Total posts: 934
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Initially I thought that Sanders and Warren would compete to be the representation of the liberal faction of the party and split the electorate after a number of primaries took place, handing Biden the win by trying to compete against each other. But if Sanders gets drubbed in the first few races and drops out before we even hit the fifth contest, Warren would def absorb a majority of his base which could put her over the top.
Sanders doesnt despise Biden enough to pull the trigger and bail right away, but if his turnout is shitty enough he might realize his moment is up and bow out, which I think would hand Warren the nomination if he does it early enough in the race.... Not unless polls are somehow under-representing how much support Biden actually has and the actual turnout somehow favors him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There's a lot in your response that is blatantly incorrect so I'll just highlight the most important ones that also happen to be the most easily disprovable.
The number 2 choice for most Biden supporters is Bernie
Biden supporters have Warren as their backup choice slightly more than they do for Bernie: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Biden is leaking oil bad.
He's in the top 2 of every early state primary and still holds a national lead according to most polls: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
As it becomes clearer that he has absolutely no chance of beating Trump, it will be interesting to see where his supporters go.
He literally has the best odds of beating Trump out of any of the candidates
Biden lead average is 7.7 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
Sanders lead average is 4.8 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
Warren lead average is 4.0 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html
Created:
Posted in:
POLL UPDATE: SANDERS IS FUCKED, NEVADA WIDE OPEN
While in national polls Sanders has almost always been right behind Warren if not overtaking her occasinally, data from state poll contests are being released more often, and they paint a grim picture for Sanders.
In Iowa, multiple polls have Warren squarely at 23% or so, Biden also in the low 20's as well, with Sanders in the low teens a full ten points behind either of them.... Normally this is not a big deal, candidates can suffer losses in Iowa and still do better in the following primaries. Sander's best odds arguably were New hampshire, the second primary in the campaign which is basically an extension of his home state of Vermont.
THE FACT THAT HE HAS ONLY HIT 12% AND IS ALMOST IN 4TH PLACE SHOULD RING SOME FUCKING ALARM BELLS FOR HIM
In a New Hampshire poll recently released, Warren leads 27 points, Biden right behind her at 25 points, then a double digit drop occurs where Sanders is at 12 percent. Sanders is doing so poorly in New Hampshire that he's within spitting distance of falling into fourth place behind Buttigieg, who has 10%....
In a New Hampshire poll recently released, Warren leads 27 points, Biden right behind her at 25 points, then a double digit drop occurs where Sanders is at 12 percent. Sanders is doing so poorly in New Hampshire that he's within spitting distance of falling into fourth place behind Buttigieg, who has 10%....
The last two polls to come out of New Hampshire had Bernie up near 25%. While the odds that he actually lost half of his support in the state in about two weeks highly unlikely, the mere fact that he floundered in a poll so much should be incredible cause for concern. Warren's 27% seems inflated compared to her previous numbers of about 16% in weeks prior, but it's not a difficult idea to believe that a lot of Sanders supporters switched over to Warren, since Bernie's losses (minus 13%) almost match the gains made by Warren (Plus 11%) over the same time period.
Doing bad in one early primary can be a bit embarrasing, doing bad in two of the first primaries is catastrophic. Even Jeb Bush and all the money he had behind him in 2016 couldnt sustain him past the South Carolina primary after he floundered in the first primary contests, It's forseeable that the same could happen to Bernie if he is hemorraging his base to Warren at the alarming rate it appears to be in early contests.
Doing bad in one early primary can be a bit embarrasing, doing bad in two of the first primaries is catastrophic. Even Jeb Bush and all the money he had behind him in 2016 couldnt sustain him past the South Carolina primary after he floundered in the first primary contests, It's forseeable that the same could happen to Bernie if he is hemorraging his base to Warren at the alarming rate it appears to be in early contests.
But lets say he hangs through those first two contests. He's stubborn and believes himself, lets say he gives it a shot in Nevada and South Carolina.
He's equally fucked in those states as well
Nevada poll shows Sanders from September 4th to September 23rd losing half his support again! Going from almost 30% to not even hitting 15%... You may also notice that Warren's numbers in that same time frame has NOT moved in the slightest for whatever reason. That's because according to the poll, A WHOPPING 21.2% OF RESPONDERS SAID THEY WERE UNDECIDED
Even if Sanders is lucky enough to win HALF of those undecided voters back to his base, that still would only put him at a total of 24% or so, which would likely fall short of either Biden or Warren if they split the other half of undecided voters among themselves.... He would have to win 2/3rds of undecided voters to back him, which considering how close his platform is to Warren's is highly unlikely.
Okay so, 0 for 3 in early primaries. Fairly bad, whats his odds in the next state though?
Next state is South Carolina. Biden Country. He's been winning the state with almost 40% support since february
Long story short, Bernie is set up to get PLASTERED in all of the first four primary contests in the primary, barring a miracle turnaround in Nevada and campaign implosions by Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
From the outset in 2020, sort of...... Dems probably will have the numbers in the House, but not the Senate, since worst case scenario for the GOP they only lose 2 or 3 seats tops..... However, If you look at the senators up for election in 2022 though, the GOP could lose a LOT of ground in the Senate and potentially face catastrophic losses.....
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina.... All of these states are contests that the GOP could potentially lose if resentment at the Trump administration continues to snowball over time.... Alabama even managed to be lost to the Dems in a special senate election back in 2017, if the GOP could slip up in Alabama of all places they could definitely lose a lot of the purple swing states up for grabs in 2020, right smack in the middle of Trumps second term.
Whether or not it would even be worth impeaching trump in the second half of a second term is worth a discussion, but i imagine if the Dems had the numbers they could give it a shot just as an ultimate 'fuck you' to Donald and try to put that stain on the Republican Party for the forseeable future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I actually think we're in a period now where a lot of presidents will only serve one term...
