|
My biggest concerns are the thing mentioned in the OP about Bernie attracting most anti-Hillary votes in 2016 and the potential of someone like Warren splitting the left-leaning Democratic vote. Biden also has considerable weight as a "default" sort of choice for low-info voters, though hopefully he'll gently caress things up for himself by revealing his true colors. In terms of actual quality of the (currently known or hypothesized) candidates, Bernie is unequivocally the best, followed by Warren, followed by everyone else.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
I feel like Bernie will almost certainly get a larger percent of the "left-leaning Democratic" vote than Warren, which is a large reason I'm concerned about Warren as a "spoiler" of sorts. Normally I would give him the best odds of winning overall, but I can't help but feel like the party might unify behind someone early enough to turn the tides against him. The worst case scenario would likely be something where the more mainstream/"establishment" Democratic organizations/media unify behind someone pretty early while Warren still stays in the race (or the person they unify behind is Warren herself). This is the situation that I see having the highest chance of a Bernie Sanders primary loss. Then again, it's possible that unifying against Bernie could backfire on them. One thing I haven't mentioned is Avenatti. While I put Avenatti definitely above most Democrats and definitely below Bernie, I'm not sure how I'd compare him with someone like Warren. I feel like Warren is definitely more reliable on the specific topics she tends to focus on than Avenatti would be, but Avenatti also has his unique advantages (like being willing to mention stuff like stacking the court, and tossing aside decorum against Republicans). I don't trust Avenatti in the slightest, though, so I don't really feel comfortable forming any strong opinions about him one way or the other. Someone also mentioned Duckworth. Duckworth is pretty bad, but fortunately doesn't have a realistic chance of actually winning. I'm not sure if she's split the vote in a way favorable to the left or not, though. Jaxyon posted:Him being just about 80 upon entering office is a big problem for me because that is old as poo poo, as much as I like the guy. This (basically a combination of the age thing plus vague concerns about minority engagement) seems to be the go-to opinion for people who don't really want Bernie Sanders to be president but don't feel comfortable actually making an policy/ideology-based argument against him. The age thing in particular is only relevant in a "if everything else was equal, this should be considered" sort of way, but given the absence of any comparable younger candidates it's not really worth consideration. It does make his choice of running mate more important, but it's not an argument against him specifically. I feel like arguments like this are sort of the prelude to a more overt opposition; sort of like how before the 2016 primary started up most liberals expressed positive sentiment towards Sanders (but not outright active support), which then shifted into opposition as people unified behind Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Hopelessly and wholly corrupt while using the full weight of their organization to favor a candidate but not technically rigging since they didn't literally stuff ballot boxes is not a distinction most people make Actually, I think it does fit the "technical" definition of rigging, and it's actually the people arguing it's not rigging who are using the more colloquial definition. In this case, I'm pretty sure that anything about the organization of a particular election that is intended to encourage a particular result constitutes rigging (and this definitely applies to the events with the DNC giving Hillary an abnormal level of control over its affairs). I personally prefer not to use the term "rigging" even if it's technically correct, just because it leads to these sorts of arguments. It's better, in my opinion, to just refer to the Clinton/DNC arrangement as being unethical and representing a conflict of interest. Badger of Basra posted:Yeah my main concern with Bernie is not his age or whatever but that our extremely terrible national media would love nothing more than to make any election he runs in SOCIALISM VS. CAPITALISM - COLD WAR PART 2 and I'm not convinced even the best candidate could overcome that. If you're convinced that even a candidate as milquetoast as Bernie is fundamentally incapable of getting elected, you may as well just give up on politics, because you're basically admitting that a good outcome is impossible. *something with no real data supporting it, but apparently it's okay to rely on gut feelings when they happen to support your preferred outcomes VitalSigns posted:No it isn't my premise, my premise is that voter preference is complicated and there are a lot of factors involved here of which age is a large and important indicator (weirdly, these factors keep getting cut out of quotes by people replying to me though, must be keyboard glitches), so when you look closer it's a lot more complicated than "gee I dunno if you look at 30-month-old polls Bernie seems bad on race, not saying he's racist, but I mean what else is there". It's all been discussed to death on these forums, and if you want we can talk again about the massive gap in name recognition at the beginning, a shoe-string campaign operation that was a protest run until it unexpectedly started growing in popularity, a well-established Democratic Party machine in southern primaries which gives huge turnout advantages to insiders vs outsiders, an initial justified wariness in Southern black voters about someone they've never heard of from a white-rear end state appealing to poor whites, the massive differential in funding which made it easier for a well-funded operation to campaign in multiple states ahead of Super Tuesday, yes Bernie's out-of-touch old man comments on race and his pivot to correct them by bringing BLM into his campaign, the trend toward Bernie among all demographics as people became more familiar with him, a trend which didn't end with the campaign but has now made him the most popular politician in the country for two years straight with a stratospheric approval rating among African Americans, etc. The race argument is important because they want something they can use to at least cast doubt on the idea of Sanders running while still giving the impression of doing so for a good reason. This thread is actually kind of interesting in the sense that foreshadows some of the arguments we're likely to see a bunch in 2020. My personal feeling is that they might have a harder time with the race one (since I don't think any of the other potential candidates have the sort of support Clinton had), but they'll definitely try for the age one. Another argument I think is likely is "there isn't really any difference between Sanders and Warren (or whoever)." A big reason Warren concerns me is