|
Luna Was Here posted:So what's the deal with the cost of pretty essential medical treatment items (epipens, insulin, certain medicines) suddenly surging over the last two weeks? Haven't been keeping up much. Is it just a Shkreli thing where outside people are coming in, buying the rights to this stuff and jacking the price up because Congress allows them too? It's not a sudden thing, it's been happening for decades. Private healthcare, at every level - from pharmaceuticals to the payment system to the doctors themselves - is ethically bankrupt and full to the brim with moral hazards that economically incentivize people to literally corner dying people on drugs and treatment they 100% need in order to turn a greater profit. Until we kill for-profit medical care we'll continue to have problems like this.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:So what's the solution to for-profit medical care? Putting it all under the government? And can't most of these drugs be imported from Europe or are the high profile ones (namely the insulin and the epi-pens) only made by the specific companies that are jacking the prices up? Not immediately or all at once, and probably not eventually directly under the government. My assumption is that it would end up as a government corporation, a la the Post Office. Generally speaking, it starts with getting single payer healthcare, where insurance companies mostly gently caress off and die and the government pays for your healthcare through taxes (i.e. what all of the First World besides us has), combined with direct price controls on drug companies. That in and of itself is a huge political battle in the US because conservatives know that once universal healthcare goes through they'll never get rid of it and their opposition to it will make the deeply unpopular. Past that is the great unknown. I have no clue about importing drugs but I imagine patent law plays a big part in it. Edit: forums user BI NOW GAY LATER is way better at explaining this than me and he had a great post about it in the last thread I might be able to find when I wake up. Basically full government control of the healthcare system is the end goal, but also probably a super long term pipe dream. The immediate short term goal is to turn ACA (Obamacare) into what is commonly referred to as the public option, or essentially the option to forgo private insurance and let the government pay for it for you. If we manage that, the public option would naturally kill off a lot of insurance companies (who can't compete with a non-profit) and trend us towards full single payer. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Not even close to true. But it would be nice Is that so? I was told we're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have public universal healthcare. Who else doesn't? Or are we getting into weird stuff like whatever the Swiss have?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Netherlands and Switzerland off hand, plus I'm Irish and we have "universal healthcare" only in the sense that all adults over a certain age must have private insurance (Obamacare-ish) plus the public option is dire for many common procedures. This is not unusual among European states I believe Interesting. Also some combination of pathetic and depressing. gently caress private healthcare, so loving much. I'm especially salty about this now because my dad officially has to take insulin for his diabetes now, woo!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:"Let Trump be Trump" was literally the guiding principle of Lewandwoski campaign management I mean, the only thing Trump might care about more than rally size is the approval of people richer than him. A rich person with Serious Opinions recommended Bannon, even though he didn't have anything new or good to offer, and bam, Bannon got hired. It's funny that the media has so much trouble with Trump because he's not some big mystery. It's just that understanding and explaining how much of a fake con man only in it for the money and the fame Trump is requires admitting that he's not qualified to be President and that this isn't a real race. God loving forbid journalists actually do their jobs and report the truth, because that would result in less pageviews and ad revenue. gently caress the media.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:My friend called Hillary a neoliberal today. Is he stupid, or am I? She is but she's running on a more progressive platform than Bill ever did because she responds to voter demands like a professional politician should. She's not a proper leftist or anything but what she's running on is far and away better than any other options. As an aside, they're running billboard ads in Milwaukee for Johnson now, saying that he's the only sane candidate running. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
