Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
SuperVeji4
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Posts: 671
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:40 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
I just can not imagine that the strength of the economy would not put him back in office in 2020 though. What can any Dem ticket offer to offset the strength of the economy right now? I can not think of anything that would sway voters.

If the "unenthusiastic" crowd that didn't show up in 2016 actually decided to show up in 2020, then Trump would most likely be defeated. It's really that simple. Given how the Democrats have been behaving lately however, the "unenthusiastic" crowd may still decide to not show up in 2020, and thus cause another victory for Trump. It would be the 2016 Election Night all over again...

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 646
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:44 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
The general belief that Trump was not popular with the general American public lead to the shock on election night in 2016. That same belief could very well lead to yet one more night of the vastly entertaining scenes of liberal media heads exploding on the screen election night as it did in 2016. The left can not even settle on a ticket because they can not decide who has the best chance to beat Trump. The Dem primaries are based around beating Trump, not around who best represents their ideology. That is because they have a better understanding how popular he is vs what they thought in 2016.

Socialism won't win the day in 2020, the American people do not want it. Not yet anyway, one day most likely but not in 2020. It's an oppressive system and Americans still do not care for oppression from their govt.

As far as free stuff goes that is a double edge sword of epic scale. Do you think all the millions and millions of people who have paid their way thru college or their kids thru college want to now turn around and vote for that to be free? For college loan debts to just be just erased? Want their taxes to now go to pay off those loans when they paid their own off....want their taxes to go up so kids other than their own can go to college free. They understand it's not free at all, it just paid thru taxes instead of tuition.

Free Healthcare.... How truly successful or popular has Obama Care been? People don't want the govt in charge of their health care, do not want to give up the best medical care on Earth to hand it over to Washington D.C. to botch it up even more.

Bernie Sanders is not as vile a person as HRC (he seems like a generally good guy) was to so many Americans, but his policies are even more so. Trump's position is a easy one....the economy is doing great because we lifted so many govt restrictions, do you want 4 more years of that or do you want Bernie to go to D.C. and stick the nose of govt into everything ?

Biden is the only hope the Dems have of beating Trump. Sanders would be crushed, Warren even more so. Bloomberg, well no one seems to care about him on either side, no matter how much money he spends...maybe he should use that money to buy all of America a 64oz Big Gulp soda of their choice :)

The U.K. walks away from the socialist club of the E.U. this week and away from a leftist political party in the U.K. There are a number of easy connections to make between the election in the U.K last year and the one in the U.S. this year.


Came to the thread this morning to talk about Bernie taking the lead in polling - and thought this was a good place to start...

1. You are right. The centrist Dems have their heads so far up their asses that they couldn't see the momentum Trump was creating. However, Trump was only taking people's fears and anger and channeling that into "they did you wrong and I'm going to get them back for it". He didn't actually care. He doesn't care now. He just knows it works. Bernie, on the other hand, knows how to create that momentum too - but he does it with compassion. Not fear mongering. It's working and people are rallying behind that message. That's how you beat Trump.

2. You are wrong about socialism. First and foremost, to think that Bernie's proposals are socialism are incorrect. And to think that the American people don't want what Sanders talks about is also incorrect. Most American people want to be able to go to the doctor. Most American people want their children to be able to go to college. And, often times, it's working people - Trump's base - who can't afford either of those things. Reforming our health care system, reforming our education system, reforming our criminal justice system, reforming our tax system and pledging to take care of the environment are not radical ideas. They are what the majority of American people want. They have just been told that these ideas are radical and that we can't do them - even by democrats - but when you really breakdown the issues, they are not radical ideas.

3. Also, comparing the Affordable Care Act to Medicare For All is not even in the same ballpark. The Affordable Care Act was extremely flawed, and we all knew this when Obama was rolling it out. We cannot have insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies setting their own prices. We are way behind the rest of the world in terms of health care AND education for our people. We are the most successful nation in the history of the world and we are failing in those areas. That's unacceptable. Something that you're correct about is that we do have some of the best health care in the world here - but what does it matter if our people can't afford to go receive that healthcare? I have lost family members because they couldn't afford their own health... Have you? It is basic human decency to make sure that the greatest country in the history of human civilization takes care of its people.

4. As a person who came from a poor family and had to pay for himself to get education, I think that we should be lifting up the future generations and making sure they get the education they need. The basic idea here is that we all grew up with a public school option for K-12. That is because we all understood the importance of getting a basic education. In 2020, education has evolved. We all understand that, in many cases, a high school degree is not the sufficient completion of education - most people go to college now. All we are proposing is that there are options for college and trade school that allow ANYONE to pursue those educations. I am still in debt from going to college. And I believe that we should not do that to kids. How is it acceptable that kids go into lifelong debt for the simple crime of wanting to be educated? Also, the proposal for free education is centered on a tax for Wall Street speculation and making businesses pay their fair share in taxes. For example:

For 2018-2019, here are some tax number to consider:
Amazon paid $0. Under the proposed tax they would have paid $3.8 billion.
Delta paid $0. They would have paid $1.8 billion.
Chevron paid $0. They would have paid $1.6 billion.
GM paid $0. They would have paid $1.5 billion.

Do you think you should pay taxes on your money but the biggest businesses in the country shouldn't have to? Does the American public think it's fair for them to pay their taxes and the wealthiest people in the country don't have to? I don't think so...

5. I hate to even have to say this but Trump's economic successes are simply due to timing. I was not a huge fan of many Obama policies but he did, very skillfully, bring us back from an economic crisis and crafted an economic plan that brought us to this point. Then, a businessman came into power and lifted all regulations on business. Even in spite of public interests and things like our climate. If our people are educated and healthy, they are able to make money and the economy can continue to grow. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

6. Personally, I think Biden is the one with the worst shot of winning. Biden excites no one. Biden will lead to low voter turnout, whereas Trump increases voter turnout because his base is a section of the population who don't usually vote. Biden, Pete, Bloomberg, etc. are only going to get the "usual Democrat turnout". Bernie's base is people who don't usually vote. They are working people who are organizing in their own communities. Bernie is also polling ahead of Trump (way ahead in most polls) in the states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. I think that nominating Biden is a virtual lock that we get four more years of Trump. The key to winning the 2020 election is engaging people far beyond a democrat or republican base. Democrats and Republicans are going to go and support their candidate like usual. It's the "others" who will make the difference.