George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and Obama all won second terms. The last time 3 presidents in a row won re-election was back in the fuckin 1800's with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe who won a second term all in a row.... After that it would be another 50 years before another president won re-election and got a second term (Grant, I don't count Lincoln since the country was still in Civil War in 1864 and weren't available to field a challenger)
Considering how candidates posture themselves mainly to be the antithesis of the previous administration these days, rather then campaign on their own merits, I also think that will factor into re-electability since its easier for candidates to get elected by comparing themselves to their foe rather then their own accomplishments. 'Ill be better then the other guy' doesn't carry over well as a message long term, but is pretty potent in the short term and has been used since the beginning of elections.
Created:
5 - She has some respectable positions on certain issues.
Every once in a while, Ivanka seems to be put in charge of a minor initiative for something that people can get behind. Paid maternity leave, LGBT protections, even climate change and healthcare are all things that Ivanka has highlighted as issues that deserve attention, which could sway independent voters who think the GOP is pulling further and further to the right to stop and reconsider. If you ask any democrat who they would prefer to have in the White House, Ivanka or Donald, Im pretty certain that the results would be almost unanimous in favor of Ivanka. Even if Ivanka only gets 2 or 3 things right in the White House under her own administration, that would probably be 2 or 3 times more than the number of things that Donald got correct as President in the opinion of Democrats...... Following the loss in 2016, the GOP released a report indicating that they needed to find ways to expand their base to remain competitive in future elections, Ivanka would be able to pull that off simply from being open minded about many things that most Republican candidates have never once even thought to give a shit about.
6 - Donald Trump could bank a second term for the future.
If Ivanka replaced Donald as the nominee, Donald Trump can still hang on to a potential second term in his back pocket for as long as he wants to. Right now is arguably the worst time for Donald to try to win a re-election campaign given the number of scandals, fuckups, and sheer firepower Dems currently have to use against him. By punting a potential second term into the future, likely after an Ivanka administration that goes much smoother, Donald could try to run for re-election again at a later time if he chose to do so, and would likely have better odds of winning if hes following up his daughter's administration that is more successful than his....
Thats all I got right now, thanks for reading if you peeled through all of this, just wanted to organize my thoughts on the idea and see where it went.
Created:
I had this fairly weird idea recently (the title) and just wanna think aloud in this thread about why this could arguably be the best move for Trump to pull off at this moment, both for himself and for the country as a whole
As part of this side gig I have (online transcriptionist: I type out shit that is heard in videos for cash) I somehow managed to score a job transcribing a gig where Ivanka Trump visited a Lockheed Martin HQ in I think Colorado as part of a meeting to discuss closing the skills gap in the workforce and stuff. The way Ivanka Trump handles herself is unlike her father Donald Trump in damn near every regard. You can probably google any speech she's given and can tell that she is at least 7 levels above her father in terms of having her shit together and being able to form rational thoughts.
I believe that if she were the one who was representing the GOP in 2020, running in place of her father, she would win the election and beat whoever the Dems put out (Warren, Trump, or Biden).... Not only do I think she would win, I think it is something the GOP should do and that America would overall be better off compared to where we are now. Here's why.
1 - Ivanka would not carry Donald's baggage.
Donald Trump has no shortage of actions that Dems can use as rallying cries against his re-election. Locking kids in camps at the border, Russian interference in elections, cozying up to dictators and alienating our allies, the Ukraine thing currently playing out, tax reform that screws over the middle class, etc. All of that are massive issues the Trump campaign has to overcome in order to get re-elected. If Ivanka is made the nominee though, everything that her father did becomes pretty much irrelevant. Ivanka can put forth her own policies and recycle the "I would have done things differently' line as much as needed to, and given how articulate and rational she is compared to her father, Im fairly certain that most people would believe her. Even Democrats I think would be willing to buy the idea that Ivanka would not have done even 7% of the stuff her father has done over time, it would essentially be giving the GOP a clean slate to work with in terms of campaigning for the White House in 2020. Should she win, her administration would almost certainly be smoother and more beneficial than Donald Trumps administration, simply due to the astounding rate of fucking up that her father carries out.
2 - The GOP would coalesce behind her and support her as the nominee.
The percentage of Republicans who approve the job that Donald Trump has done is I think around 88%. I'm willing to bet that the portion who like the President and also like Ivanka is even higher then that, and that even Republicans who don't like Trump would support Ivanka if she were the nominee. Ivanka could unite the base in a way that Trump could not, since Ivanka could play up the beneficial pieces from Donald's administration as much as she wanted while also offering her own vision on how she would do things a bit differently. Trump republicans will support her since she is from the family, and Non-Trump republicans would be open to supporting her since she is also different from her father, in that she is not a vile person and can speak in complete sentences that stay on topic, among other things..... The GOP does have a bit of an issue with alienating longtime conservatives who have been part of the party, Ivanka as the nominee would do a lot to bring them back into the base which would help them in 2020
3 - Things would be (somewhat) civil again.
Regardless of your opinions on Trump, I think everyone of all political beliefs would believe that things would be a lot less ugly and scandalous if Ivanka was the one representing the GOP in the election compared to Donald. I cant name a single Ivanka tweet that caused a scandal or ended up on the media that wasnt reported out of irony for what her father is doing at around the same time the tweet is sent out. Everyone regardless of political beliefs would also probably buy the idea that Ivanka would show a lot more restraint when it comes to attacking her opponent, whoever they may be, in both terms of quantity and quality..... if she won the election, I am also certain that things would be more civil compared to if a Democrat was put in the White House, since under a democratic administration there will likely be outright dogfighting (so to speak) when it comes to passing legislation, whereas an Ivanka administration would likely operate things more smoothly. If people prefer just having a sense of normalcy and calm in Washington more than anything else, they would gravitate more towards Ivanka as the GOP nominee since she has the best opportunity to make things orderly again.