http://www.theonion.com/article/tim-kaine-found-riding-conveyor-belt-during-factor-53580 Onion Tim Kaine is gonna be the best.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:This is how Hillary is campaigning as well, and not only does she take money from wealthy donors but she takes money from regimes with values opposite of the average American. is that a Trump supporter in the wild? Or better yet, a Bernie bro? Please tell us your opinions on Jewish bankers/segregation and the free market/Mexican immigrants/women's rights. Actually just go back to GBS where they believe such tripe and happily  about emails like they loving matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:I'm on a different time zone that is why I'm ten pages late to this. You act like Hillary Clinton is taking money under the table from the international mafia. She posted that she takes money from these people for charity purposes on a goddamn public website. Like gee, that sounds like a terrible plan if you want to cover something up. Unless, you know, there's nothing to cover up. What leverage do the Saudis have over Hillary Clinton? What are they going to do, manipulate the price of oil? If they had the power to do that unilaterally we wouldn't be seeing remarkably low gas prices right now. This isn't the '70s and OPEC isn't going to blockade the US over Clinton Cash. They stand to lose far more than they'd gain. Also here's your daily reminder that the Saudis depend on their continued access to the cock of the US military-industrial complex they suck daily and would shrivel up and die without it. They're not going to get into a pissing contest with President Clinton over some small change donation they made to her charity in the past and risk starting a feud with the leader of the free world. Historically, that tends not to go well for tinpot dictatorships. I'm also not sure what George Soros, noted backer of various left-wing causes, would be using his vague, ill-defined "leverage" over Hillary for, making her platform more progressive? Well goddamn, better cry wolf about that to the public. A private in the military would have been punished for what Hillary did because the military operates under different, more draconian rules than civilians, for mostly good reason. Hillary Clinton, however, was not and has never been in the US Military and thus would not be subject to military law - under which, yes, she would have committed a crime. If what Hillary had done qualified as "gross negligence," or anything else with any legal weight, she would be getting indicted by the Justice Department right now, full stop. Why? Because Comey is a right-wing hack who has a noted history of trying to hang the Clintons with anything he could get his hands on. And even he doesn't think she broke the law, or that any prosecutor in their right mind would take such a case to court. Hillary Clinton, at worst, broke government protocols on IT security in the same way that happens at any other major multinational corporation or major government organization probably every single day. The pissing match between the State Department (let's classify things that deserve it!) and the CIA and FBI (let's classify everything because we're assholes!) is preposterous and anybody taking the side of the motherfucking CIA in a debate on what should be classified should take a good, hard look into the mirror, lest one shout that you aren't owned as you shrink into a Republican. Hillary has historically backed some bad plays and policies and is not a perfect candidate. Ok. I'll give you that. Doesn't change that she is, at the present time, the only good candidate running, and is running a good platform. Edit: Also, lmao that "Hillary Clinton, noted 68 year old grandma, does not in fact recall in perfect detail every meeting she's ever attended" is a legit talking point you think is damning evidence. Edit 2: Also also, lmao at this article you linked as evidence, written by Larry Kudlow, a literal Trump shill who concludes his article with "Trump is a good businessman and he would serve our country well as it's next President" at the end of this tripe. 
Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
quote:Bachmann said that if Clinton were elected, she would offer “wholesale amnesty” to undocumented immigrants “so that Republicans will never again have the chance at winning Florida or Texas” and therefore be unable to secure the White House. I grew up in a place white and sheltered enough that I implicitly thought I'd never know what black people feel like to see people in power who unequivocally and clearly hate their very existence because they won't roll over, die, and allow whatever fascist bullshit is popular that decade. I was wrong. I hope somebody stuffs her in the back of the taco truck Hillary assigns to her corner. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I fully agree with this. W.'s administration literally ushered in fascist assholes who drove the country into the ground and Romney and McCain would have happily continued down the same path. You can't falsely equivocate about the left and right's rhetoric because right-wing politicians in America are really that bad and have been for a long, long time. Just because white middle class and up people usually don't feel the pain and don't believe you doesn't make it false. Hell, Trump isn't even as bad as W. Straight up. Trump is an empty suit and a con man who would only be "bad" in the sense that he doesn't give a poo poo. W. was a true believer and he brought in a deluge of even worse people who also really believed in the garbage they heaped on us. gently caress right wing politics.