Top
 Profile  
Ezadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 131
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:06 pm 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
Biden excites no one.

Any evidence for that? He's sure got a lot of support for a guy who excites no one. I know I'm pretty damn committed to supporting him and so are plenty of others-- if you're mainly hanging around a pretty progressive crowd then I can see why that would generate the impression that there's no enthusiasm around Biden.

Quote:
Biden will lead to low voter turnout, whereas Trump increases voter turnout because his base is a section of the population who don't usually vote.

Folks were saying the same about nominating moderate candidates in the 2018 midterms, but the end result was still the highest turnout in a hundred years and a Democratic wave that was carried mainly by the same moderate candidates that progressives derided.

Quote:
Bernie is also polling ahead of Trump (way ahead in most polls) in the states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

Every poll that has Sanders beating Trump in those states also has Biden beating him by the same or greater margins. And polls that have Sanders losing every time in potential swing states like Arizona have Biden either running even with Trump or beating him. If you're going to refer to the polls, I don't see how you can interpret them as bolstering Sanders and discounting Biden.

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3813
Location: eccaira nare epë Anar
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:27 pm 
 

"Biden excites no one" belongs to the same genre of argument as "no clear Democratic frontrunner." People have been making this argument about a candidate who has consistently polled either #1 (sometimes even with a double-digit lead!) or #2 for half a year as if he's a nobody that no one cares about.

I mean, national polls don't count for much in primary season, but "Biden excites no one" is still pretty rich.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:
That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:40 pm 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
The general belief that Trump was not popular with the general American public lead to the shock on election night in 2016. That same belief could very well lead to yet one more night of the vastly entertaining scenes of liberal media heads exploding on the screen election night as it did in 2016. The left can not even settle on a ticket because they can not decide who has the best chance to beat Trump. The Dem primaries are based around beating Trump, not around who best represents their ideology. That is because they have a better understanding how popular he is vs what they thought in 2016.

Socialism won't win the day in 2020, the American people do not want it. Not yet anyway, one day most likely but not in 2020. It's an oppressive system and Americans still do not care for oppression from their govt.

As far as free stuff goes that is a double edge sword of epic scale. Do you think all the millions and millions of people who have paid their way thru college or their kids thru college want to now turn around and vote for that to be free? For college loan debts to just be just erased? Want their taxes to now go to pay off those loans when they paid their own off....want their taxes to go up so kids other than their own can go to college free. They understand it's not free at all, it just paid thru taxes instead of tuition.

Free Healthcare.... How truly successful or popular has Obama Care been? People don't want the govt in charge of their health care, do not want to give up the best medical care on Earth to hand it over to Washington D.C. to botch it up even more.

Bernie Sanders is not as vile a person as HRC (he seems like a generally good guy) was to so many Americans, but his policies are even more so. Trump's position is a easy one....the economy is doing great because we lifted so many govt restrictions, do you want 4 more years of that or do you want Bernie to go to D.C. and stick the nose of govt into everything ?

Biden is the only hope the Dems have of beating Trump. Sanders would be crushed, Warren even more so. Bloomberg, well no one seems to care about him on either side, no matter how much money he spends...maybe he should use that money to buy all of America a 64oz Big Gulp soda of their choice :)

The U.K. walks away from the socialist club of the E.U. this week and away from a leftist political party in the U.K. There are a number of easy connections to make between the election in the U.K last year and the one in the U.S. this year.


Came to the thread this morning to talk about Bernie taking the lead in polling - and thought this was a good place to start...

1. You are right. The centrist Dems have their heads so far up their asses that they couldn't see the momentum Trump was creating. However, Trump was only taking people's fears and anger and channeling that into "they did you wrong and I'm going to get them back for it". He didn't actually care. He doesn't care now. He just knows it works. Bernie, on the other hand, knows how to create that momentum too - but he does it with compassion. Not fear mongering. It's working and people are rallying behind that message. That's how you beat Trump.

2. You are wrong about socialism. First and foremost, to think that Bernie's proposals are socialism are incorrect. And to think that the American people don't want what Sanders talks about is also incorrect. Most American people want to be able to go to the doctor. Most American people want their children to be able to go to college. And, often times, it's working people - Trump's base - who can't afford either of those things. Reforming our health care system, reforming our education system, reforming our criminal justice system, reforming our tax system and pledging to take care of the environment are not radical ideas. They are what the majority of American people want. They have just been told that these ideas are radical and that we can't do them - even by democrats - but when you really breakdown the issues, they are not radical ideas.

3. Also, comparing the Affordable Care Act to Medicare For All is not even in the same ballpark. The Affordable Care Act was extremely flawed, and we all knew this when Obama was rolling it out. We cannot have insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies setting their own prices. We are way behind the rest of the world in terms of health care AND education for our people. We are the most successful nation in the history of the world and we are failing in those areas. That's unacceptable. Something that you're correct about is that we do have some of the best health care in the world here - but what does it matter if our people can't afford to go receive that healthcare? I have lost family members because they couldn't afford their own health... Have you? It is basic human decency to make sure that the greatest country in the history of human civilization takes care of its people.

