|
Djarum posted:Well a pivot would be changing course and Trump backing off of one or many of his dug in positions. The easiest for him to do would be on COVID but there is absolutely no evidence he or the administration is thinking or willing to do so. Doing so would require Trump not only to admit failure and he was wrong but to have a level of compassion and humility that would likely get him votes and turn public perception around for him. I think the question is, "Who here, in D&D, is claiming that a significant Trump pivot is coming?" Because I haven't seen anyone make that claim either.
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
goethe.cx posted:i mean the dem primaries have seen record turnout despite the virus Yeah but those were mostly early on in the pandemic. It's tough to predict what things will be like by November.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You have absolutely have made similar claims about how Biden would be crushed by Trump in a debate because Trump is good at bullying; ...after which I said, "...but that won't matter, because debates don't matter. Biden will likely win." If you're going to accuse me of something, at least try to get it right. Pick posted:If Trump comes out swinging bully-wise Biden will probably call him a nutsack and I doubt it'd move the needle at all. Given his debate performances so far this cycle, doesn't seem terribly likely. He hasn't done a great job of retorting when someone goes on the attack against him. (see: Harris, lol)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Never-Trumpers like the Lincoln Project are absolutely trying to get increased access to a future Biden Administration. We know this because Biden has already signaled that he would welcome them into his administration:quote:Biden also said he would consider Republicans for some top level positions within his administration.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This is roughly equivalent to "I'll consider making green beans with dinner tonight" in terms of how binding a resolution it is, but okay. As I pointed out in USPOL, his (more-progressive) ex-boss appointed two Republicans successively as SecDef. Thinking that Biden won't appoint at least some conservative Republicans to important positions strikes me as engaging in wishful thinking, given the trajectory of his career in politics. e: also, as YMB pointed out there, Obama appointed James Comey FBI Director. Besides being an important factor in why Trump is president today, Comey partially made his name in the FBI by entrapping young, mentally ill or drug-addicted men of Middle Eastern ancestry into fake terrorism plots. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jul 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:And kept Comey as DOJ, there's nothing wrong with this in principle. One can make the argument that there's nothing wrong with it in principle, true. I don't agree with that argument, but I'm much more interested in how it would likely play out in practice. As you yourself acknowledge, Obama kept Mueller (I assume that's who you meant?) on as FBI Director, then appointed Comey to replace him. But Comey was already notorious for championing "enhanced interrogation techniques," (ie: torture) not to mention the awful sting operations I mentioned above. If Obama made such an appointment after he was reelected in 2013, why shouldn't we believe that Biden, his more right-wing former VP won't appoint even more awful ghouls to important positions? quote:If there's anywhere to throw a token Republican I'd prefer SecDEF over DoS, maybe DoE is also (relatively) harmless. I think there are a lot of people in Libya who would dispute how harmless having war hawks in positions of foreign policy influence can be. e: transplanting from USPOL: Fritz Coldcockin posted:You kinda made them both out to be Curtis LeMay reincarnated. I did no such thing. I did, however, suggest that they were hawks who pushed hawkish policies in the administration. Gates, for example, loudly beat the drums for war in Libya. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Leon Panetta has been a member of the Democratic Party since 1971. You're right, I forgot Panetta was in between Gates and Hagel. Still doesn't really detract from my point. e: Also transplanted from USPOL: Rust Martialis posted:Gates and Hagel were pretty indistinguishable from anyone else who has been SecDef. That's not really a very good defense (no pun intended) of either appointment, since Secretaries of Defense have often championed a neoconservative foreign policy over the past few decades. For example, it's helpful to remember that Gates' immediate predecessor was Donald Rumsfeld. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Jul 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Also, it's not like Hagel was just picked out of a lineup; he'd worked on the Intelligence Advisory Council for Obama for like 3 years prior to his selection. You're only further proving my point that Biden is likely to appoint Republicans to important positions with this. Fritz Coldcockin posted:COVID has had a bigger body count than anything either Bush or Obama did, and most of that blood is on Trump's hands. Trump is directly responsible for the COVID deaths that have occurred in the U.S., which, while catastrophically high, are nowhere near the amount of deaths that GWB directly caused.