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but does anyone have the surrealist story about Obama's first 100 days in office where he destroys America while slowly growing to an impossible height? Oh my god I was just thinking about this the other day, it was seriously the best poo poo.  readingatwork posted:Their fundraising is hardly a secret and neither is their policy history. For example the Clinton administration was one of the earliest pioneers of the concept of Globalism. Only at the time the concept went by the delightfully Orwellian term "Trade Liberalization". So about those Jewish bankers, then. More seriously is there anything Hillary does in your procession of statements that's somehow special or not something every other elected official does in the US? Or does Hillary get special standards because reasons? Economic globalization is both inevitable and not actually the problem, changing you policy to reflect the opinions of the people who elect you is your job as a politician, and taking money from rich people to get elected is necessary due to conservative jackasses, not Hillary. Can't you come up with something new besides the regular old song and dance? Christ I'm waiting for someone to just out and out unironically back the Benghazi conspiracy at this point. Edit: my dad just told me he unironically thinks "The Jews" control the diamond industry. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh is this the one where all the satellites fell out of the sky and all the air went away? No it's this long multi post short story that's basically political thriller horror from the perspective of Fox News types while Obama brings forth the ACORN FEMA death squads. It was loving perfect. Also principles don't mean anything if you lose the election and the other guy shits the bed. Bernie gets to run in the whitest of white states where he can only talk about white people problems and run without worrying about meaningful conservative push back. It's why he fell on his face when he had to talk about people of color's problems. I'd rather a politician with principle play dirty and win then run clean and lose to a fascist. Give me more Hillary Clintons and less Michael Dukakis'.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:True, and I don't have a good long-term solution to that problem. That said forcing open the floodgates on trade is only accelerating things. Globalization is the direct result of Western imperialism. The working class in the Western world had ample opporunity to fight tooth and nail the oppression of foreign workers by their Western governments. We did little to nothing about it. Now opportunity costs mean that those poor people we've stolen all the resources from are a better bet for cheap labor than uneducated Western workers. You reap what you sow. A middle class American white person becoming marginally poorer so a poor African can become marginally richer is a net gain and the only reason it pisses people off is because they have the audacity to do it to white Americans. Should it be better? Should we try and ensure that its more fair? Sure. But you don't do that with protectionism, you do that with guillotines.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Petr posted:I guess I mis-identified the Jacobin. Meh. I don't actually think violent revolution would actually work. My point is that globalization - and by extension a lot of modern problems - have been set up from centuries of oppressive policies. People bitching about globalization now, in the types of contexts we typically discuss, don't actually want to fix the problem. They're just mad it's affecting people it never used to, who typically were privileged and isolated from such things. Protectionism won't end globalization or even make people's lives better. It just lets them lash out at a system they don't understand and aren't truly interested in fixing. Any discussion of globalization needs to address the simple fact that the American working class aren't the only poor people in the equation, and foreign poor people are way worse off and need way more help. Most such discussions always wallow in the white privileged assumption that American poor people matter the most.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The thing where chronically unemployed people stop identifying as "job seekers" and are excluded from unemployment numbers. This one always made me curious. Is there a better way they could collect data on this other than hoping people volunteer the info? Honestly interested here, I don't know a lot about labor statistics collection in America.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:It's also very difficult to find people who are willing to work certain kinds of jobs. Assembly jobs with good benefits but lower salaries are almost impossible to fill right now. To paraphrase Bioshock, everyone came to Rapture looking to become a captain of industry. They seem to have forgotten somebody has to clean the toilets. We as a society happily teach people that some jobs are "lower class" and "don't deserve respect or good pay" because it's convenient to the capitalist class. Even when said jobs are necessary. Just because picking up the garbage or driving a semi isn't as glamorous as being a doctor or lawyer doesn't make those jobs less respectable or necessary, or deserving of good pay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I think he's pointing out that alot of globalization critiques are along the lines of a kinder, gentler FYGM. This. I'm phone posting from work so I'm probably not completing thoughts, my bad. Clinton isn't the full communism now candidate and I wasn't trying to imply that. She's a neoliberal running on a fairly acceptable left of center progressive platform, most of which won't get passed because of conservative obstruction and lack of political will. I don't love all of her positions and she's clearly not a perfect candidate, but as far as politically viable