4. As a person who came from a poor family and had to pay for himself to get education, I think that we should be lifting up the future generations and making sure they get the education they need. The basic idea here is that we all grew up with a public school option for K-12. That is because we all understood the importance of getting a basic education. In 2020, education has evolved. We all understand that, in many cases, a high school degree is not the sufficient completion of education - most people go to college now. All we are proposing is that there are options for college and trade school that allow ANYONE to pursue those educations. I am still in debt from going to college. And I believe that we should not do that to kids. How is it acceptable that kids go into lifelong debt for the simple crime of wanting to be educated? Also, the proposal for free education is centered on a tax for Wall Street speculation and making businesses pay their fair share in taxes. For example:

For 2018-2019, here are some tax number to consider:
Amazon paid $0. Under the proposed tax they would have paid $3.8 billion.
Delta paid $0. They would have paid $1.8 billion.
Chevron paid $0. They would have paid $1.6 billion.
GM paid $0. They would have paid $1.5 billion.

Do you think you should pay taxes on your money but the biggest businesses in the country shouldn't have to? Does the American public think it's fair for them to pay their taxes and the wealthiest people in the country don't have to? I don't think so...

5. I hate to even have to say this but Trump's economic successes are simply due to timing. I was not a huge fan of many Obama policies but he did, very skillfully, bring us back from an economic crisis and crafted an economic plan that brought us to this point. Then, a businessman came into power and lifted all regulations on business. Even in spite of public interests and things like our climate. If our people are educated and healthy, they are able to make money and the economy can continue to grow. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

6. Personally, I think Biden is the one with the worst shot of winning. Biden excites no one. Biden will lead to low voter turnout, whereas Trump increases voter turnout because his base is a section of the population who don't usually vote. Biden, Pete, Bloomberg, etc. are only going to get the "usual Democrat turnout". Bernie's base is people who don't usually vote. They are working people who are organizing in their own communities. Bernie is also polling ahead of Trump (way ahead in most polls) in the states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc. I think that nominating Biden is a virtual lock that we get four more years of Trump. The key to winning the 2020 election is engaging people far beyond a democrat or republican base. Democrats and Republicans are going to go and support their candidate like usual. It's the "others" who will make the difference.



It's wealth redistribution and nothing more under these silly plans from the likes of Sanders and Warren. I don't support it and never will.

Biden is as moderate as can be compared to Sanders, he would obtain many more votes from those on the fence than someone like Sanders will. Sanders is too far to the left to get those votes.

The Dems are not going to sell that the credit for this economy belongs to Obama. Every previous POTUS has a part in the economic performance of those who follow them, but he who is in charge gets the direct credit or blame. Always been like that during election cycles.

That is my problem with socialism and like ideologies, it leads to a entitlement society where people think society owes them cradle to the grave. College debt is taken on by choice, just like home loans, car loans and many other kinds of debt. No one is owed a college education anymore than they are owed those other items. I wish I did not have a house payment, but I do. I wish I did not have a car payment, but I do. But I do not wish that the govt had provided me with those things, I would rather make the payments than have them dictate (any more than they already do) what type of house or car I can have. Hell you have that idiot Bloomberg trying to dictate soda size for this very reason, because it effects health and that in turn effect govt provided medical services. Screw having anymore of that bullshit mentality...

But I'm from Tejas, we tend to not care for govt controls and interference very much so I may be biased :)

I'm really not a fan of Trump. Did not vote for him in 2016, most likely will not in 2020. I dislike him based on his personality more than his polices though. He has done a good job to this point IMO. And he is way ahead of anybody the Dems have for 2020 IMO. Time will tell...

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3813
Location: eccaira nare epë Anar
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:29 pm 
 

If someone dislikes Trump and the main thing keeping them from voting blue in 2020 is some hypothetical socialist policies, here is a message they need to hear: none of those policies are going to become law, so you might as well vote blue anyway. Obama struggled to get an extremely watered-down healthcare reform package passed with one-party rule; a President Sanders or a President Warren will struggle to get just one watered-down version of one of their proposals passed, let alone multiple proposals. Popular mandate or not, filibuster or not, which legislation gets passed in 2021 will depend on what the Manchin's and Sinema's of the world are comfortable supporting, not whatever maximalist policy position Sanders or Warren or the Squad or the Sunrise Movement pushes for.

So, if your position is "I don't like Trump personally and I know he's too mentally unstable to have thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal, but I'm really scared of Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal," then buck up, do your civic duty, and vote blue. Because they won't be able to do the Bad Scary Things and at least their brains aren't obviously decomposing into jelly on Twitter or live television every 24 hours.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:
That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:09 pm 
 

Earthcubed wrote:
If someone dislikes Trump and the main thing keeping them from voting blue in 2020 is some hypothetical socialist policies, here is a message they need to hear: none of those policies are going to become law, so you might as well vote blue anyway. Obama struggled to get an extremely watered-down healthcare reform package passed with one-party rule; a President Sanders or a President Warren will struggle to get just one watered-down version of one of their proposals passed, let alone multiple proposals. Popular mandate or not, filibuster or not, which legislation gets passed in 2021 will depend on what the Manchin's and Sinema's of the world are comfortable supporting, not whatever maximalist policy position Sanders or Warren or the Squad or the Sunrise Movement pushes for.

So, if your position is "I don't like Trump personally and I know he's too mentally unstable to have thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal, but I'm really scared of Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal," then buck up, do your civic duty, and vote blue. Because they won't be able to do the Bad Scary Things and at least their brains aren't obviously decomposing into jelly on Twitter or live television every 24 hours.


It's only hypothetical till is slips it's way into law bit by bit. I'm not going to vote for someone who wants to do something I'm against just because I do not think they will be able too do it. No thanks..

I'll risk the hypothetical Trump starts WWIII risk than the stated desires of many on the left to push thru that God awful Green New Deal or a national medical program. The Trump concept in 100% conjecture while the latter is the stated intent of those running.

Asking people to vote for something they do not support on the chance it will not happen anyways is not a feasible strategy IMO.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9906
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:23 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
Free Healthcare.... How truly successful or popular has Obama Care been? People don't want the govt in charge of their health care, do not want to give up the best medical care on Earth to hand it over to Washington D.C. to botch it up even more.