that I feel like this argument wouldn't work with most other candidates, but enough people just vaguely perceive both Warren and Sanders as "very liberal" that it might work with her. Pinterest Mom posted:Ideology isn't a one-dimensional line, and people vote on things other than straight ideology. If they run on very similar platforms, except that Warren looks like someone who has actually thought about and cares about the mechanics of implementation and is fluent in policy details, that matters to a lot of people. It matters to me! Ideology is unequivocally more important than policy details, especially in a figure like the president (who isn't writing the legislation directly). At the end of the day, "can this be done" isn't a serious question for all the things the left desires. There is no question that we can afford and do these things, so the question of "how to precisely implement it" is basically a secondary one that can and will be addressed (or rather has already been addressed in most cases) but is not a factor in deciding whether or not to support them. For a leadership figure, the most important thing is simply establishing the actual goals you want to achieve (for example giving everyone free-at-use healthcare, or a living wage). I'm aware that the opinion you're expressing here feels like "something a smart person should think," but it falls apart under scrutiny. It's similar to "the government should be fiscally responsible and budget like a household" in the sense of being "an opinion that feels like one a smart, reasonable person should express," but is actually only used to try and shut-down attempts to significantly change the status quo (because, for some strange reason this same level of scrutiny is not applied to most elements of the status quo). vvvv That's my fault and doesn't really belong in this thread (so I removed it), though I do want to clarify that it's not some weird jab at lawyers. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:Better then 4 billion dollars to build apartments that cost 30% of the regional median income. In Minneapolis the median household income is $73k a year. 30% of that is 1825 per month, hardly an affordable apartment for the working poor. At least with a refundable tax credit they will get all or most of their rent back at the end of the year. In the meanwhile they can pay interest on debt they have to use when they fall behind on payments (or can't afford other things due to payments). One of the issues with this approach is that it ignores the fact that there are often heavy costs incurred as a result of people being unable to afford things at the time of purchase, so getting a refund later is an inefficient way of addressing the problem. I think that it's difficult for many people who have never been in this kind of situation to understand, but it is very easy to fall into a (very, very expensive) hole when you start falling behind on payments. First it's credit cards, and if you have a bad credit history for some reason you might have to resort to payday loans (which are even more expensive). By the time you finally get the rebate, you've already spent at least as much as you're saving from it. Obviously this isn't a universal thing, but it's something people are more vulnerable to the worse off financially they are, and they can often be thrust into this sort of situation if they have an unexpected large expense. Paracaidas posted:EIMBY baby. Give me that public housing, bump up renter protections, toss in some rent control, zoning reform, mandate a proportion of new housing stock within reasonable access to transit, through the implementation and removal of credits, bring the tax benefits of renting and owning towards parity. A good post. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Those three candidates would be easy for Bloomberg to beat if he plays it right. Harris would be the hardest for him to overcome I think. I think you're heavily underestimating the advantages Clinton had in 2016. Not just from her influence over the party, but from her immense name recognition and lack of any mainstream competition (with the latter actually being more significant). There are no "establishment"-preferred candidates yet who are really similar for 2020 (though I think it's entirely possible they could still unify behind someone, though I really doubt that person will be Bloomberg). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Tony Gunk posted:I don't think people are going to care. I think taking the test and finding evidence of Native American ancestry is going to be enough for the non-chud media to stop mentioning it every time "Elizabeth Warren" and "President" are found in the same sentence. Again, if she was claiming she was 100% Native American, you'd have a point--but she never said anything of the sort. Eh, it does show that she was wrong to ever actively associate herself with being Native American, since she only showed an insignificant level of ancestry and isn't a part of any nations. Like, the results basically proved that the accusations were true in spirit, even if they were technically false. It's not really a big deal, but she should have just owned up to it having been dumb to draw the association when she was younger (I believe it was only when she was much younger that she marked herself as Native American somewhere, someone can correct me if I'm wrong). By doubling down, she's taking something that wasn't really a big deal and actually making it kind of problematic. Idahoant posted:Cool nothing matters take, that's always valuable. Characterizing any opinion along the lines of "X isn't helpful" as "nothing matters" is one of the more obnoxious and dishonest talking points to come out of contemporary intra-left discourse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:So what about Kamala Harris. She has the highest odds on predictit. I know practically nothing about what she's done in office, other than make a few mealy mouthed comments about 'civility in politics'. I also remember right after she was elected senator someone on these forums said not to count on President Harris because despite winning, she had run a shoddy campaign for senator, though I don't remember any details about that. So I guess the only reason she's getting good odds right now is because South Carolina and California are early states and conventional wisdom would be that she'll do well in both? Kamala Harris is not particularly remarkable, but she received some very early attention as a contender when she met with a bunch of Democratic donors (who seemed to be courting her as a possible successor to Hillary or something). I would say that she's maybe similar to (or a bit worse than due to the whole prosecutor thing) Gillibrand or something. Better than Biden, definitely worse than Warren. My current rating for some prominent contenders is something like Sanders >>>>>>>> Warren >>> Gillibrand ~= Harris > Booker > Biden Avenatti is a bit of a wild card that likely falls somewhere in the range between Sanders