presidential candidates go you couldn't get someone much more qualified and capable than Hillary. I was just trying to say that the "wah, TPP and globalization are evil, where are my easy no education needed factory jobs?" types are FYGM of the highest order, and reactionary protectionism to try and stem a five hundred year long domino collapse won't bring those jobs back. Just because angry white dudes don't understand history or macroeconomics and are mad about losing their jobs doesn't mean we should cater to their knee jerk whims. I sincerely believe we can and should help victims of globalization gain an equitable share of the profits of free trade and open markets. I also sincerely believe that being a socialist doesn't require that you deny economic reality or demand command economies form from the ether. But protectionism won't help angry white factory workers in America. Better wages, unionization, and retraining policies, among a host of other reforms, will. BI NOW made a phenomenal point when he(?) said that politicians pretending to be anti-free trade come election years is pointless and stupid. They should be pro free trade. They should also be clamoring for a more equitable distribution of the profits from free trade. And that is what we should be demanding from Hillary. Not "no TPP" like bleating sheep while a Civil Rights Movement veteran gives a speech on racism in America at the DNC.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Also strictly speaking, "NO TPP" was demanded of Elijah Cummings as he told the story of growing up a poor sharecropper turned civil rights leader, and how it relates to the current rise of white nationalism in the United States, not Clinton This is what I was referencing. I just couldn't remember if it was him or John Lewis. I read the DNC thread but didn't catch that speech, which is how I was aware of it happening. Also, isn't he anti-TPP anyway? It was so dumb and pointless. Note: you can criticize TPP for not being a great deal without buying into the premise that free trade is fundamentally bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:When you think about it, it's kind of crazy that both of them are Democrats when they're the party of the KKK and slavery Bitch please. The Democrats and Republicans used to be the same party! The Democratic-Republicans! They really are equally as bad and the truth is in the middle, gosh why won't anybody listen to my white- and mansplained common sense ideas like term limits?  admittedly I'm basically a white dude, Mexican first and last name notwithstanding, and you can take my opinions accordingly if you like.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I honestly don't think 'He's not even a billionaire' would do anything to his support with his supporters. It's something HE cares about a hell of a lot, though, and if there's anything that would make him lose it completely it'd be proving that publicly. The general electorate would probably find a stunt like that petty and silly. It'd be the reverse of Hillary's health conspiracy. Even if it's true and I don't disagree, I don't think it would play well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
iospace posted:I think having a period of double-digit leads have spoiled us, though I hope Hillary supporters don't rest on their laurels here. It's this. Hillary unfortunately won't win a huge landslide victory because of both increased polarization and the simple fact that Republicans by and large won the narrative war for the last forty years. That Hillary loving Clinton is doing as well as she is, is a testament to how much better organized Democratic campaigning has gotten thanks to Obama. There's a lot of structural and demographic hurdles to overcome in this particular election for Dems, even if in the future it will be easier.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I still have hope/thoughts that a landslide might be achieved. I think the debates will give her a significant bump, even if the media narrative after the first one is "Trump didn't poo poo himself or call her a bitch, it's a tie!" There are three debates, and by the time the third one is done, there will be a shitload of clips of Trump getting owned or him saying poo poo that is unbelievably stupid/awful. I think landslides are possible entirely by how you define landslide. As has been said, I don't think we'll see another full blue or red map in our lifetimes. But landslide in the sense of most of the board that isn't straight R hellholes? Sure. I'm not going to say that's a guarantee in this election - Clinton being within 10 points of such an obviously unfit candidate is thoroughly saddening news for this country - but in the future? Maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They actually collect the unemployment data in 6 different ways. We just have always used U-3 as the official rate. The increase in talk about the U-6 rate would be getting a lot more traction and support if it's origin wasn't the right desperately flailing around for a way to show that Obama Bad. The thing to remember though is that there are arguments for and against all 6 rates and that they should be taken not only as trend lines but also in context both historically and currently. Thanks for responding! I won't try and argue my point any further because it's based probably mostly on soft Arzying and gut feelings, but I guess we'll see. The trucking industry is currently suffering a massive labor shortage because nobody wants to pay truck drivers anything. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. Wisconsin is a dumb garbage state and I'd be shocked if we still swing Democrat in 2024.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:The polls are skewed! Do you really, unironically believe in poll unskewing? Who is this Romney person, I've never heard of him! Isn't he the President or something?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:There's a reason we make judgements based on polling averages rather than single polls. For example, take Michigan: I feel like CS is the same guy who writes the Democratic Party emails talking about ermegerd the polls! also donate pls. He's like a reverse psychology cheerleader.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