Image
_________________
Von Cichlid wrote:
I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 646
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:47 pm 
 

Ezadara wrote:
Bingewolf wrote:
Biden excites no one.

Any evidence for that? He's sure got a lot of support for a guy who excites no one. I know I'm pretty damn committed to supporting him and so are plenty of others-- if you're mainly hanging around a pretty progressive crowd then I can see why that would generate the impression that there's no enthusiasm around Biden.

Quote:
Biden will lead to low voter turnout, whereas Trump increases voter turnout because his base is a section of the population who don't usually vote.

Folks were saying the same about nominating moderate candidates in the 2018 midterms, but the end result was still the highest turnout in a hundred years and a Democratic wave that was carried mainly by the same moderate candidates that progressives derided.

Quote:
Bernie is also polling ahead of Trump (way ahead in most polls) in the states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

Every poll that has Sanders beating Trump in those states also has Biden beating him by the same or greater margins. And polls that have Sanders losing every time in potential swing states like Arizona have Biden either running even with Trump or beating him. If you're going to refer to the polls, I don't see how you can interpret them as bolstering Sanders and discounting Biden.


Well, first of all, that isn't true. Most polls that have both beating Trump have Sanders ahead of him. For example, the National GE poll. So it's just incorrect to state that Biden is polling "even better" than Bernie. I can also point to polls in other swing states (Pennsylvania, for example) where Bernie is polling ahead of Trump and Biden is polling behind him. I can also point you to polls that compare favorability with Bernie had of Biden.

And, to be fair, there are lots of polls out there that can show you all kinds of data.

However, we all know that Biden has been the frontrunner because of his name recognition - not organic excitement. I can't see a scenario that separates Biden from being Hillary 2016 all over again. Gigantic political name, centrist who is competent in American politics. Much more qualified for the office than Trump. Absolutely zero organic excitement.

Also, when you talk about 2018, that election cycle literally coined the term "progressive wave". I do think that the election of Trump has awoken a group of people who now understand the importance of voting. I also believe that, when people start to pay attention to politics, it becomes obvious to them that the current system is broken and our government isn't working on our behalf.

The same populist message that spoke to Trump's base proves that people want real change to the government. The appeal of Bernie is that message, but through compassion instead of the fear and divisiveness of Trump.

When Trump is caught on tape saying that he was fine with Hillary choosing anyone but Bernie, that tells you lot.

Top
 Profile  
Ezadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 131
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:01 am 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
Well, first of all, that isn't true. Most polls that have both beating Trump have Sanders ahead of him. For example, the National GE poll. So it's just incorrect to state that Biden is polling "even better" than Bernie. I can also point to polls in other swing states (Pennsylvania, for example) where Bernie is polling ahead of Trump and Biden is polling behind him. I can also point you to polls that compare favorability with Bernie had of Biden.

Last three Arizona polls for Biden: Biden ties with Trump 46-46, Trump beats Biden 46-44, Biden ties with Trump 50-50. Last three Arizona polls for Sanders: Trump beats Sanders 47-46, Trump beats Sanders 47-34, Trump beats Sanders 51-49. Last three Pennsylvania polls for Biden: Trump beats Biden 45-41, Biden beats Trump 52-43, Biden beats Trump 46-45. Last three Pennsylvania polls for Sanders: Trump beats Sanders 48-37, Sanders beats Trump 50-45, Trump beats Sanders 45-44. Last three Wisconsin polls for Biden: Biden beats Trump 49-45, Biden beats Trump 46-41, Biden beats Trump 47-46. Last three Wisconsin polls for Sanders: Sanders beats Trump 47-46, Sanders beats Trump 46-42, Trump beats Sanders 47-45.

Didn't cherrypick or go looking specifically for polls that favored Biden over Sanders, I just went with the three most recent general election polls for each of those states. Same pollsters, same states, all consistently showing Biden performing better in a general election than Sanders. The same goes for polls going further back. Obviously you can't take any of these polls as gospel and they're really not that useful this far out from the election; I just want to make the point that if you're using general election polls to bolster your case for Sanders, then by the same token they also bolster Biden's case.

Quote:
However, we all know that Biden has been the frontrunner because of his name recognition - not organic excitement.

The argument that Biden's frontrunner status comes down to name recognition alone is just flat out wrong. Polls have consistently found that Biden and Sanders have the same level of virtually universal name recognition-- Selzer & Co pegged them both at 96%-- but Biden is still polling appreciably better than Sanders for the most part. Biden's frontrunner status has come from his unrivaled support among black voters, his experience, and his moderate image. It's never been because of name recognition. Otherwise he and Sanders would be effectively tied (or, if you were correct in that Sanders' approach resonates more with the public than Biden's, Sanders would be the undisputed frontrunner).

Quote:
Also, when you talk about 2018, that election cycle literally coined the term "progressive wave".

Yeah, 'cause progressives won a few upset primary victories. But the avowed progressives who won their general elections-- your AOCs, your Ayanna Pressleys, etc-- won in extremely Democratic districts that were never going to vote Republican anyway, they weren't the ones flipping seats from red to blue. Ben McAdams and Kendra Horn weren't out on the campaign trail calling for the abolition of ICE.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5077
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:31 am 
 

Hypothetical match-ups are based on name recognition. Biden has the strongest name recognition, Bernie has the second strongest name recognition. Occam's Razor. These match-ups are largely meaningless.

Aside from "America has the best healthcare in the world" which is so fucking ridiculous I'm not even going to address beyond that link, the most baffling thing in the last two pages of this thread is that someone, anyone is excited to vote for Joe Biden. There are people excited for Mayo Pete. There are people excited for Liz Warren (I used to be one until she started hedging on Medicare for All and got Third Way to semi-endorse her). Hell, there are even people excited to vote for Amy Klobuchar. No one is excited to vote for this guy: https://mobile.twitter.com/BetaODork/st ... 1037155329

They're excited at the prospect of removing Trump and bringing back the Obama years. Never confuse the two.