and Gillibrand/Harris; I'm not sure if I'd consider him overall better or worse than Warren (since I'm not sure if stuff like "being properly aggressive towards Republicans and willing to mention packing the court, etc" outweighs not having as much cred on issues like financial regulation as Warren). KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:if there's anything warren's done while in office, it's play up this issue and her heritage, right? Stuff like this (which Trabisnikov linked in another thread) is pretty damned unacceptable:  Like, you're free to still support her despite this, but there's no denying that it's hosed up to continue to draw the link (since she has no actually-meaningful link with Native Americans). edit: You can also try to argue "maybe she's not making every individual decision to say/write stuff like this," but if that's the case she still has a responsibility to either address or completely disengage with the issue. (To be honest, the most remarkable thing about this whole situation, to me, hasn't been Warren's own actions/words, but rather the defensive reaction of many Democrats/liberals regarding them.) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
^^^ Those men do not look similar at all, lolOwlofcreamcheese posted:One of my best friends grew up on a reservation in a tar paper shack with no electricity but are “only” 1/4th native. That is basically how it works, constantly attacking people for being not racically pure enough is how you attack a group that had a century’s long campaign to make sure few people are “pure”. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like the idea is that it's awfully convenient that a country that decimated a group down to a small number of members and intentionally broke up the population has a convenient story to tell themselves that all the people they meet that are native are just a bunch of fakers. Like the actual chief of the cherokee is 1/32nd. And the reason you hear mostly about people that had a great great great etc grandma that was native and you just weirdly don't hear much about people that are fully native themselves these days compared to that is not because of a bunch of fakers, it's for a very specific reason about things that happened between great great great etc grandma time and 2018 that made most of the people left to meet only have long ago ancestors compared to how many people survived in active communities. There are not remotely analogous situations, because Warren is not accepted as part of a Native nation/community. The correct reason to condemn her (and other people that make these claims in similar situations) is not because of the low (inherently questionable due to issues with testing) genetic match (though that does make the fact she brought it up even goofier), but rather that she (and other similar people) are not actually part of a community. The Native communities themselves should have the power to decide these things, not random people who heard a story about their great great great grandparent being Native or whatever (unless they've been accepted by a tribe). Paracaidas posted:What I'll note, and others have hinted at (maybe said explicitly in Trumpthread?) is that Warren is being hammered with these statements-with strikingly similar language and rhetoric-from both the left and the right. Again, this is in no way the fault, responsibility, or act of the groups and individiuals above. And we have seen this before: A candidate perceived as insufficiently progressive being hammered both by those on the left and by rightwing sources echoing (or, when they get there first, predicting) that progressive rhetoric. That so many of the same sources who gleefully boosted the attacks of Trump and Brown are now aghast at Warren's "callous and offensive stunt" gives up the game. We saw this in 2015/2016, and as TheCut pointed out, we've already seen it this cycle with Warren, by proudly rightwing groups who've explicitly announced their intent to attack her from the left. lol this post could basically be next the dictionary entry for "just asking questions" Just say what you mean, dude. Even if you're not sure about it, just say "it seems to me like X might be happening" instead of just vaguely alluding to a bunch of things. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...=nl_most&wpmm=1 lol, Christ, what is wrong with these people. How can someone write out that article and be like "mm yes, this is somehow helpful."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Beto, if he wins, *sorta*. He's doing a good job of positioning himself almost exactly halfway between the establishment and progressive wings of the progressive movement. Beto scares me, because I see him (and other potential similar politicians) as basically a "triangulated" position that attempts to siphon off enthusiasm from the left towards candidates who wouldn't actually do much to shake up the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:no So, I don't really like Gabbard much either in light of the fact that one or two obvious better alternatives exist (namely Bernie, and probably also Warren), but I'd hope that you apply this same level of hard rejection to most other 2020 presidential hopefuls, because most are at least as bad as she is (at worst, her foreign policy would just be the same as most other Democrats'). Like, from an observer outside of the "liberal discourse ecosystem" (for lack of a better term), it is very obvious that Gabbard has entered the ranks of less-mainstream figures who receive dramatically disproportionate censure relative to their objectively more harmful mainstream counterparts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
^^^^^ If Gabbard starts to rise up as some sort of "Bernie successor" figure and be treated that way by the media (some people treat her that way now, but it's not really a major thing yet), I think she'll warrant far more negative attention. I don't remotely trust her as any kind of left-wing figure due to the Modi stuff, and she will quickly rise on my internal "threat meter" if things reach that point. But as things stand right now, she's just another lovely Democratic politician.GreyjoyBastard posted:Sure. I'd grudgingly and with great sadness vote for her over Biden and Booker and, possibly, Harris. The point I was trying to make is that it's actually a very big problem how people either ignore or dramatically understate (or at least use far less aggressive rhetoric towards) the problems with more mainstream/influential political figures, and the difference is extremely obvious. For example, people might say "well yeah, I disagree with (insert more mainstream/"establishment" politician) and don't exactly like them" about that sort of politician (like you in this post!), but a less mainstream one, for similar or (usually) lesser crimes will be treated like some laughably absurd figure who deserves only belittling derision (see: Jaxyon's post a few posts below yours). This attitude would be totally fine if it were dished out