DOOP posted:With how many humans there are that suck at driving, I intend to disagree It's not easy, but it's generally getting easier. Truck driving is just also an unpleasant, long hours job that is the backbone of the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Xae posted:Tell me more about how we should target undesirables by demographic, sieze their assets and herd them into "camps". The difference between German Jews and American old white people is American old white people actually are responsible for most of the dumb poo poo we do, and it isn't even a secret conspiracy.  That said, putting old people into camps wouldn't fix the problem, and since they're all going to be dead and buried in a few years would also be pointlessly spiteful.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Xae posted:The best thing about the Generation War poo poo is that it always boils down to "NO YOU SHUT UP DAD" dressed up with pseudo intellectual bullshit. I mean you made a post saying "generational stuff is garbage, clearly millennials are stupid." Seems kind of silly to me. That said, I'm not going to make it a generational thing. White people, especially older white people, kind of just suck politically and should stop sucking so much if they don't want us to blame them when they vote for fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Xae posted:As a Millennial I'm entitled to poo poo on my own generation when they do stupid things. Say what you will about we millennials, at least we're trending overwhelmingly against Trump. I look forward to telling my grandkids that my grandma wanted cheeto fascist, but we stood against him. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Xae posted:Mainly due to the increased racial diversity in the group. I'm not surprised. I feel kind of want to feel bad for white people. There's nothing about "being a white person" that makes you an rear end in a top hat. Our ancestors have just forced us into a society that was built and designed to foster a notion of superiority among white straight dudes in order to justify why a handful of them had all the money and power. Oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Before that, it was Japan. It's the international politics version of car crash stories; some scary other is always going to rule the world because modernizing economies grow really quickly. I thought it had shifted to the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India, China. I love hearing stupid people talk about the impending doom horror of what normal people would simply refer to as a multipolar world, because they can't fathom living in a world where the United States can't just snap its fingers and say "make it so" like it's loving Star Trek.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:you're like 8 years late to the party on that one, there are no more global growth darlings, which is part of the reason the corporate global elite and their allies are freaking out Interesting. Well, I suppose it doesn't matter anyway, by the time anybody gets to a point where they could credibly challenge American international power global warming will be in full swing anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:I think we should've elected Hillary in 2008 and reelected her in 2012 because that means Obama would be running now. Knowing what I know now, I kind of agree with this sentiment. The current predicament we find ourselves in isn't unsalvageable and could be seriously worse, but all things considered we'd probably have been better off. Fojar38 posted:Ironically the best performing economy in the world right now is the USA, yet everyone acts like its in decline. No, you see, I can't get a factory job that pays 40 dollars an hour with full benefits and a pension after dropping out of high school, black people aren't literally slaves and I saw a Mexican dude down the street, ergo the economy is in the shitter because of (((globalists))). It's me, I was the Mexican dude who lives in a white neighborhood. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:The S in BRICS is South Africa, and lol at that, since their currency has lost half it's value in the last four years. And afaik Russia is still coming to grips with the issues of being a petrostate when oil prices crash. Not to mention that the only reason the Chinese financial markets didn't cataclysmically implode last year was strict state control. I don't really know anything about the Indian economy, but BRICS are basically dead. Oh poo poo the S stood for something? I was taught it was just a plural because ~reasons~. But yeah all of that makes sense. I would say it's a shame but gently caress Russia and China, they're assholes. I hope India comes out ok though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