I guess you could say I'm excited for Joe Biden's concession speech to Donald Trump in 2020 where he plagiarizes Corbyn's concession speech down to the Britishisms and personal anecdotes :lol:
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 646
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:49 am 
 

To act as if the former Vice President doesn't have more name recognition than a senator who only truly "sprung" onto the national scene in 2016 - and everyone else in this field who are even less well known - is flat out disingenuous.

And when you're talking about the democratic primary, I think that the rise of progressives in the 2018 midterms is very telling about what people want from the party. Take AOC, who toppled a 20-year incumbent who was in line to be speaker of the house in his first ever democratic primary challenge... and now works as a lobbyist... It certainly seems to me that people want to see change in government. Hell, working class people who don't typically vote are who elected Trump. You don't think there's an awakening happening?

Also, as I posted a few pages ago (with a link to the Ipsos poll), Bernie is now polling even with Biden amongst black and brown voters.

Top
 Profile  
Ezadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 131
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:19 am 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
To act as if the former Vice President doesn't have more name recognition than a senator who only truly "sprung" onto the national scene in 2016 - and everyone else in this field who are even less well known - is flat out disingenuous.

No, what's disingenuous is to ignore what poll after poll has born out because it doesn't suit your narrative. Sanders and Biden have pretty much the same level of universal name recognition. That's just the way it is. Sanders also isn't some unknown quantity who emerged out of the amorphous mass of the Senate-- he was in 2015, but then he managed to run a very popular national campaign and now he's a household name among Democrats, absolutely on the same level as somebody like Biden. To pretend otherwise just isn't serious.

Quote:
And when you're talking about the democratic primary, I think that the rise of progressives in the 2018 midterms is very telling about what people want from the party. Take AOC, who toppled a 20-year incumbent who was in line to be speaker of the house in his first ever democratic primary challenge... and now works as a lobbyist... It certainly seems to me that people want to see change in government. Hell, working class people who don't typically vote are who elected Trump. You don't think there's an awakening happening?

We were talking about the general, though. And it was moderates who won general elections back in 2018. I do think the fact that progressives won such landmark primary victories is important, there's no disputing that-- but if we're talking about what it means for flipping seats (and states) from red to blue, it's that it was the moderates who were able to make inroads into the suburbs and win competitive general elections.

Quote:
Also, as I posted a few pages ago (with a link to the Ipsos poll), Bernie is now polling even with Biden amongst black and brown voters.

If I remember right, the poll you linked wasn't a poll of who black voters were planning to vote for, but rather who they could consider voting for. Those are two different things. The fact that more black voters would consider voting for Sanders doesn't mean that Sanders is running level with Biden among that voting demographic. In fact, an Ipsos poll earlier this month that did specifically ask which one candidate black voters would vote for if the primary were held today found that Biden had a 28% lead over Sanders. Sanders is emphatically not running even with Biden in that demographic. (Edit: That poll was conducted just a few days before Vice published the poll you linked, so they were both probably conducted over the same time period.)

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5077
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:38 am 
 

Biden is doing well with black voters because: Obama. Biden was originally attached to the Obama ticket to shore up the "accidental racist" blue-collar white union voters, as well as the Zionists (Biden has a long record of supporting Israel) who thought Obama did a muslin.

All Trump would have to do in the general (and he will) is bring out the countless black people whose life was destroyed by the Crime and Bankruptcy bills ala how he brought out Bill Clinton's victims along with Joe's fiery speeches supporting those disasters and *poof*, support gone.

Pretty much every politically engaged younger black person I know, even the more centrist ones, refuse to vote for Biden and you know what, it's hard to disagree with them.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Ezadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 131
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:58 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Biden is doing well with black voters because: Obama.

His tenure as VP to Obama is definitely a factor. So is the fact that black voters tend to be more moderate than white voters (to the tune of 68% identifying as moderate or conservative) which makes Biden-- as a moderate candidate-- more appealing. So is the fact that black voters tend to support candidates perceived to be more electable and Biden is certainly viewed as the most 'electable' candidate running for the nomination (although I personally think the whole electability concept is muddled to the point of uselessness). To act like Biden's support in the black community is 'because Obama' just isn't realistic.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5077
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:07 am 
 

I'm aware of that study and it's bullshit, as are all studies that place a person's politics on a "very conservative" to "very liberal" continuum. To determine someone's politics, you have go on an issue by issue basis, and even then it depends on how the question is asked (e.g., saying Medicare-For-All by itself gets a huge chunk of the population from both sides of the aisle, yet writing "government-run m4a" kicks off a ton of voters, and specifying that all private insurance will be made illegal obviously turns off even more). As such, some polls have stated black voters prefer a public option, some have said they prefer M4A.

There are plenty of social moderates and conservatives who prefer fiscal leftism (hell, tucker fucking carlson seems to fit here sometimes) and vice versa. I also find it quite odd that anyone would consider him or herself "not moderate." If Ross Douthat wrote an article about how Bernie Sanders should probably win the presidency, that probably tells you all you need to know about how "very liberal" Sanders is.

Example: my mother calls herself a conservative and my father a moderate. They are both in the tank for Bernie but will vote against Trump regardless of who it is.

Black voters have pretty much always decided the general election usually by either voting for the Democrat or abstaining, since they're rightly skeptical of American politicians. Joe Biden is a one way ticket to disaster because while black people hate Trump the most, they're going to be made acutely aware, thanks to a very efficient conservative propaganda machine, of how much Biden has fucked them over for decades. And unlike a lot of the smears about Clinton, a lot of this will actually be true.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Trashy_Rambo
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:04 pm
Posts: 1519
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:24 am 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
...the best medical care on Earth...