to all politicians with similar policy/ideology, but it isn't; the more prominent/mainstream figures are treated as inherently deserving of being taken more seriously, even if you end up disagreeing with them. The people who are/were hawkish on Syria may be shown disagreement, but they don't receive the same display of moral repulsion as something like Gabbard's stupid-but-inconsequential opinions, despite matter far, far more (and their opinions having a history of leading to immensely destructive and harmful decisions). A big reason this is a problem is that it's actually far more useful to be more harsh and critical towards people who are more mainstream and represent those with more power/influence (this is a big reason the more "radical left" posters on this forum primarily focus their ire at major figures). And perhaps more importantly, there's a big cost to normalizing the sort of ideas/policy that are standard in the contemporary Democratic Party. It would be great if the same attitude being levied at Gabbard here were also directed towards almost all Democratic politicians for the crimes of supporting or being complicit in our various crimes abroad (with particular major figures, like Obama, being even more deserving of this), but it just isn't. Instead these comparatively fringe figures receive this focus, which creates an inaccurate perception that these problems are unique to them. So basically the main point here is that the issue isn't one of "criticizing Gabbard being bad" or whatever; it's that there's a distinct lack of similar attacks being levied at the people who actually matter and are often guilty of far worse things than her (and its absence is also often accompanied by irritation aimed at the people who do levy such attacks - see: attitudes towards leftists on these forums). This same logic applies to the bizarre hatred people have for Glenn Greenwald (though I'd argue that the Greenwald situation makes even less sense than the Gabbard one); a similar attitude is virtually never directed towards media organizations and individuals who actually have far more power and influence. (Regarding "Bernie or Bust," in this situation it's mostly just because there simply isn't anyone else who has given even the slightest indication of running who is remotely as good.) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i'm not at all sure we can all agree that Tulsi Gabbard is the second or third best choice for Dems in 2020 Duckworth at least should definitely be a hard no compared with Gabbard (since she has directly shown opposition to MfA and anyone who wasn't willing to back it that late into things can't be trusted), and Gillibrand is debatable on the basis of her being even less trustworthy than Gabbard in terms of reliably supporting something like MfA in the future (but depending on her actions could still end up preferable). But all of them except for Sanders still fall under the category of "people I wouldn't vote for in the general election since I don't live in a swing state." If I did live in a swing state, I would be deeply unhappy about voting for anyone remotely on the 2020 radar except for him, even though I would still do so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:yeah but they're exceptionally loving crazy and represent a negligible number of Hillary supporters Yeah, I think it's very important to distinguish between "_____ voter" and "_____ supporter" (and this cuts both ways and applies to Bernie voters also). Most people who voted Hillary did not have any particularly negative feelings about Bernie, and people voting for Bernie doesn't necessary imply that they would continue to support Bernie against other candidates (though I think a greater portion are direct supportive of him). While they're obvious on the internet (and disproportionately represented in the media and political spheres), the type of person who really dislikes Bernie or the radical left is not very common among the American public. The main barrier is the disproportionate influence they have over the media people consume, etc (this is why Bernie's performance in the 2016 is so remarkable; he managed to do that well despite media generally being against him and himself and similar candidates doing poorly in the past). That influence allows people to paint such candidates as fundamentally "not serious/viable," but it isn't quite what it used to be anymore. Lightning Knight posted:I mean, what was the peel off percentage in 2008? 18%? I think losing 18-20% of pro-establishment primary voters as a percentage of the total Democratic electorate wouldn't be overwhelming if we also assume that Bernie will bring back a non-trivial number of people who voted in 2008-12 but did not vote in 2016. The peel-off percentage itself isn't what you want to look at; you want to look at the peel-off percentage relative to a "normal" peel-off percentage if you want to get some idea how he'd perform relative to past candidates. As far as I know, Sanders' peel-off percent was basically just normal, so there's no reason to really try that as a loss or gain. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:poo poo dude, we should put you on the Harvard Law faculty instead of superficial dilettante, endowed chair Elizabeth Warren, a preeminent, top-cited scholar in commercial and bankruptcy law and editor of various legal textbooks. I'm pretty sure being good at things has literally no bearing on how good of a person someone is. Brony Car posted:I appreciate the depth of your belief. I would vote for Sanders despite my misgivings about him, but I know a lot of people who would not vote for him and the socialism baggage throws a lot of other things off when you get to the general electorate. Plus, Sanders brings a real risk of someone like Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. There is no rational reason to think this, and if anything there are reasons to assume the opposite (like Sanders having a better showing with "independents" than other Democrats). The vast majority of available polls show Sanders as considerably more popular than all other options except Biden, and I'd hope that you'd agree that Biden is ideologically repulsive. If you disagree with the actual ideological/policy goals of the left, that's another issue entirely (though this thread probably isn't the place to discuss it). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think the main thing with Booker's plan is that it is "your" money and not a bad person's welfare. Being universal gives it buy in. I'm not sure if you can really call something universal if it only applies to a non-trivial extent to the very poor (and the amount shrinks very quickly the instant a family goes from being "extremely poor" to just "kinda poor"). Can this money be used to pay for rent or healthcare? Because if it's specifically limited to homes, education, and retirement, that's really bad. Most poor people are not going to be getting houses, and there are problems with affording education beyond just the tuition (though paying for tuition obviously helps). Stuff like single-payer, free public housing, and free higher education all seem to address these problems better (but I guess they don't give a huge windfall to the wealthy due to a ton of money suddenly flowing into the stock market). edit: Like, this would obviously be better than nothing, but it's absolutely not "smart" in any sense (given there are far better ways to solve the problem of people being unable to afford necessities) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Oct 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Someone pointed it out and now I can't stop noticing it. I have not even remotely noticed this trend. Just in the visible comments of that tweet there are 5 rose emojis with non-anime avatars (and zero with anime avatars). Also do you still think the Booker plan is "very smart" after the various issues people have mentioned?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