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This is a slippery slope argument based off of not a lot. There is no reason to believe that Biden, who was more conservative (but currently is not) will appoint or keep worse people than Obama did. I don't accept your assumptions here. Again, you're free to project whatever you like onto Biden. We have his words and his long record of actions as a politician, though, and they point towards him being overly-conciliatory towards an overtly fascist party. There is no good reason to believe that that will change once he is elected. quote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, intervention in Libya was a mainly EU/European NATO project with the US providing logistical support, and was fairly justifiable; 1, it wasn't justifiable, and 2, you're grossly misinformed about the U.S.' role: quote:On 10 June, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized some of the NATO member nations for their efforts, or lack thereof, to participate in the intervention in Libya. Gates singled out Germany, Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the Netherlands for criticism. He praised Canada, Norway and Denmark, saying that although those three countries had only provided 12% of the aircraft to the operation, their aircraft had conducted one-third of the strikes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This isn't the thread for discussing Biden, or Libya; it's the thread for discussing how things affect the race, Okay, so let's take it to the General Election thread! I'll respond to this post there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Again, this appeals to Democrats and Independents, its good to reach out and to offer an olive branch, like when Bernie went on Joe Rogan. First of all, I do hope you'll reply to my post in the other thread. Secondly, do you have any evidence that this actually appeals to more than a handful of voters at all? Something more precise than just, "Voters indicate that they like the nebulous concept of bipartisanship, without elaborating on what they mean by that," preferably.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:so at this time in 1988, had the dukakis tank picture and willie horton stuff not happened yet? Both came out in September.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:that's not what the recent wisconson election showed, no, and I don't know of any other elections that might be a better bellwether than that? While that's all true, we've still got four months of this poo poo before the election. Four months of watching the COVID numbers spike while tens of thousands of people drop dead around us. It's difficult to say what effect that will play upon different groups' collective psyches.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:then those worried voters can simply vote by mail, which is possible in nearly every swing state This is not a particularly reliable basket in which to put all your eggs. Voting by mail may give a substantial edge to Biden, but the evidence suggesting it will strongly benefit one side over the other is sparse at best.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:people are talking about voting by mail not because only democrats vote by mail, but because voting by mail is a simple, accessible alternative for people scared to vote in person to still vote - vote by mail. which, now, for 2020, is way more accessible and available than it ever has been. and, as a bonus, its hard to suppress just one segment of your population when people vote by mail. I get the feeling that you didn't read the link I posted, since it directly addresses a lot of this. See, for example, the data on Florida in 2016 and 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Same as 2016, in other words.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:The article talks about this. It's not the same as 2016! At this point in the race, 85% of Sanders supporters indicated that they'd turn out for Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:and 9% said they'd vote for trump, over double the percentage of 2020 sanders voters planning to vote for trump The point is, it's premature to assume that Biden can't lose support from the left.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that wasn't your point. your point was, and i quote, "Same as 2016, in other words." it is not the same as 2016; in fact it is significantly better. I meant "similar to 2016" - which it is. My point was, indeed, that Biden could still lose support from the left, just as Clinton did in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Trump has already decided that hydroxychloroquine (along with UV light and bleach injections) is that miracle treatment and nobody's buying it. If Trump tweeted VACCINE IS COMING or retweeted some article on a vaguely promising Phase 2 trial with "Liberals don't want you to know this but we are WINNING against the Chinese virus!" who is going to listen? People who are extremely desperate by the time November rolls around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Xombie posted:Actually the larger point that these polls show is that Biden's chances of winning aren't threatened by losing support from the left. Because so much of the center is solidified against Trump compared to 2016. Biden's soft support is also Trump's hard opposition. Worrying about the left, who won't vote for Trump even if they don't vote for Biden, is a losing proposition for Biden. The amount he could lose is too small to make a difference. Why are you so certain that the amount he could lose is too small to make a difference? quote:None of the actual evidence shows it will happen. Why are you so certain that a significant amount of people won't be desperate enough to try anything? I'm not saying there WILL be, but it strikes me as presumptuous to write off the possibility. Rigel posted:It was not a case where Clinton initially had support and then lost it, she never had it from Bernie->Trump voters. Biden would have to lose support that he now has, which is both highly unlikely and a different situation. That Guardian poll I posted suggests that she did have the support, and then some of the folks who said they would turn out for her, simply didn't vote. Again, I'm not saying this will happen with Biden, but it's presumptuous to say it absolutely won't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Desperate enough for what, exactly? Who are these people on the left and what are they so desperate for that they'd vote for Trump? The folks who would be desperate aren't necessarily on the left; this is a different group I'm talking about. I'm thinking more of poor folks living in key states like the Upper Midwest - many of the POC voters who didn't turn out for Clinton in 2016 and thus swung the election against her, for example. The announcement of a vaccine, even a fake one, might not get them to vote for Trump, but it might muddy the waters enough to get them to not turn out for Biden. Xombie posted:There aren't enough leftists who would vote for Trump in any state to actually shift the state to Trump by themselves. No, but if enough simply didn't turn out, it could certainly have an effect. It's unlikely - I still think Biden's going to win this handily. But acting like he can 100% take the left for granted suggests that centrists still haven't learned the right lessons from 2016. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:So we've moved the goal posts from "Biden will never win because the left will never support him" That's never been my argument. Vincent Van Goatse posted:You were just loving talking about Biden losing support from the left and now you're claiming that you were talking about something else entirely. Yes, because I was. Go back and read. I did not indicate in any way, shape, or form that the people who might be desperate enough to take a vaccine announcement from Trump even semi-seriously were leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:You're seriously stating that there's a POC demographic that has listened to Trump race bait for four years, watched Trump demand the Army shoot BLM protestors, but that when Trump tweets "VACCINE COMING, JUST VOTE FOR ME!!!! WORKING HARD!!!" they'll immediately switch over, and that this will be enough to switch Minnesota (starting point of the Floyd protests), Michigan (most directly opposed to Trump in handling COVID) and potentially other states. Nope, that's not what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is that Clinton lost, in part, because she could not mobilize black, Latino, and other POC voters in the Upper Midwest as solidly as she insisted she would. While I doubt very many POCs are going to turn out for Trump at all, Biden is currently underperforming Clinton among Latinos. With regard to Trump utilizing a (likely fake) vaccine announcement, I don't know how I can be more clear than I've already been: I never said that would make POCs (or anyone) switch over to Trump. I did say that it might muddy the waters enough for a few people to stay home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Xombie posted:This would require people who viscerally hate Trump crediting him with the vaccine, while ignoring that they can't get it, and also somehow tuning out how badly he would gently caress up the messaging about the whole thing. This is not a realistic scenario, let alone one borne out by polling. Okay, so why Biden is underperforming Clinton among Latino voters?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:your argument doesn't track. you're saying that a vaccine announcement would have the effect of causing POC voters to stay home (why just this population, by the way?). I never said it was just POC voters.  Nor did I say that it necessarily would have that effect. My point is, it's presumptuous to assume that this hypothetical curveball would have no effect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Xombie posted:He's not underperforming. That poll I cited says otherwise. The only way you can make this claim is if you define "underperforming" to mean something different. Seven Hundred Bee posted:then what is your argument? why are you mentioning POC voters at all then? I brought POCs in the Upper Midwest up as an example of a demographic that Clinton thought she had nailed down in 2016, but that ended up not turning out for her as much as she needed. That's literally it. Again, I don't know how a false vaccine announcement will affect voters; nobody here does. That's my entire point on that front.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/1280868782551044097?s=19 There was recently a good Chapo episode on these geniuses, incidentally.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Biden missing the critical Swamp People endorsement. Trump said he'd drain it and they still turn out for him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
DutchDupe posted:Democratic Senate challengers are destroying fundraising numbers: Reminder: McGrath outraised Booker by more than 5100% ($41 million vs. less than $800,000), and still barely beat him. So I wouldn't hold my breath on her beating McConnell.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Biden doesn't have a policy of "caging kids", Trump and his administration on the other hand have a policy of specifically separating immigrants from their parents at the border. Even so, Biden's failure to reach out to Latino voters effectively is a well-documented phenomenon: quote:Even more concerning for Democrats is that young Latino men born in the United States seem to be inching toward Trump, intrigued perhaps by the president’s business persona. No single group has posted a larger statistical bump for Trump than Latino men under the age of 50, according to Equis. Biden's still probably going to win this thing, but there's a good chance he's blown his chances in Texas by not having a stronger pitch to these voters. The Democratic Party leadership should find these trends concerning, especially regarding their 2022 and 2024 prospects.