There's no way you can really believe this.
_________________
Reviews from The Sepulchre! Latest: Satan's Hallow - S/T

Top
 Profile  
Earthcubed
The Great Fearmonger

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:44 am
Posts: 3813
Location: eccaira nare epë Anar
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:17 am 
 

Bingewolf wrote:
And when you're talking about the democratic primary, I think that the rise of progressives in the 2018 midterms is very telling about what people want from the party. Take AOC, who toppled a 20-year incumbent who was in line to be speaker of the house in his first ever democratic primary challenge.


You know, AOC herself is earnest and represents real change but I'm really tired of all the constant AOC stanning. "toppled a 20-year incumbent" in this case means getting ~7.5% of her district to vote for her in the primary. That's it. That's all it took, because turnout was a measly 13%. Virtually anybody can win a primary with turnout that low when your incumbent is lazy and takes their job for granted. Her electoral mandate is 1/6th of her district.

darkeningday wrote:
I'm aware of that study and it's bullshit, as are all studies that place a person's politics on a "very conservative" to "very liberal" continuum. To determine someone's politics, you have go on an issue by issue basis


I mean, this is technically true when talking policy preferences but that's not precisely the same as partisan voting preferences. Gun politics are a very notable case where this sort of analysis fails; well over half of (and in some cases 9 out of every 10) gun owners support specific gun control policies. When it comes time to vote for president, most of them still vote GOP.

Also, I have to say, if you think the current numbers for M4A will hold up during a general with Sanders at the top of the ticket, I have a bridge to bigfoot island to sell you. The GOP attack ad onslaught hasn't even started yet; general election campaign effects haven't kicked in yet. Once they start targeting weak partisans, independent leaners, and "true independents," it will almost certainly get worse.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
On Friday I passed an important milestone in my teaching career: a student shat himself

FloristOfVampyrism wrote:
That wasn't meant as a k.o. though, he specifically targeted an area of the cerebellum which, if ruptured, renders you a Jehovah's witness indefinitely

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 386
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:41 am 
 

I think liberals who are optimistic about the chances of a Trump defeat in November are self-deluded re: the appeal and influence of white ID pol.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5077
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:52 am 
 

The messaging against M4A will be identical to the messaging against Biden's Obamacare tweaks, Pete's and Warren's Medicare For All Who Want It and identical to the messaging against Obamacare itself. If I had a dime for every time Obama was called a communist dictator and his healthcare plan a radical Marxist takeover of American industry, I could surpass Jeff Bezos. Have you already forgotten about Merrick Garland? How'd that "very sensible moderate judge" nomination work out again?

Giving Republicans an inch out of a desire to be "less partisan" means you fundamentally don't understand the modern Republican party.

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
I think liberals who are optimistic about the chances of a Trump defeat in November are self-deluded re: the appeal and influence of white ID pol.

Or just triggering the libz.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 386
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:07 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Or just triggering the libz.


for teh lulz 2.0

It never is, though. It's always for the racism. Or the misogyny, homophobia, transphobia etc. or whatever button they're actually pushing at the moment.

Top
 Profile  
Bingewolf
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:59 pm
Posts: 646
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:51 am 
 

Earthcubed wrote:
Bingewolf wrote:
And when you're talking about the democratic primary, I think that the rise of progressives in the 2018 midterms is very telling about what people want from the party. Take AOC, who toppled a 20-year incumbent who was in line to be speaker of the house in his first ever democratic primary challenge.


You know, AOC herself is earnest and represents real change but I'm really tired of all the constant AOC stanning. "toppled a 20-year incumbent" in this case means getting ~7.5% of her district to vote for her in the primary. That's it. That's all it took, because turnout was a measly 13%. Virtually anybody can win a primary with turnout that low when your incumbent is lazy and takes their job for granted. Her electoral mandate is 1/6th of her district.


No one is “stanning”. I think AOC’s race perfectly highlights the circumstances that dems have created for their party. Career politicians who are paid by firms and lobbyists and so disinterested in their own communities that they don’t even show up to campaign.

This creates communities where voting doesn’t matter because these people do not see any return for their vote. This kills voter turnout. Multiply that by 20-years in this instance.

Low voter turnout is something that is directly impacted when a candidate is running a campaign based on ideas that real people want - rather than just taking money from businesses and doing what they want.

Funny how I point out an Ipsos poll that shows black and brown support for Bernie but I’m cherry picking. Or when I post about progressive candidates beating centrists in primaries, I must be “stanning.” But the handful of people replying to me are doing the same things to support their arguments.

This pompous attitude and assumption that people want the status quo seems an awful lot like 2016 all over again...

In terms of the 2016 vote: Trump flipped a bunch of places red that HRC took for advantage because they were dem strongholds for decades. So, presumably, those people have a history of voting blue but were so uninspired by HRC so those areas flipped red.

In 2018: the term “progressive wave” was created because of the surge of progressives who won in their elections, even ousting veteran dems in primary season.

It certainly seems like the past two election cycles demonstrate that people want change.

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:13 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
Free Healthcare.... How truly successful or popular has Obama Care been? People don't want the govt in charge of their health care, do not want to give up the best medical care on Earth to hand it over to Washington D.C. to botch it up even more.

Image


Name a nation with more advance health care than the U.S.

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:18 pm 
 

Trashy_Rambo wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
...the best medical care on Earth...


There's no way you can really believe this.


Again, name a country with more advance medical care than the U.S.

Wens morning I'll be at the TMC for a event. Very often ranks as the most advance medical complex in the world.

"Texas Medical Center: The Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas, is the largest of its kind. Not only does the TMC have one of the highest volumes of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science and research, but it also has two medical schools, four nursing schools and other specialized institutions. The internationally renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is located in the TMC and continually ranks as the No. 1 cancer care hospital in the nation. Patients from all around the world come to the TMC to receive world-class health care from the best doctors around."