I won't be worried unless suddenly other more mainsteam/center-left competitors (like Harris, Booker, Biden, etc) suddenly start dropping out. Gillibrand dropping out is slightly concerning, but it doesn't concern me too much unless it becomes part of a trend. I don't think Hillary has the influence anymore to make someone like Biden (or probably even Booker) drop out anymore. vvv Yeah, this is another reason it doesn't really concern me. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Oct 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
not joseph stalin posted:That's a fair point. I do think there are some dissimilarities between both winning a Dem primary and winning in a general. And also winning in 2016 vs winning post trump. And I think most people would agree that, by speaking the way he did, Bernie really did outperform expectations. I suppose in Beto, I feel a bit of Obama 2004 DNC address. I was going to make some comment about how I could understand someone being excited about Beto in the same way I was excited about Obama as a 21 year old who hadn't really learned to properly evaluate politicians yet, but apparently you have actually recognized the huge similarities and still like him? Like, the whole lesson from Obama should have been that having a likable personality does not translate to having good politics. edit: I almost feel like Beto appeals to certain liberals in the same way Bush and his (fake) accent and cowboy hat appealed to conservatives. Like, the general image Beto portrays is the equivalent of the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" for conservatives.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Charisma does actually matter in candidates and Beto has it. It's *not* the only thing that matters. It's not a reason in and of itself to support them (or personally like them), though. It's just a nice bonus on top of someone actually having good politics. InnercityGriot posted:Don't take this bait!!!! People like that don't annoy me as much because he's at least explicit in having different political views and thinking the left is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:No. I just want primary voters to stop choosing unelectable people who bungle the campaign stage. The good positions (plus some background to make the person a reliable supporter of them) should be a prerequisite, with other stuff only being considered after-the-fact to compare otherwise-similar candidates. It is also obvious that many ideas of "electability" aren't accurate. Like, Beto is someone who I feel appeals to a specific kind of person (like educated young adults who work in white collar professions), but I dont think he'd necessarily have much broader appeal (like Obama managed to have). Edit: A lot if people argue "well, the most important thing is winning! I'd rather have a mediocre Democrat than a Republican!", but that relies on the false assumption that we can clearly anticipate whether a candidate's "electability" is even higher or lower to begin with, and whether it'll cost the election regardless. And a lot if the time the sort of people making these judgements in the media aren't representative of the wider population (see: people calling Hillary electable in 2016). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Oct 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:he's already working with zero moral authority on economic issues. being a grabby creep is just fuel on the fire Hey, let's not give the man too much credit; he's also working with zero moral authority on social ones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
You guys started talking about Anita Hill, which is also valid, but I was actually referring to a young Biden opposing busing. The sum of efforts like his are what lead to our current status quo where de facto segregation remains the norm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Have some wonky skewering of Kamala's LIFT proposal lol, this guy is an idiot. Anyone who acts like being fully paid-for is some prerequisite for spending like this doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. The cost of programs is a consideration, and needs to be offset enough to avoid any inflation that could outweigh their benefits, but there is no need to offset every dollar spent. This Vox article does a better job of articulating the proposal's actual shortcomings, in my opinion (the "must be working" one seems to be the biggest issue, if I'm understanding it correctly) - https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/19/17995374/kamala-harris-lift-act-basic-income-cash-eitc edit: Like the Vox article puts it, it is frustratingly close to actually being pretty good Hieronymous Alloy posted:They're a bunch of poli-sci "wonks" trying to wonk up a frankenwonk in a wonkery instead of just asking actual people what they actually want then promising to give it to them It seems like a lot "wonkery" fundamentally stems from the axiom that government spending must be off-set (because it basically inserts this unnecessary layer of complexity where you must generate revenue equal to any large spending). Hellblazer187 posted:LT2012 is a troll about 1/4 of the time. This is not one of those times. Do you really think the difference between Biden and Sanders is wider than the difference between Lieberman and Dean? In terms of "the net impact on people of the things they support," of course it's wider. Especially when you consider the broader ideological alignment and long-term goals of the politicians in question (in other words, where will Sanders go if he manages to achieve MfA or whatever, and how reliable will he be as an advocate for it). Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Or if we are using the 2004 example, Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich. The huge difference here is that Bernie Sanders is actually a series contender in 2020, while Kucinich never was. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