4 - She would defeat any primary challenger from the GOP ranks.
The fact that Ivanka is from the Trump family would convince 80% of potential GOP candidates from trying to primary against her. She basically represents all the positive aspects of the Trump family compared to Donald and his eldest sons. Because Donald has such high support from the party, it's logical to assume that support would transfer over to Ivanka, arguably in even greater numbers since conservatives pissed off at Trump would find Ivanka more acceptable, and make a possible primary challenge against her unwinnable. Who in the GOP would even try to campaign against her? Pence? Lindsey Graham? You need to have a spine in order to run for president, neither of whom have that..... Ivanka would coalesce support of the GOP base behind her since she could play off the traits people like about Donald while also distance herself from him on issues where there is controversy. It's the same shit that Biden has been doing as Obama's former VP, and he's currently leading the Dem nomination (mostly)
Created:
Posted in:
The first interesting thing to note here is that the entire Senate unanimously passed a resolution to release the initial whistleblower complaint regarding the Ukraine incident. The fact that the GOP majority in the senate UNANIMOUSLY voted in favor of releasing the details regarding the scenario indicates one of two things, perhaps both:
1 - That the GOP in the Senate will not bend to every last crazy demand by the trump administration. IE withholding potential PR disasters from being released to protect Trump
2 - That the GOP are confident enough that an impeachment proceeding will not materialize out of the scandal, therefore it is okay to release it since they will just get flak for a few weeks or months before it passes with Trumps inevitable next fuck up.
Regardless of which one it is (probably both in my opinion), there simply isnt enough time to launch an impeachment process before the conclusion of the election. Bill Clinton's impeachment officially lasted 4 months, not including several additional months worth of time beforehand gathering evidence and investigating the whole thing, and all he did was have an affair with an intern..... The Watergate scandal, which is much closer in terms of size and complexity, that triggered impeachment proceedings against Nixon lasted ten months before Nixon opted to resign and cut the impeachment process short. Considering that Trump would never be able to bring himself to resign on his own, any impeachment proceedings against him would by default take up to a year or probably longer, and there simply isnt enough time to pull one off before election day.
What I see happening, if Dems are smart enough, is that simple 'inquiry's' like these to collect evidence of Trumps actions keep popping up every now and then in the coming months. There was speculation if an impeachment inquiry would be used to obtain trumps tax info, its currently being used regarding the Ukraine thing, I'm sure that Trump will fuck something else up and give Dems more ammo to dive into in the future.... They wont try to carry out an actual impeachment because that would turn the election from a referendum on trump's presidency to a referendum on the current scandal, which could get squirrely if shrouded in enough vague results like the Mueller investigation..... Instead what the Dems will do is sit on this info for a bit, keep it going with additional info requests every so often, and then should Trump win re-election in 2020, launch the impeachment proceedings during his second term.
If Trump gets re-elected, Dems will full charge go for impeachment since there would be nothing left to lose at this point. If he loses re-election, then it will probably be dropped and the scandals will just be footnotes of history used as ammo against future politicians who were compliant with the administration while it was in power.
TLDR version:
Wont happen before the election, will only happen after it if Trump gets re-elected.
Created:
Posted in:
First, what is generally considered the proper etiquette for handling a situation where someone blocks you then tries to talk to you?Second, what if anything does the CoC say about communicating with someone that has expressed their disinterest in communication by blocking you?
Oh the first one is the best. if someone who blocks you tries to talk to you, you can respond as much as you want and eventually they forget to check the conversation because they don't get the notification that you've responded since they blocked you. Its almost guaranteed you get to have the last word in a conversation before the other person forgets to check the convo. So just exploit that until the person stops tagging you because eventually they realize they're settting themselves up for constant failure/humiliation
As for the CoC and shit, it's not outlawed or anything like that so there's not much you can do to legally have them stop doing what theyre doing.... You might be able to ask the mods for a restraining order to just flat out shut down all communciation, but im not sure how often they green light those requests
Created:
Before I dive into this let me just bring up a few basics
1 - Bill Weld is a politician who is currently 'challenging' Trump for the GOP nomination
2 - Last cycle, Bill Weld was the VP candidate for human airhead Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party
3 - In his attempt to build up legitimacy for his primary campaign, Bill Weld recently appeared on MSNBC and accused Trump of committing Treason
Here's where it goes into crazy town
4 - Without literally ANY prompting from the interviewer, Weld immeidately brought up the penalty for treason in the US being execution after accusing Trump of committing it.
His literal words were:
"Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election. That's not just undermining democratic institutions. That is treason. It's treason pure and simple, and the penalty for treason under the U.S. code is death. That’s the only penalty"
Now that we're up to speed on things, lets dive into this.
========================================================================================
Of all the stupid FUCKING things that have EVER been said in presidential elections. I don't think that a single one ever had an instance of one candidate implying that another candidate/incumbent should be EXECUTED for actions they made in their tenure. Not John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson, not John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson, not Roosevelt vs Taft vs Wilson, not Kennedy vs Nixon, not even Trump vs Clinton..... NO candidate of any major or minor party has ever advocated or implied that a sitting president or another candidate should be executed for their actions.
Im sure there have been some colorful insults between candidates that might have come close to at least suggesting such a thing, but this is something entirely different. What makes this even more outrageous is that THEYRE PART OF THE SAME PARTY. Trump and Weld are both members of the GOP.
Sure, Weld could be accused of being a turncoat since he literally campaigned as a Libertarian candidate in 2016 only to then 2-3 years later flip back to being a Republican, but the fact that one candidate has suggested another should be executed for their actions is such an unprecedented claim for anyone to make that all other details are just silver linings at this point.
