in the middle of winter, no less), which means no young parents without hiring a babysitter. If your preferred candidate does not get at least 15% of the vote in your individual caucus, you either have to switch to another candidate or leave. The hard part here is that if your preferred candidate is doing well in other caucuses, you may be undercutting them by switching. As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

2nd January 2020, 07:04 PM	#106
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,980	How the parties run their own internal screening processes (I actually think calling me 'elections' and using associated terminology in reference to them is bad, although I get that it is the established and common way of doing it) is a red herring, it's not the problem. If the GOP and Dems want to pick their candidate by double elimination poker tournaments, more power to them. The problem is in an ingrained two party system enabled by first past the post voting that makes them the only viable candidates.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

2nd January 2020, 07:17 PM	#107
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 6,769	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html Quote: “Some of the people we targeted are people who literally don’t ever vote and could never get included in the political process, people like homeless people,” said a former aide who was laid off when the campaign shuttered its staff in New Hampshire and South Carolina to prioritize Iowa and Nevada. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...primary-093079 Targeting homeless people and others "who literally don’t ever vote" sounds like an very good strategy... but only if you offer them gifts in return and are willing to drive them to voting place.
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

2nd January 2020, 07:20 PM	#108
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,980	"You get in power and then help the powerless, not try and use the powerless to get into power because of ya know the whole 'powerless' thing" is one of those things a lot of Democrats are still having trouble grasping.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

2nd January 2020, 07:38 PM	#109
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,005	Originally Posted by theprestige I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared. In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision. Well, there is. I am an outside observer.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

2nd January 2020, 09:07 PM	#110
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,168	Originally Posted by acbytesla As opposed to the State of Minnesota limiting the GOP ballot to one name? But I don't care about the Iowa caucus. It amounts to about 1 percent of the total number of delegates. Here's something the Democrats could change by themselves to improve fairness and the response, predictably is a tu quoque. I realize it's not as sexy as eliminating the electoral college, combining a few states and getting rid of the Senate, but it is something that is actually achievable, unlike those pipedreams. And you might want to consider caring about the Iowa caucuses; since 2000 the winner in Iowa has gone on to be the Democratic nominee every time.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

2nd January 2020, 09:39 PM	#111
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 6,081	Originally Posted by Brainster Here's something the Democrats could change by themselves to improve fairness... Except that any attempt to change the status quo will result in a mass uprising by whomever perceives themselves as disadvantaged thereby. Suppose you move Nevada to the front of the queue, now what will the Bernie bros do?
	__________________ "Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

2nd January 2020, 09:46 PM	#112
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,027	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Julian Castro has officially ended his campaign, making one final statement about the unfairness of overly white states voting first in the primaries. https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/polit...ign/index.html Castro’s Campaign Fails As Democrats Realize His First Name Isn’t Fidel It's satire... but is it really?
	__________________ "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

2nd January 2020, 10:27 PM	#113
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by varwoche That fact check pertains to RCP editorial and news content, not their poll aggregation. I've seen several accusations of bias in their poll aggregation on this forum, but nobody has been able to substantiate it when challenged, or even tried to. Oh? You're saying that it's a situation like Fox's polling? Where the polling itself is rated highly, but Fox puts inane, highly partisan spin on it when it talks about it? Originally Posted by RoseMontague Actually, 538s numbers are based on impeachment and/or removal, Not both. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ Err, not quite. That's only if you're going by the short-hand. To poke at the definitions that they give for the categories - Impeach = "Polls asking if Congress should impeach/impeach and remove Trump" Remove = "Polls asking if Congress should remove Trump" Originally Posted by RoseMontague To this last point, being Indie has it's advantages. In my state I can vote in either the Dem or the GOP primary. In 2016 I voted in the GOP primary and in 2018 the Den primary. That way I can support who I think is the best candidate, rather than being limited to one party or another. That is a nice advantage. It'd be nice if it were all states like that, either way. I'm in a state where it's only Democrats for Democrats and Republicans for Republicans. Originally Posted by Brainster BTW, we hear endlessly from the liberals around here about how we have to make it as easy as possible to vote. How do they defend the Iowa caucuses? Honestly, I've only really seen unhappiness and complaints when it comes to them from liberal Democrats. You mentioned some of the reasons, too. So the simple answer there is... they don't defend Iowa caucuses. To repeat, I don't think I've seen any liberal Democrats defend them. Feel free to point me at any if you come across them, though. In other news... Mmm. Warren's newest plan deals with people with disabilities. To poke at a couple things it addresses - Quote: And government-sanctioned pay discrimination exploits workers with disabilities by allowing employers to pay people with disabilities subminimum wages - some wages as low as 4 cents per hour. That's... even worse than prison wages in many states, which tend to be more like 20 cents to a bit over a dollar. Quote: To build economic security for people with disabilities, we must also rewrite the rules of government programs that trap them in poverty. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are meant to provide financial security to people with disabilities when they are unable to work or are facing structural barriers to engaging in the workforce. But low monthly payments and punitive eligibility terms trap beneficiaries in poverty, punish them for receiving support from friends and family, and can even force them to choose between critical benefits and marrying the person they love. Yeah, I've lived with a person with a disability before who was too afraid of losing their limited benefits to transition to independence. While he was more motivated to try to better himself, he pretty much ran into the threat of losing the aid and helpers that he depended on and decisively quit his second job.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

3rd January 2020, 12:52 AM	#114
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598	Originally Posted by theprestige I admire your idealism, but doubt whether your view is widely shared. In any case, if you feel strongly about this, there's nothing stopping you from getting involved with your state party and work to make it exemplary in the way you envision. Wanting a fairer system is most certainly not idealism, it's simple common sense. Now, optimism that it can actually be accepted by enough parties, that may be idealism, but not merely desiring such a system.
Cabbage Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,598

3rd January 2020, 03:23 AM	#115
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,809	Originally Posted by Aridas To that headline, my response is simple. Not impeaching and removing Trump is likely to cause even greater lasting damage to America. Of course, on that line, it's well worth noting that plenty of damage has already been done, and that has a fair bit to do with the corrupting of the GOP. The GOP has always been corrupt. Conservatism IS corrupt at its core.
	__________________ "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

3rd January 2020, 03:26 AM	#116
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,809	Why is there so little attention paid to Tom Steyer? He has the economic credentials of Buffett as a successful businessman WIHTOUT the elitist overtones, and none of the problematic aspects of Gabbard and Buttigeig's ties to big money and racism.
	__________________ "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

3rd January 2020, 12:16 PM	#117
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,861	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive Why is there so little attention paid to Tom Steyer? He has the economic credentials of Buffett as a successful businessman WIHTOUT the elitist overtones, and none of the problematic aspects of Gabbard and Buttigeig's ties to big money and racism. He doesn't command attention.