I feel like most of the party has come to grips with $15/hr minimum wage (though I don't trust them to not water it down once elected, plus the whole "it's effectively lower if phased in over a long time due to inflation" issue), but there is a very big difference between the sort of candidate who isn't willing to openly support MfA in our current political climate and one who is (and also a difference between the sort of candidate who was willing to support that sort of thing years prior, which only applies to Sanders). Even if they reach a point where they might look similar in November of 2018 or whatever, something like an unwillingness to openly support MfA says something about a candidate's ideology and how they're likely to behave in the future as new issues come up. I trust Sanders to keep pushing left if these current goals were accomplished, because he has spent his entire political career doing this. I don't trust any of the other potential nominees to do this, because they only recently moved left on most of these things (and often have some pretty nasty things in their histories, like Biden). So even if other candidates manage to start supporting the current major planks, there are other important things that need to be accomplished and I don't trust someone as much if they were only very recently willing to support some of the current platform. Hellblazer187 posted:Harris's plan is immediate, it's just too small. It's a million times better than Booker Bux. I would go as far as to say that it would even be flat-out good if not for the working requirement (or specifically the need to have earned $3000, apparently), which manages to single-handedly gently caress up the entire proposal (I could overlook the other issues with it if not for that, but that's a biiig problem). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is correct. You're kinda embarassing yourself here. Not only is there the "low-wage job total declined due to higher-wage job totals increasing" interpretation VitalSigns mentioned, but it explicitly says "While overall employment increased 1.6% during this period, low-wage job totals decreased by 0.4% during this period." Was that increase in overall employment due to the minimum wage increase? Probably not, but the same applies to low-wage employment, and it doesn't change the fact you're somehow turning "overall jobs were gained, while a subset of jobs decreased" into "jobs were lost."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:The party is farther left that it's been in generations. The right flank of the party is closer to the left flank than it's been in generations. Yes, President Harris is a different outcome than President Sanders and that difference is meaningful. That difference is also smaller than the difference between left flank candidates in the past and right flank candidates in the past. This development is overall a good thing. To the left, this is basically like if chattel slavery existed and a political party had made a shift towards giving slaves a path to non-slavery and more strictly enforced laws related to the treatment of slaves, and then people started proudly talking about the progress being made. This analogy likely sounds very extreme to you, but I think it's useful to get some idea of why many on the left find opinions like the one you're expressing here bizarre. Basically, to us, the current state of the country/world is one of utterly grotesque inequality, where millions (or billions if you're talking about the whole world) suffer and even die while a tiny minority hordes the vast majority of wealth/assets. And that's not even getting into things like the urgency of addressing global warming, or the impacts of bigotry (which is also barely addressed - our nation is still just as heavily segregated as it was years ago). So it comes off as strange when people say "why can't you just be happy with this progress?" (this is basically what you're doing here), since even the sort of reforms being discussed here would just put a small dent in a still fundamentally unjust status quo. Hellblazer187 posted:My take on at least some of the Johnny Come Lately's to the left is that most of them have probably always supported relatively far left ideas but have been afraid to admit it for political reasons. This is completely unsubstantiated conjecture, but it's exactly as much unsubstantiated conjecture as "yeah but they don't really believe it at all." This is bizarre to the extent that I'm not even sure how to address it. There is no rational reason to think that people in positions of power, political, or otherwise, in our nation secretly have left-wing beliefs, and many, many reasons to believe they feel the opposite. The default assumption, based off history, should obviously be that they aren't secretly left-wing, because that has never been the case for the overwhelming majority of US politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:I love this tweet. Realistically there is not much America can or should do in these situations. One could argue that some sort of positive intervention might be possible in some alternate universe where the US government/military were completely different than they are (and Bernie being president wouldn't suddenly change that), but in our current reality it isn't. And I don't trust any sanctions (except for stuff like "freeze the foreign-held accounts of specific individuals") to not cause more harm to poorer people in the targeted countries. I realize there's an instinct that you have to do something about bad countries, but the issue with the framing is that the US is also a bad country and can't be trusted to do anything that is likely to help. The sold exception might be stuff like defending countries against the invasion of other countries, or something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I believe this because that's pretty much the way it is with all people I've ever met. Nobody is a moderate because they think moderate is correct. Or at least, very few. Almost everyone you'll meet is either a socialist, a theocrat, or a libertarian, and want society as far in their preferred direction as they think they can get away with. A "reasonable republican" is only so because he feels he can't say "yes actually pollute everything and strip women of the vote." I don't personally know any elected officials but I know that in my own history of candidate choosing and in my discussions with friends, pretty much everyone has personally been much farther towards either socialism or theocracy or libertopia than their candidate choice suggests. So I'm simply extending that same truth to electeds. I admit that it's conjecture - as is your belief that they aren't really embracing the left. Yeah but not all conjectures, as you put it, are created equal. There is every reason to assume that people with wealth/power stand opposed to the goals of the left. They always have historically. While you can't read minds, it's possible to decide upon what the most reasonable default assumption is, and it is not even remotely reasonable to assume that "powerful people who only