If a (supposed) GOP candidate accuses a fellow GOP candidate of being worthy of execution, I shudder to think what the hell happens in future election campaigns. 2016 certainly had its lows in terms of civility as most of us remember, but if we're getting this type of stuff in a primary that is already over (for the GOP at least), then it can really go downhill from hill barring some sort of existential threat that unites people together.
Created:
Posted in:
UPDATE: CASTRO CAMPAIGN IS FUCKED.
The qualifications for the next round of debates being held in November have recently been raised to higher standards, which has devastating effects for a number of candidates still in the field. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/democratic-debate-criteria.html
In order to qualify for the next debate, candidates have to:
1 - Receive individual donations from at least 165,000 people, consisting of at least 600 unique donors in at least 20 states (Not that hard to do)
2a - Candidates must stand at 3% or higher in at least four approved national or early state polls OR
2b - Or they can reach 5% or higher in two early state polls
Since diversity of donors is not a hard threshold to hit, the poll number requirements are the kingmakers. Candidates who hit 3% or higher in state polls refer to the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the first four states that will have primary contests.
Candidates who have not hit 3% in at least 4 national polls:
- Tulsi Gabbard (Twice)
- Julian Castro (Once)
- Klobuchar (Once)
Steyer, Bennet, Delaney, and all the other D-list candidates who no one even cares about.
Of the three most notable names who have not hit 3% nationally at least four times, they can still qualify if they hit 5% in state polls at two different points
- Klobuchar hit 8% in Iowa once
- Steyer hit 6% in Nevada once
Candidates who are probably free and clear to be in the November debate, assuming they can clear the fundraiser thresholds, are Biden Warren and Sanders (obviously), but also Buttigieg, Yang, Harris, Beto and Booker...... So currently 8, with Klobuchar and Steyer just needing a little good fortune to qualify.
Of the 10 candidates who made it into the most recent debate, Klobuchar is close to staying in the debate, but Castro is fucked. He has only hit 3% a single time in a national poll and needs to do so four times to qualify, and he has not hit 5% ever in a state poll..... Assuming he misses the derbate, there's a chance that billionaire candidate Bob Steyer, who jumped into the race very late and is funding his own campaign entirely, could stand in to take that tenth spot. Steyer has been spending shitloads of his own cash in Nevada trying to build up support, if he can pull off a 5% in a Nevada state poll, where he once broke 6% back in August, but has since dropped down to 2% in the state as of early September: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html
Regardless if Klobuchar can stay in or Steyer can sneak in, the Castro campaign is as good as fucked, since failing to appear in a televised debate right before the primary votes start is an essential death sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Enjoy the free win
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
People really don't seem to understand that the occult runs the world
^ To answer your question, that's the reason I resort to name calling when responding to you.... Because whenever you try to make a claim or participate in a conversation, unfiltered stupidity like the quote you said in this thread pours out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Let's say I actually value your opinion.
I dont, so I'm not entertaining your asinine claim
Created:
Posted in:
My PM's? Oh no, now people might figure out that I really like Frozen, or figure out that i only prowl around on this site when im incredibly bored!DO NOT THINK FOR A SINGLE SECOND your PMs are not being read by the people behind it!
D:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Compared to Trump im sure they would be happy with whichever candidate voters prefer, and after the debacle in 2016 at avoiding scandal where they failed hard, Im certain that their number one desire would be for someone to win cleanly with a majority so that superdelegates dont even become a factor again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but he has cut regulations, reduced unemployment, passed criminal justice reform, took down ISIS, and has been much more tough on Russia than Obama.
- Cutting regulations are only good if they dont serve much purpose and really hurt the economy... Cutting regulations like methane reduction though, which even oil companies were okay with, is just reckless and ass backwards, and this is just one of many perfectly sensible regulations that Trump decided to roll back https://time.com/5664392/trump-methane-climate-change/
- Unemployment numbers have been fairly steady now for some time, theyre similar to what Obama saw in the latter half of his presidency, where anything below 5% indicates a healthy economy. The fact that Trump has not pushed this back up towards 7% or so with his trade war with China is certainly commendable, but he didn't really achieve that himself since the creeping reduction in unemployment has been an ongoing trend since 2014 https://www.google.com/search?q=us+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS864US864&oq=us+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3556j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
- Taking down ISIS would have been a really good accomplishment Trump could tout and earn points for, had he not continued to ponder bombing/start a war with Iran and inviting the Taliban to the US to negotiate a peace deal just days before 9/11. In this case Trump took 1 step forward and two steps back.
Out of curiosity, what leads to believe Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama? After they invaded Ukraine, Obama basically greenlit every sanction against Russia that came to his table, while Trump tried to argue that they should be allowed back into meetings of the G-7 for no real reason and has really buddied up with Putin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Its worth mentioning that the amount of outcry from the setup of the 2016 Dem primary made the Dem organization massively scale back on both the number of 'superdelegates' that could be won by candidates and the ability of superdelegates to freely support a candidate
In 2016 Dem superdelegates made up about 15% of all delegates that could select a candidate, a large majority of whom flocked towards Clinton.... These were mainly the upper-party officials and elite members of the party, and they did not have to abide by the way their state voted and could endorse whoever they wanted.
Bernie fans made a massive stink about this, justifiably so, so after the election the process was reformed (link 2)
The biggest reform made to superdelegates is that 2/3rds of these superdelegates would now be tied to the candidate their state voted for.... That automatically kneecaps any ability of a 'shadow Democratic Elite faction' to swing the primary in favor of any one candidate since voters in a state handcuffs the ability of 2/3rds of superdelegates from doing anything.... Should a candidate that wins a primary suddenly drop out, its not entirely known if those superdelegates are even freed up to endorse anyone. Instead they may be tied to the candidate who has dropped out until they have made a formal endorsement of another candidate.