Top
 Profile  
Lolpah
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:32 pm
Posts: 63
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:26 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
Name a nation with more advance health care than the U.S.
Like, all other developed countries? America spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world without getting any better results, in fact US life expectancy significantly lags that of other wealthy countries.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of ... ?r=US&IR=T
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar ... befcc3575d

Top
 Profile  
henkkjelle
Veteran

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:54 pm
Posts: 3983
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:30 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
Trashy_Rambo wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
...the best medical care on Earth...


There's no way you can really believe this.


Again, name a country with more advance medical care than the U.S.

Wens morning I'll be at the TMC for a event. Very often ranks as the most advance medical complex in the world.

"Texas Medical Center: The Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas, is the largest of its kind. Not only does the TMC have one of the highest volumes of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science and research, but it also has two medical schools, four nursing schools and other specialized institutions. The internationally renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is located in the TMC and continually ranks as the No. 1 cancer care hospital in the nation. Patients from all around the world come to the TMC to receive world-class health care from the best doctors around."


The US may have the most advanced medical care in the world, but how much good does that do when a big portion of your population doesn't have access to it? Or goes into massive debt because of it?

Top
 Profile  
korgull
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 898
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:32 pm 
 

WHO ranks the US 37th in overall health system performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hea ... ms_in_2000

Quote:
Many people find it hard to believe the U.S. performs poorly on most measures of health compared to other high-income countries. But the truth is, study after study supports the same two conclusions:

1. The U.S. spends more on health care but has worse health outcomes than comparable countries around the globe. This holds true across age and income groups.
2. Within the U.S., there are unacceptable disparities in health by race and ethnic group, county by county and state by state.

https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/health-rankings


Quote:
Among 11 countries, US ranks last for health outcomes, equity and quality
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/q ... ality.html


https://img.datawrapper.de/1zZpH/full.png

RugglesTx wrote:
Wens morning I'll be at the TMC for a event. Very often ranks as the most advance medical complex in the world.

"Texas Medical Center: The Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas, is the largest of its kind. Not only does the TMC have one of the highest volumes of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science and research, but it also has two medical schools, four nursing schools and other specialized institutions. The internationally renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is located in the TMC and continually ranks as the No. 1 cancer care hospital in the nation. Patients from all around the world come to the TMC to receive world-class health care from the best doctors around."


Your evidence of the US having the "best medical care on Earth" is to post a for-profit medical center's own promotional content from their website? Seriously?

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2939
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:37 pm 
 

Ezadara wrote:
Bingewolf wrote:
Biden excites no one.

Any evidence for that? He's sure got a lot of support for a guy who excites no one. I know I'm pretty damn committed to supporting him and so are plenty of others-- if you're mainly hanging around a pretty progressive crowd then I can see why that would generate the impression that there's no enthusiasm around Biden.



I'd have to agree that Biden is exciting no one. The reason he came in with high support is the same reason Trump's economy looks good--because Obama. But Biden just keeps fucking up, he looks seriously, heavily flawed, and I never see people passionately defend him. He seemed like a safe bet to win at the start, but as the months wage on, Biden is gradually running out of steam while Bernie gets stronger and stronger.

I've warmed up to Bernie. I initially didn't want him running because I saw a bitter old man, still sore from 2016. Now, having listened to him, I see him as literally our last best hope for this election. Hell, I think he's the best presidential candidate this country has had in potentially decades. The people backing him are passionate about real fucking change. And I think people are moving away from the malaise lifelessness of Biden to the firey call to action from Bernie.

(For reference, originally I liked Pete Buttigieg, but I now see him as a the way Boomers want Millennials to be, and with that mindset, I don't expect he is strong enough to enact real change.)
_________________
Warm Fuzzy Cynical comics.
Warm Fuzzy Cynical Facebook page.

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:18 pm 
 

korgull wrote:
WHO ranks the US 37th in overall health system performance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hea ... ms_in_2000

Quote:
Many people find it hard to believe the U.S. performs poorly on most measures of health compared to other high-income countries. But the truth is, study after study supports the same two conclusions:

1. The U.S. spends more on health care but has worse health outcomes than comparable countries around the globe. This holds true across age and income groups.
2. Within the U.S., there are unacceptable disparities in health by race and ethnic group, county by county and state by state.

https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/health-rankings


Quote:
Among 11 countries, US ranks last for health outcomes, equity and quality
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/q ... ality.html


https://img.datawrapper.de/1zZpH/full.png

RugglesTx wrote:
Wens morning I'll be at the TMC for a event. Very often ranks as the most advance medical complex in the world.

"Texas Medical Center: The Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas, is the largest of its kind. Not only does the TMC have one of the highest volumes of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science and research, but it also has two medical schools, four nursing schools and other specialized institutions. The internationally renowned University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center is located in the TMC and continually ranks as the No. 1 cancer care hospital in the nation. Patients from all around the world come to the TMC to receive world-class health care from the best doctors around."


Your evidence of the US having the "best medical care on Earth" is to post a for-profit medical center's own promotional content from their website? Seriously?



It was a quick snap shot of the TMC for those not familiar. Calm down.

Ranked for equity? Ranting about unacceptable disparities in health by race and ethnic group, county by county and state by state?

What does any of that have to do with the quality being the best in the world?

Your getting quality of care mixed up with your perception of fairness of care. I would guess we have very different opinions on that as well.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 386
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:20 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:

Name a nation with more advance health care than the U.S.


Cuba

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:24 pm 
 

The US may have the most advanced medical care in the world, but how much good does that do when a big portion of your population doesn't have access to it? Or goes into massive debt because of it?[/quote]

Has zero to do with the quality of care. Health care is not a responsibility of govt.

Let the likes of ole Bloomberg loose, he will tell you how big your soda can be due to the impact that has on the health care system run by the govt. Can't make some things ups, that's national health care in a nutshell....the man wants to control your Dr Pepper intake. You think it will end there?

Security vs Liberty. Sometimes you have to choose.