recently started to tentatively support some mild social democratic reforms" actually have always secretly held left-wing ideology. Maybe you can come to this conclusion once said politicians have not only demonstrated reliable support for these things, but done so in situations where they have a high/realistic chance of passing. Currently there isn't much of a downside to someone voicing support for something like MfA, since there are still more than enough conservative Democrats to sink it even if Democrats return to power. As a result, it is logical to be skeptical towards anyone who only recently came to the right side of this issue. If their convictions actually lead to the policy being passed, or they demonstrate some actual strong efforts to make it pass when/if Democrats regain control over the government, then maybe it might make sense to adjust that perception. edit: Also, pragmatically speaking, there is zero benefit to being a gullible person who always assumes the best about politicians, even if you ignore the fact that doing so doesn't logically make sense. There is a real downside to being quick to assume that politicians' intentions are genuine, and basically no downside to not trusting them until they've actually proven themselves to be reliable on the issue. Hellblazer187 posted:So, just taking one example, same sex marriage. A ton of big time dems, Clinton, Obama, etc, all said no way in 2008 but were on board by 2016. So there's three possibilities here: The key reason this is a bad analogy is that re-distributive leftist policy, like MfA, fundamentally runs counter to the interests of people with wealth/power. There is nothing that really directly threatens wealthy people/businesses about same sex marriage, so there's room for genuine disagreement among the wealthy on that issue. There isn't the same huge amount of corporate money pushing against it; Democratic politicians don't stand to lose a bunch of funding if they support same sex marriage in the same way as they might if they support MfA. (Honestly all of this just kind of makes it worse that it took them as long as they did to support it) axeil posted:Yeah, this pretty well sums up my thoughts. I feel like we need to do something but all the options of what we can do seem like they'll only make things worse or punish the common people instead of the actual evil. Yeah, when I said that there's a feeling like people should do something I didn't meant it in a condescending way or something; I genuinely understand why someone would feel that way. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Is the rationale "while we're the minority party" there's no point in trying for single payer? It really is baffling. He's got one of the farthest left voting records and has supported single payer for decades. Maybe this is so nobody bothers asking him to run for president. Or maybe he turns around and cosponsors right after midterms. Voting records (in the form of metrics that look across all votes) are not particularly useful for determining how left-wing someone is, since the range of ideology represented by the bills voted on doesn't extend that far to the left (and most of the metrics based on this - like the one posted by SousaphoneColossus - don't weight different votes differently). One of the best measures is probably looking at what politicians don't do, or the bad things they do. For example, the thing from Brown quoted above is, by itself, sufficient to nix the idea that he genuinely desires a shift to MfA (or at least desires it anytime soon). If an opportunity comes to actually do something left-wing and they waffle or hesitate, it is reasonable to conclude that they can't be relied upon. SousaphoneColossus posted:It's an easy narrative to assume that health insurance lobbyists opened a briefcase full of cash and Brown had cartoon dollar signs popping out of his eyes but as always it's probably more complicated than that. It is actually rational to assume the worst in these situations, though. You have basically nothing to gain from credulously assuming the best about politicians unless absolute proof of ill intentions is provided, and a lot to lose from making excuses for the inexplicable bad things they do. The conflict of interest from receiving money from insurers is just a bunch of extra supporting evidence casting doubt on how genuine his support is for the idea. Like, the best case scenario here seems to be "he is just kinda stupid and genuinely believes it is harmful to advocate for single-payer now and that advocating for medicare expansion is better for some reason." Mukaikubo posted:everyone in this thread knows the only REAL ranking of how progressive an elected official will be is how he makes me feel down in my loins, instinctively Subjectively judging a politician based off perception of their words/actions is unironically superior to coming up with a goofy metric that isn't even accurate; at least the former doesn't try to pretend like it's somehow scientifically proven that ideological alignment of politicians. Hellblazer187 posted:Right, but what if a person signed on to $15/hr in 2009, and says in interviews "I still support $15/hour but right now I'm focusing on $12.50/hour." Because that's the comparison. If someone did this, the reasonable conclusion would be "they don't actually support $15 and are withdrawing from that position now that it's gaining enough momentum to be a realistic possibility." Either that or the not-much-better "they're an idiot who believes that backing away from the better proposal is politically necessary" (which in practice is basically the same thing). edit: This post basically lays it out more clearly: Trabisnikof posted:Either: Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 5, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:That would be an insanely terrible idea and a good way to risk throwing out the good will built up by his campaign. I feel like Beto is not even near "fantasize about being president despite being inexperienced in politics" tier (I feel like this is kind of questionable even in cases like AOC's, and AOC is much better than Beto), and a lot of the commentary towards him strongly reminds me of the way people reacted to Obama, which I mean in a bad way because getting a Democrat elected only to waste another 4-8 years is not exactly a good outcome (even if it's better than running another Democrat with similar politics and even less charisma). Not to mention the fact that I subjectively feel like his particular brand of charisma isn't nearly as universally effective as Obama's. Beto fits under the "walking back support for MfA should make you very concerned" category of politician. I don't necessary mean to imply malice or that he's been "bought off" or something, but I think it's just very easy for people in that position to be convinced by other politicians and lobbyists that stuff like Medicare expansion is genuinely more pragmatic than "immediately" pushing for single-payer. There's a lot of "peer pressure" for politicians to not go against the grain on things like that, and there are plenty of Serious People there to provide reasonable-sounding arguments for why it's actually fine and good to gradually work towards single-payer in the indefinite future. (This is actually one of my biggest concerns with AOC and any other new/inexperienced politician; once she gets elected she's going to be exposed to a lot of people who will reward her (not necessarily materially, but also socially) for "being reasonable" and not shaking things up too much. This is also one of the bigger upsides to Sanders, since there's far less of a need to worry about that with him.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