A lesser reform ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Reforms_since_2016 ) is that these superdelegates cannot decide a winner if a candidate does not receive a majority of regular delegates from state contests. If Biden, Warren, and Sanders all get 33% of primary delegates from state primaries, superdelegates cant pick the winner. They have to wait until pledged delegates pick from a shorter list of candidates and THEN superdelegates can get into the contest.
So Greyparrot's claim that the DNC will try to rig the primary for Warren is complete and utter horse shit..... In fact the whole idea that the DNC could rig a primary for a candidate was kneecapped following the 2016 primary because Bernie supporters were so pissed off about it last time around and demanded it be reformed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I believe that I would have supported Marco Rubio over Sanders had that been the matchup in the 2016 election, so its not that I would never support any republican since I value moderates and practicality of one's platforms candidates campaign on (70% of Sanders and Warren's platforms are impossible to implement barring sweeping wins in the Senate, which wont happen and I can explain why)
That being said, Trump has dropped the ball in my opinion on so much stuff, major and mundane, that I would pretty much support anyone over him at this point.... Alienating our allies, a pointless tax cut that reeks of corruption, rollbacks on healthcare and other policies simply because they happened under the Obama years, repeated misunderstanding of damn near everything he talks about.... He makes fuckin Ted Cruz look electable to me despite the fact that he's a religious zealot, because he is at least mentally stable and once in a while does or speaks up about something that is acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That might be the most retarded thing I've ever heard someone say
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Klobuchar does have a pretty good record but her base of potential moderates were already locked down by Biden so she never could really get off the ground.
It normally would come down to Biden and Warren like you said but Sander's continued existence in the race complicates things. He siphons off the far-left base enough to both cause problems for Warren and keep her in second, while also at times eclipsing her in support and being able to position himself as the flag-bearer for the very liberal.
In New Hampshire for example, he holds a solid lead since his home state is right next door in Vermont, and NH is the second primary of the year. If Warren cant pull out a win in Iowa, Sanders likely jumps in with a win in the next contest which can be catastrophic by Warren if the narrative shifts towards Sanders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as Sanders is stubborn enough to stay in the race and siphon off votes from the far left part of the base, Warren has no guarantee of winning the nomination.
That being said, I would support a half eaten bag of pretzel sticks over Trump at this point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because Im a crentrist Dem I naturally wound up in the Biden camp simply because there wasnt really any other option.
I am a fan of Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard, but theyre not going to break into the top tier of candidates so Im pretty much limited to Biden.
I am aware that Buttigieg is kind of near the middle and is an option, but he hasnt impressed me the way Klobuchar and Gabbard have, and I also think he doesnt really have a shot at winning even though he's doing solid in Iowa now
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Its hard to say..... Policy wise there are damn near identical and have been that way going back to well before 2016 when Sanders first became known, so it has to be something other then that.... It could be that people perceive Sanders as weak since he lost to Hillary in 2016 and that Warren might do better, it could also be that in their minds Warren represents the very liberal left. In 2016 it was Warren that people were hoping would campaign against Hillary, not Sanders, who simply inherited that potential base after jumping into the race.....
It may also be a sex thing. The fact that Warren is a woman is a natural appeal to those who put a disturbing amount of preference into the gender of candidates they support, but there is a base out there for that. It may be something Buttigieg is benefitting from himself as the first openly gay candidate to run for president.
If I had to bet on it though, I would think that its because Sanders showed weakness in previous contests. In 2016 he got blasted in the primaries in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio, while also losing out by a hair in a handful of others..... He lost frickin Massachusetts and California of all stats to Hillary in 2016, the most liberal bastions of all states in the US..... If he cant win swing states and cant even win the most ultra-liberal states, then why would voters have any hope that he could beat out Warren and Biden enough to win the nomination?.... I think Sanders tipped his hand in 2016 that he's not viable enough to win an election, which is why the left-wing part of the party is now flocking towards Warren.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay now someone is fucking with me. a THIRD poll just got uploaded during the 6 minutes between my last post and me checking back to the main site
Warren = 22% (Sounds about right based on the other two polls)
Biden = 20% (Right smack between the 25% and 16% from the other two polls)
Sanders = 11% (A little closer to the 9% calculation than the 16% calculation)
Buttigieg = 9% (Pretty close to double digits where hes been in other polls)
The poll is CNN based, so take that with a massive grain of salt, but it seems pretty on par with the two other polls and suggests the same things as well, that Warren is leading by a bit, and Sanders is in danger of falling into 4th place behind Buttigieg.
Created:
Posted in:
WARREN PULLS AHEAD IN IOWA, BUTTIGIEG ENTERS THE ARENA
Fuckin figures that after I bitch about there not being a lot of state polls for the primary contest, Iowa suddenly gets two polls for the state released the very next day.
There are some massive discrepancies between both polls, to a concerning degree, but the two polls do agree on two things: Warren is polling at 23% in the state, and Buttigieg is polling at a solid 12%
Warren = 23%, 24%
Biden = 25%, 16%
Sanders = 9%. 16%
Buttigieg = 12%, 13%
While polls due have their inherent flaws, a general rule of thumb is that when two of them paint the same picture in some aspects within the same time span, it is usually good to accept on face value. Whether Biden is in the teens or twenties, or whether Sanders is in the teens or single digits, is entirely up to speculation..... But it is a fact that Warren does have a lead in the state, whether it be by double digits or a single point, but a lead nonetheless.