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because maybe you are conservative otherwise and Trump offers you something else, like anti-abortion judges or male chauvinism or tax cuts or anti-gay policies or any of the number of reasons why anyone votes Republican. And because, as the Atlantic piece I posted points out, the Trump campaign has simply done more reaching out to the Latino community since 2016 than Biden has. It's the same reason why Clinton underperformed in the Upper Midwest among black and brown voters four years ago: reaching out to large voter blocs in purple states makes a difference, and so does pointedly not reaching out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure but the shift is a small slice of the pie too. Biden is still winning those groups, he's just doing worse than Hillary and it's a problem, even if he is doing better with old white suburban voters (although maybe his polite racism is why, so maybe there was no way to thread this needle and Democrats just affirmatively decided to pander to the polite white racism vote at the expense of minorities) I think there's unfortunately a lot of truth to this. It's as I've been saying, the Democrats are going to have to make a hard left turn (so to speak) if they're going to have any chance of surviving 2022 and 2024. Xombie posted:You have not given any evidence that this is a view held by any significant number of voters outside of existing Trump faithful and the online left. Do you understand that your argument for projecting this view onto some Trump-voting swing electorate actually hinges on proving that? I think the bigger problem isn't that perceptions of Biden as a racist are particularly widespread, but rather that he's perceived as not particularly caring about Latino people one way or the other. That's bad news for the Democrats when Latinos are projected to be the largest ethnic minority group of voters for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:How are you reaching the conclusion that the perception of Biden as a racist are widespread? I think we need a citation here... I am not; I actually said the opposite. I don't think those perceptions are widespread at all. VitalSigns posted:Yeah true this is probably closer to the heart of it, that outreach is important, and the Biden campaign doesn't seem interested in reaching out to these groups. Yup. The Democratic establishment seems to have operated under the assumption that "POC/non-white voters" is synonymous with "predominantly older black voters" for quite a while. We're seeing now why that is an untenable assumption. During the primary, there was a telling instance in which someone (I think it was a Biden campaign surrogate) chided the Sanders campaign on TV for campaigning in Hawaii, since it isn't "a heavily POC state." Of course, Hawaii absolutely is a heavily POC state; the surrogate was erroneously conflating "POC" with "black."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:He's saying the opposite - that it doesn't matter what people in general think about Biden, but rather specifically what Hispanic voters think about it. I would like to see evidence of that, though. To be clear, I wasn't even saying that most or even many Latino voters see Biden as racist. In terms of perceptions among Latino voters that Biden doesn't care, there is some data to bear this out, particularly among young voters: quote:So far, the consensus among political observers is that Democrats—and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden—have not done enough. When young Latino voters were asked in a Telemundo and BuzzFeed News poll conducted in June to name politicians who had “shown up” for the Latino community, 33% of respondents said no one. That's not to say that Biden isn't doing better now than he was earlier in the year, but the Dems really need to do better going forward: quote:Chuck Rocha, a Democratic consultant who was the architect of Senator BernieSanders’ game-changing Latino outreach strategy, was cautiously optimistic about the Biden campaign’s recent efforts. “‘Improving’ is the word I think of,” he says, citing the campaign’s uptick in spending and its decision to hire senior Latino staff. But he also expressed concern about a lack of broader outreach to Latino voters in Senate and House races across the county, noting a tendency to focus on a handful of states with large Latino populations: “There’s still a lot left to be done.”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:African americans will remain more electorally important and focused on though barring a new great migration or us finally getting rid of the electoral college for the simple fact that Latinos are overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of states of which Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and now, I guess, Texas are swing states. Black people are far more spread out with significant populations in every current swing state except New Hampshire and Iowa. That's changing pretty rapidly, though - the Latino population has grown by 26% in the South since 2010. If Blue Texas is ever to be realized, Latinos are going to need more attention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
MaoistBanker posted:PS, Donald Trump is currently on stage in Pennsylvania doing a live un-skewing of polls. Well yeah, didn't you see the polls that he so helpfully printed out and put on Air Force One's press seats? https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1320461444580691969 Everything's coming up Trumphouse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:caveat: twitter dudes always want fear retweets. but this is not a promising development It's not, but things would also have to be very, very close in key states, and the electoral votes would have to also be very, very close, for this to have an impact on this election.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:yes, we're talking about the hellworld scenario when the election hinges on the question of whether pennsylvania election law allows [x, y, z] edge case ballots to be counted. and at that point we're in bad territory regardless of what SCOTUS says Yep, just trying to stop anyone from panicking and hyperventilating. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
brugroffil posted:Not exactly shocking that Bush v Gore lawyers think it's good law Yeah, one good thing for people to remember, by the way - John Roberts was supposedly part of the Brooks Brothers Riot in 2000 (he was part of Bush's legal team), and Kav certainly was. Barrett makes three Bush v. Gore veterans! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 01:57
|
|