I don't have nearly as much faith in the debates as you guys seem to. I think Hillary will be well-read and competent, but I don't think Trump will burn out and I don't think the moderators will have the spine necessary to stand up to him. The media will take the opportunity to push the horse race narrative as hard as they possibly can, too. Now, do I think that will be like, super bad for Hillary? Probably not. Debate performances won't help Trump with Hispanics and black people. I do think, however, that it's a toss up on whether or not it will improve his standing with white women, depending on how much control he exerts. I don't think we should take it for granted that he will be terrible at the debates. Terrible in a way that we understand, where he's a vapid empty shell with no meaningful policy acumen and clearly an unqualified clown? Yeah. But not in the way the average, remarkably stupid voter in America will appreciate, and that's what matters. I think the thread should prep itself for Trump "winning" the debates" like Romney one the first debate in 2012. It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what the electorate in general thinks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I can't say I'm too broken up for the ones that willingly become hate Luton dupes to keep said elite in power even at their own expense. Yeah but that's just because people are stupid and selfish. I dunno. I mean I agree, abstract sympathy doesn't mean much in the face of actual bigotry. Racists are still racists and need to be poo poo on. It's just unfortunate that just as people are born into poverty and prejudice with no option, people are also born into the role of oppressors without ever having asked for it. The platitude of "life isn't fair" means a lot more than most people appreciate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Hillary might be risk adverse and go full policy wonk but it seems obvious to me that the better approach is to repeatedly kick Trump in the ego until he fully melts down. I mean, we would probably love it. But the American electorate is stupid and would pull the "gosh she's just so rude!" garbage out because of double standards. Remember, Hillary is a woman. She's not allowed to be rude to a white male politician on national TV! I really don't have high hopes for the debates going well because of poo poo like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:Personally I can't see any way for Trump to improve his standing with white women. His numbers are so bad he's losing across virtually every single segment of the white women vote by large margins. The only single place he's ahead is his strongest group, folks without higher education, and even then he's like 1 point ahead. He is absolutely dismal with women as a whole of course, but even white women. The absolutely best bet I can see for Trump is just not making things worse for himself, which is a tall order. If he can walk away without acting like such an egregious sexist bully, to the woman across from him, that will probably leave him where he started, but thats the best case scenario I can see. I mean, I don't really disagree. I don't think he's going to jump ten percent with white women. I just think white women are about the only group he might plausibly have a shot at increasing his margins with. I'm not saying the debates will lose Hillary the election. I think they maybe, possibly, could have an adverse effect on her chances at a historic blowout. And I think the media will pretty definitely try to twist the narrative to be favorable to Trump because they're spineless hacks. Thus what I'm attempting to say, largely, is that the thread shouldn't flip its collective poo poo when CS comes in the day after the debates with about twenty headlines along the lines of "oh wow, Trump was so presidential!" and the polls move a point or two away from Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
deadkiller615 posted:Wow Giuliani gets WRECKED in this Politico article http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-2016-214207 Haha  he looks like the cover of a Goosebumps book in that picture. I also love the casualness with which his own mother owns him for being an rear end in a top hat:Politico posted:“He only became a Republican after he began to get all those jobs from them,” his mother, Helen Giuliani, would say in 1988, as only moms can. “He’s definitely not a conservative Republican. He thinks he is, but he isn’t. He still feels very sorry for the poor.” Tom Guycot posted:Oh, no question. I agree wholeheartedly the media will be spewing that the moment its over, I just don't think the polls will reflect much of a change. I rather doubt it too. Unless Hillary shows up from bizarro world and all her debate prep and preexisting policy knowledge disappear, and/or she lets herself get baited by emailghazi attacks, she won't lose more than a point or two. I merely doubt that she will walk out of the debates with a meaningful gain, because I doubt that Trump will fall to pieces like everyone seems to think he will. Trump is perfectly capable of pretending to be harmless, as his Mexico trip showed us. Yeah, he looked like a total doofus and the Mexican president, a doofus in his own right, chaos dunked him, but the average American doesn't perceive or appreciate such things. And that's the part that matters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 07:16
|
|