If the Iowa State University poll is the one closest to reality, then it represents a massive number of implications for the rest of the primary. Buttigieg is merely 3 points behind Biden, who is tied with Sanders at 16% with Warren way out in front. This is the best news that Buttigieg's campaign could have received since their top struggle (campaign wise) is convincing voters they have a shot and can compete with the Big 3.
It should be noted that the Iowa polls results is based on 'Likely Caucus Attendees', which is a theoretical science all in itself... The poll does not reveal information about voters outside the 'Likely Caucus' range, and depending on how they made that cutoff, the poll could be accurate or very flawed.
If the Rural America poll is the one closer to the truth, then things appear somewhat normal. Biden with a slim lead in front of Warren, yet Sanders falls to fourth place behind Buttigieg, which seems nearly unfathomable to anyone who's been following the race so far. Beto O'Rourke's campaign, one thriving, has collapsed inwards on itself, going from 11% In December of last year all the way down to 1% in the recent poll. Booker, based on the RA poll, also has gone from 7% down to 1%, with similar declines by Harris who went from 18% down to 5%.
Perhaps the most interesting information by either poll comes from the RA poll on page 3, which asks which candidates voters have RULED OUT as someone they could vote for. The list is not exhaustive and mentions all candidates, but it includes the important ones
Candidate = % of Voters who have ruled them out of consideration
Andrew Yang = 64
Julian Castro = 60
Bernie Sanders = 46
Beto O’Rourke = 46
Amy Klobuchar = 42
Cory Booker = 38
Kamala Harris = 37
Joe Biden = 32
Pete Buttigieg = 27
Elizabeth Warren = 21
Elizabeth Warren leads the pack for percentage of voters still considering supporting her, but its Buttigieg who slips into second place behind her, making him one of the most likable candidates in Iowa in a field as big as it still is despite a handful of dropouts. Most shocking of all though is how poorly Sanders does. While 43% of voters in Iowa are still actively considering supporting Sanders, a beefy 46% have effectively ruled him out. That puts Sanders 3rd worst overall behind Yang and Castro.
Created:
Posted in:
It was probably because the main forum is already cluttered with a lot of pinned threads already, and adding the ban list would just add to the problem, whereas the misc forum was nice and open for stickied threads to receive a good amount of attention
Same thing happened to DDO after a while when stickied threads became a thing, so some shit started going into the misc section, including the Hall of Fame itself I believe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I wouldnt be surprised if a Dem president (assuming they win in 2020) grant him a pardon given how much distaste the american public has for mass surveillance and how most people dont care enough about Snowden to consider him a 'dangerous traitor' of sorts.
Created:
Posted in:
6 - Beto still at square 1 despite revamped campaign following El Paso.
To anyone who only knows of the political situation from the 3rd debate that happened recently, you might have suspected that Beto O'Rourke was everyone's favorite little brother who was prime VP material for the better-functioning campaigns. Despite almost unilateral praise from other candidates though, in addition to his highly publicized stances on gun control following the shootings in El Paso Texas, Beto is still going nowhere in the polls. His recent numbers were at 4%, 4%, 3%, 1%, and 4% respectively. While averaging nearly 5% is no small feat to a majority of candidates in the Dem field at the moment, he still lags behind the Big 3, Buttigieg, and Harris, and could possibly be overtaken by Yang or Booker, who recently have steadily polled at just under 5% as well.
7 - Free for all in California.
Rarely up to this point have we received polls taken from individual states that have early primary contests, compared to nation-wide polls that are the norm. The most recent state-limited polls last came out on the 5th of September, but two polls from California have come out this week, allowing for some analysis with confidence that the numbers are accurate.
Here is the list of candidates and their numbers in California from the last two state polls:
Biden = 27%, 26%
Sanders = 18%, 26%
Warren = 16%, 20%
Harris = 13%, 6% (At one point she hit 23% back in July, but has gone downhill ever since)
Yang = 7%, 7%
Buttigieg = 3%, 4%
Beto = 2%, 5%
Anywhere from 6 points to 10 points separate Biden Sanders and Warren. Biden has either a 9 point lead or is at an even tie with Sanders, with Warren within shooting distance. If Harris continues to collapse in support as she has done since the start of July, the candidate her base flocks to could end up swinging the massive state contest into their favor, with Yang, Buttigieg, and Beto playing as possible spoilers.
With California 5th in line as a primary state, the winners of contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could also heavily sway who voters in California ultimately support, as support in early primary states swings wildly based on who voters think actually has a chance of winning it all
Created:
Posted in:
Might as well bump this again now that De Blasio dropped out
1 - Warren slips back into second place
Last time I updated this i brought up how Warren managed to match Biden in the Economist/YouGov polls that I follow the most with 26% each. prior to that week, Biden was still at 26% while Warren jumped from 22% up to 26% in a week.... In this weeks poll conducted by the same source, Warren has slipped back down 21% while Biden still holds steady at 26%
Previous analysis showed Warren gaining strongly with hispanic voters by double digits, helping explain her sudden rise in numbers. This week though shows that her bump by Hispanics has vanished..... In the span of a week, Warren went from being viewed favorably to unfavorably by hispanics by the following numbers
Favorable View = 47% down to 27%
Unfavorable View = 31% to 33%
Not Sure = 21% to 30%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m1n9ik6irs/econTabReport.pdf (This week, PG 111)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf (Last week, PG 82)
It's unlikely that Warren actually made strong progress among hispanic voters only to lose the support of almost the exact same margin just a week later. A far likelier explanation is that there was some flaw in how last weeks test was conducted in terms of sample size of responders to the poll. If you compare Warren's favorability numbers from this week to the poll of two weeks ago, the numbers are nearly the same minus somewhat lower support among voters older then 45 years old.