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:25 pm 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:

Name a nation with more advance health care than the U.S.


Cuba


Yeah good call, I'm always hearing about folks headed out of the U.S. to Cube for medical treatment.

Top
 Profile  
korgull
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 898
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:09 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:

What does any of that have to do with the quality being the best in the world?

Your getting quality of care mixed up with your perception of fairness of care.


No, I'm not mixing anything up. You are merely picking out the one piece of one article shown in my post related to equity and ignoring all the info in every article about quality. It seems you didn't even look at anything beyond the text in my post.

Every article I posted compared the US with other countries and contained info about quality.

Top
 Profile  
Mellifleur
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:01 pm
Posts: 357
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:35 pm 
 

What these polls saying Biden is more popular than Bernie don't get is the level of dedication the people responding to those polls have to seeing that candidate's campaign through. More people know about Biden due to being vice president and the guy from those memes and thus default to him when asked because they don't really know or care about politics that much and don't follow it. Biden's strategy is to coast into an easy victory on the fact that everyone already knows him. What this means is that because everyone already knows about Biden, his support has already maxed out. Bernie, on the other hand, is continuing to grow his level of support. Bernie's strategy has been to build a network of people on the ground level who are out there drumming up new support for his campaign. He's got a street team like no other democratic candidate out there. Your average Bernie supporter is a lot more likely to be willing to phonebank or knock on doors for the guy than your average Biden "supporter" is for their guy, and these are the things that need to be done to get out the numbers of voters necessary to beat Trump, especially from the majority bloc who don't vote and aren't very political. Trump has incumbent advantage this time around and way, way more power and resources at his disposal. It would be a grave error to assume he couldn't easily win the college and even popular vote if he get's a favorable match up against Biden, Warren, Pete, etc. Consider the fact that although there are many people on this very forum who think Biden is the way to go, none of them ever have anything really positive to say about him other than the generic "he's electable" pablum. If you can't even work up any enthusiasm for the guy on a forum, what are the chances you are gonna be out there hitting the pavement for him? Don't tell me, just answer this question in your own heart. ;-)

This same exact thing happened in the general in 2016 where the poll numbers indicated Hillary was in the lead in all the places she needed, but the reality on the ground was that a lot of that support just wasn't really there. People said they liked Hillary more than Trump when asked, but when it came to actually taking time off work to go to a polling place and wait in line, voting for Hillary just wasn't worth it. Does anyone here think Biden is the guy who is gonna finally inspire these people to see the light and start believing politics matters? One of the lessons of 2016 should have been that you really can't rely on a single metric, like these polls that ask X or Y, to actually know what's going on.
_________________
Ceterum censeo falsum metallum esse delendam.

Top
 Profile  
Mellifleur
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:01 pm
Posts: 357
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:39 pm 
 

RugglesTx wrote:
Yeah good call, I'm always hearing about folks headed out of the U.S. to Cube for medical treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_med ... ationalism
From reading your posts in this thread, you really need to grasp the fundamental truth that just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it isn't so. There's more to the world than what you have personally experienced in your very short time being cognizant of it.
_________________
Ceterum censeo falsum metallum esse delendam.

Top
 Profile  
SuperVeji4
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Posts: 671
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:59 pm 
 

Mellifleur wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
Yeah good call, I'm always hearing about folks headed out of the U.S. to Cube for medical treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_med ... ationalism
From reading your posts in this thread, you really need to grasp the fundamental truth that just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it isn't so. There's more to the world than what you have personally experienced in your very short time being cognizant of it.

Wait, what does "providing care" have anything to do with the "quality of care"? A voodoo doctor may "provide care" for free to anyone who asks but that doesn't mean that the "quality of care" he/she will provide will be any good.

I'm under the impression that RugglesTx believes that the "quality of care" in the US is excellent, but what Bingewolf has pointed out is that the US is not very good at actually "providing care" (unless you're rich and have the money to actually pay for it). I believe you're conflating the two concepts...


Last edited by SuperVeji4 on Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Burnyoursins
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:59 am
Posts: 1077
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:06 pm 
 

The fact of the matter is that even the WHO considers American healthcare quality to be 35th in the world. That's the fact. America does not, in fact, have the highest quality of medical care in the world. That was his point, and it was a point that's been soundly refuted, despite his clear lack of comprehension.
_________________
My last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/user/OurFatherChaos

The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
SleightOfVickonomy wrote:
...no one still knows what it's supposed to be about.

Well, I reckon there's a pretty good chance it'll be about gory tits.

Top
 Profile  
Mellifleur
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:01 pm
Posts: 357
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:31 pm 
 

I think what he's saying is that because high quality care is technically available for billionaires, that means that "US health care" in the abstract is good. It's like saying that the housing situation in a country is good because its billionaires have the biggest mansions of any country. Cold comfort to the homeless people freezing in the streets below, imo. Maybe we're all just more selfish than ruggles because we feel that a statement like "america has good health care" should include us to be considered accurate, and not just the sliver of the population which can afford helicopters for their yachts, whereas ruggles is just happy that at least 1% is sitting pretty.
_________________
Ceterum censeo falsum metallum esse delendam.

Top
 Profile  
RugglesTx
Village Idiot

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:22 pm
Posts: 64
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:02 pm 
 

Mellifleur wrote:
RugglesTx wrote:
Yeah good call, I'm always hearing about folks headed out of the U.S. to Cube for medical treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_med ... ationalism
From reading your posts in this thread, you really need to grasp the fundamental truth that just because you don't know about something, doesn't mean it isn't so. There's more to the world than what you have personally experienced in your very short time being cognizant of it.


Oh Lord....

Cuba, I seem to remember people crossing open ocean in handmade boats to flee that paradise.....

Nothing says great place to live like borders designed to keep people in....

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5077
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:08 pm 
 

...you realize Cuba just cured mother-to-infant AIDS, right?
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149 ... 163  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darkeningday, Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group