^^^^ but he did air drumming in a car, which is apparently the liberal version of "being someone you'd want to have a beer with"Lightning Knight posted:To paraphrase one of the guests on Citations Needed, if Bernie Sanders is where your leftism ends, then we are all hosed. Bernie has a big problem with decorum and not being harsh enough against various bad actors, whether it's John McCain or the racist voters described here (and it's hard to get more explicitly racist than not voting for someone because they're black). I get where he's coming from (he has a sort of default compassion for any non-rich people), but it's basically a perspective caused by privilege. Unfortunately, there are literally no options who are willing to actually take significant measures to directly address systemic racism in our country. Almost no one is actually talking about any sort of meaningful reparations, ending de facto segregation, abolishing the police as they currently exist, abolishing private prisons* and completely reworking our justice system, etc. * Bernie actually has talked about this, apparently vvv Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Yeah, this is really a bizarre one. What do you mean, Gripweed? Why is access to healthcare bad? The relevant question here is "why not just say "people should have healthcare" or directly advocate for something that provides free* (at point of service) care (like in this case MfA)?" In the context of her current political situation, the phrase "access to healthcare" seems to basically be an ambiguous phrase used to avoid directly supporting MfA (that can also be used to describe pretty much any other healthcare policy, since even expensive healthcare can technically be "accessed" and the word "affordable" is subjective). Like, you can technically describe the status quo as one where "access to healthcare" exists, since the phrase is so incredibly subjective (to the point of almost being meaningless) and it's technically true that people can generally access healthcare, even if it bankrupts them in the process. So basically it's a contextual thing; "access to affordable healthcare" happens to be the go-to phrase used by Democrats who don't openly support MfA. The issue isn't that access is bad, but that they aren't talking about other things that are necessary (a key phrase should be "free at point of use"; "access" and even "affordable" can be twisted to mean almost anything). * or very low copay, though I personally think copays should be eliminated as well
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Even in the most generous single-payer systems there are some copays. Generally, there are very low or no copays for PCP visits, but non-generic prescriptions, specialists, and cosmetic consultations will usually have a $12-$60 copay depending on the country and specific situation. That's basically acceptable; it's just that once copays start rising over the equivalent of $20 USD it can act as a strong disincentive to go to the doctor. $5-10 is reasonable enough. Hellblazer187 posted:Then you didn't have access to it. What do you think the word means? He could mortgage his house and go into massive debt to buy the car, so he has access to it. That's a bit of an extreme example, but the point is that "access" can mean "you can get it, but it's super expensive." Even if someone says "access to affordable healthcare," "affordable" is a very wishy-washy word that is also used about Obamacare, and we know how that turned out. edit: In the case of this specific guy, any remaining doubts should have been enshrined with the "fiscal responsibility" stuff Cerebral Bore posted:You do know that absolute credulity and a complete lack of pattern recognition aren't things that you're supposed to be proud of, right? I think that's kind of harsh in this case; I can understand why someone might be baffled at the strong negative response to relatively benign-sounding language if they weren't already "plugged into" the rhetoric and discussions surrounding these topics. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:It's pretty loving LOL how easily you can tell people who have been involved in the fight for M4A and people who have not. Here's a hint: Those of us putting in the work for M4A and interviewing candidates, attending town halls, etc. - when we hear "access to healthcare" we know exactly what that means because it's a dog whistle for a cop out on M4A. A candidate will say that in a room full of people to dodge tough questions on M4A and everyone not in the know just nods their heads and goes "this person is good on healthcare!" I feel like these politicians are preying on peoples' good intentions. People are taught that part of "being a good person" is assuming the best in others, so they use ambiguous language that, interpreted positively, can be spun into almost anything the listener desires. That's why it's important to demand politicians be as explicit as possible. Anything else simply isn't holding them accountable. For better or worse, liberal politicians mostly seem to dislike directly lying, but they will absolutely use a bunch of language that is technically true but misleading/false in spirit. Internet Explorer posted:my eyes almost rolled out of my head I mean, to be fair that'd be a pretty good reason to be skeptical of Bernie Sanders if not for the fact that the man has a very long history of explicitly supporting the sort of policy in question. Not a Step posted:"Health care must be recognized as a right" covers it though. Access is important, because a right you can't exercise isnt much of a right, but you have to guarantee the right to health care first. 'Health care is a right' is good, 'access to health care is a right' is bad. To play devil's advocate, other Democratic 2020 hopefuls have also combined the "healthcare as a right" rhetoric with the "access" rhetoric. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How does it not address what he said? Was he supposed to say, "The people who voted for these racist candidates are racist themselves?" Because that seems like a pretty politically dumb move. This isn't really an excuse; that just means he shouldn't have said anything at all. I would strongly steer clear of "he had no choice for political reasons" as an excuse for politicians, but it's usually a bad one. Majorian posted:