Anyone who is rooting for Warren to overtake Biden and thinking it would happen sometime soon are, at the moment, out of luck. It appears that last weeks poll was a bit of a fluke
2 - Biden still going strong
Of the last 5 polls that have recently come out, Biden hit 29% or higher in 4 of them.... The last time Biden had a stretch of 4 polls where he was north of 30% was from the 24th to the 26th of August about 3 weeks ago. There was a stretch of time last week where it appeared that Biden was just barely treading water at 25%, but the recent batch of polls that have come out shows he is safely above 25%, even pushing 30% or higher.
If you go back into poll history, Biden has been ping-ponging above and below 30% since nearly January where he almost hit 40% in polls. The fact that Biden's support has almost unshakably stayed north of 20% to 25% for as long as it has, in spite of occasional blunders and heavy fire from debates, indicates that he will be hard to overcome from anything short of a coalition of voter bases from other candidates uniting to overcome him. Until that happens or until Biden starts losing appeal among older voters and African American voters (and even female voters) he's not going anywhere.
3 - De Blasio drops out
This almost wouldn't even be news if it weren't for how unfavorable De Blasio was as a candidate in the first place. I mentioned in a post a long time ago that De Blasio was the most unfavorably viewed candidate (58% of voters viewed him unfavorably) in the entire race, beating out Harris at 40% (for whatever reason), and Gilibrand at 34% unfavorable (who has since dropped out).
Seeing as how Harris is still polling the best of the low-tier candidates (around 5% ish), then based on unfavorability numbers, the next candidates to drop out may be Marianne Williamson, John Delaney, or Hickenlooper.
4 - Sanders back in third place.
Of the 7 polls taken in the first half of September through the 15th, Sanders polled ahead of Warren in 4 of them, by an average of 3 points... In the 3 polls where Warren did better than Sanders though, she beat him by an average of 6 points, approximately double of what Sanders averaged in polls where he beat Warren.... How much support Sanders has had has always been fairly hard to calculate due to how much of his base comes from young voters, who are notoriously volatile in terms of turnout and representation.
However much he does have, he cannot claim to be doing better than Warren as of right now. In the second half of September up to the 20th, he has only bested Warren in 2 of the 5 polls that have come out, by an average of 3 and a half. In polls where Warren beat out Sanders, her margin of victory was a hair below 7 points... Once again nearly double the margin of victory Sanders received in polls where he was in 2nd. Both were regularly 5 to 10 points behind Biden across all polls.
5 - Buttigieg almost hits 10%
Of the 5 polls that have recently come in, Buttigieg's numbers in each poll were as follows: 5%, 5%, 7%, 9%, and 5%.... Assuming that his actual numbers are closer to 5-6%, Buttigiegs performance is still noteworthy since only 1 other candidate outside of Biden Sanders and Warren managed to hit 10% in a poll, Kamala Harris on 8/25 and 8/1 in August.... I commented previously that Buttigieg may break into the upper tier of candidates if he can start overcoming 10% and start climbing, but he promptly fell back to around 5% in the days and weeks following that analysis, so he is still on the outside looking in despite coming close to double digits.
Created:
Posted in:
lol that dumbass Dr Franklin got banned again for 10 days? What he do this time XD
Created:
It might have been possible at one point, but given how incredibly inconsistent and even haphazardly the trade tariffs have been implemented and redacted over the past few years, China may not feel particularly intimidated by the tariffs at all since we appear to not even have an idea ourselves of what the goal is with them, how to apply them, etc.
Its like if a negotiator is talking to a gunman who has taken hostages and the gunman keeps changing his demands back and forth between getting an escape car, a hot pocket, a little more time to think of something, or ask that the Mayor of San Francisco conduct a press conference with his pants off..... The negotiator isn't going to know what the hell the gunman really wants, and will advise the police to stay steady and not do anything for now until future developments.
In this case the gunman is the US and the negotiator is China. They have no idea what we want to get with the trade tariffs, because of how much we don't even know what our goal is ourselves and keep changing things around, so they'll probably just wait and see for us to get our act together, rather then be quick to offer any concessions to resolve things.
Created:
Posted in:
Im not even that big of a member on here. I come on between the hours of midnight and 2am and usually just dick around in the politics forum.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually I change my mind.
The prevalence of drones and the advancement of drone tech for civilian consumer markets could definitely be abused to a point where a possible coordinated attack, if executed well enough at specific targets, could cause 9/11 amounts of mayhem.
Just over the weekend the drones used to attack Saudi oil facilities were revealed to be suicide drones / kamikaze drones (link = https://www.dezeen.com/2019/09/16/drone-strike-saudi-arabia-aramco-oil-supply/ ). A Yemeni rebel group claimed responsibility for the attack, but it's speculated that the drones themselves were supplied by the Iranians.
5 years ago drone ownership by civilians was relatively low until in 2015 the FAA started requiring people register their drones since the number of drones flying near major airports was becoming a problem. Now its expected that the drone market could triple by as early as 2023 in another 5 years, and the number of different makes and models will increase as well https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529241/faa-annual-aviation-report-hobby-commercial-drones-prediction-2023
Depending on how accessible and modifiable these drones are, and how well-coordinated and careful a group of individuals are, an attack similar to that of 9/11 in terms of hundreds or thousands of people dying could be possible, depending on how much drone tech continues to advance and be available to civilian markets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You've already thoroughly proved yourself to be a complete idiot so don't believe for a moment I would accept a single youtube post as anything close to a valid argument worth responding to.
Created:
-->
@bsh1
God dammit I forgot that creating a link on a persons name doesnt automatically tag em
Bsh ya whore, see the above post
Created:
Because if I wanna take a bite out of someones cute ass I dont have to go to a food forum to do it, I can just dive into @Bsh1's DM's
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Oh it absolutely is, which is how the Founding Fathers intended it to be..... Give a basic outline of the right (that people should be able to own guns), let future courts and lawmakers sort out the finer details later.if that's the case, it's much more open for legislative and judicial interpretation what specifically should be someone's rights
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Its such a critically important Amendment in the grand scheme of things too, its a shame more people don't know what it means or does..... The 1st and 2nd Amendments get tons of love but god knows how many freedoms and liberties have been preserved thanks to the 9th Amendment.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
For the most part, certain powers and rights detailed in articles of the Constitution were intentionally left vague and brief to try to maintain a balance of rights of the people vs power of the government...... The Founding fathers knew they didnt have the foresight to design a government that could handle issues 100, 200, 300 years after its creation, and also wanted to create a national government too weak to tyrannicaly abuse its own people, so a failsafe they built in to the Constitution repeatedly was making things fairly vague so that courts could evaluate issues such as gun rights in the future.....why would it be just implied that they meant to protect self defense and hunting? why wasn't that part explicitly mentioned any where?
For the most direct proof: The 9th Amendment itself specifies that the Constitution doesn't cover all rights that are guaranteed to the people, and that the people have freedoms and liberties that are protected by the Constitution, even if its not explicitly stated within the Constitution itself.... "oh its not in the Constitution so it can't be a right of the people", <- that line of reasoning is exactly what the 9th Amendment prevents, meaning that the Constitution was never meant to be an all-inclusive, perfectly clear list of the rights and freedoms people have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh so now I’m mentally disabled
The exact words I usedto describe you were that you were illiterate and a dumbass, but if you want to out yourself as an actual retard then that once again kind of substantiates what I've been saying all along, and effectively explains everything about you as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Stupidity deserves to be pointed out as stupidity..... If the person being stupid in the first place is too incompetent to understand their own mental shortfalls, and have no hope of being a functioning person in the future, they should at least be put on a pedestal for others to witness how not to be a complete idiot like the person in question, as has now been demonstrated very sufficiently with Pie5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It makes sense now that you have such a deep seeded hatred for English classes and English teachers since reading and comprehension are far and away your greatest weaknesses of the many you have..... How many remedial reading classes have you had to rightfully suffer through up to this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Jesus Christ, you're completely fucking illiterate arent you?
I cant imagine how much of an utter dumbass you have to be in order to view challenges + complete takedowns of your arguments as somehow being concessions and agreements, but somehow you have managed to achieve the right combination of both ineptitude and stupidity to pull it off.
Do yourself a favor, along with the rest of society, next time you think you know what you're talking about for once in your life, just stick to coloring books and other activities that help develop basic cognitive skills, because you need all the help you can get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Only you would be enough of a retard to complain about the existence of something that was already over and done with just because you have such a desperate need for attention XD
Created:
Posted in:
Point me to a source that says on ELECTION DAY not inaugural day.
1) Trump's presidency began on his inauguration day not on election day itself. Popularity on election day and any point before the actual inauguration day itself is irrelevant, especially before the person in question has even stepped foot in the White House.....
2) Your sources all compare Trump's favorability to that of Hillary Clinton's from the election day polls, not a neutral baseline standard for which popularity is to be measured, which you promptly failed to understand and wrap your brain around in addition to a vast majority of everything else in this conversation.
2) Your sources all compare Trump's favorability to that of Hillary Clinton's from the election day polls, not a neutral baseline standard for which popularity is to be measured, which you promptly failed to understand and wrap your brain around in addition to a vast majority of everything else in this conversation.
You clearly do not know what a honeymoon period is. You can’t quantify it cause it varies for each President
Sure you can quantify it. A honeymoon period for a president is the period of time at the beginning of a first term that normally varies anywhere from six to months to a year where the general public shows higher approval of a president in terms of job performance, before shifting back towards 50% as the term proceeds..... For Obama it was about a year, for Bush W it was 3 years (though the 9/11 attacks completely reset the starting points early on in his term), For Bill Clinton it was 8 months (https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx) for Reagan and Carter it was about a year, and for Ford it was about 3 months (https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx)
Trump meanwhile out of the gate started with disapproval ratings above 44%, which promptly jumped up to 50% in barely a month, and from that point on has always been underwater.
The point I made was that the numbers are inflated on inaugural day compared to what the people actually think about the President
That's not the case though..... It's simply your belief that those numbers are inflated and that Trump is more popular than what current polls imply because of your lack of understanding on where to begin measuring his popularity and how to measure it properly to begin with
Created:
Posted in:
I dont see any possibility like 9/11 could happen again within the next 20 years, let alone within Trumps term.... 9/11 first happened in part because the US was so unaware of how dangerous it could become. You could bring almost anything you wanted to on a plane, you could walk right into the cockpit without anyone doing anything, you could coordinate with other plotters with almost zero chance of getting thwarted, the US simply wasnt set up in a way to be on the lookout for coordinated attacks.
Nowadays though, America is arguably more coordinated to detect possible threats compared to any other country in the world. Subways and airports are heavily monitored, stadiums dont allow you to bring in nearly anything, suspicious telecommunications are examined to an almost infinite extent, FBI sends SWAT teams after anyone they have a decent amount of evidence against.... Even power grids and electrical systems are built-in with protections to prevent against hacking or some sort of EMP type of event..... 9/11 was such a wakeup call the first time it happened that the US is now hyper vigilant against anything that is even a fraction of what 9/11 was in terms of damage.
MAYBE technology continues to advance to the point that a handful of people could wage cyber-warfare on a nation with particularly weak defenses, but currently that time is still off into the future, and the only entities capable of carrying out cyber attacks against a country the size of the US are other enemy nations with the capacity to operate such a campaign. China, Russia, and North Korea come to mind. The chances that a random terrorist organization though or any group of people can pull off such an attack, against the US, is just not feasible currently and in the immediate future.
Created: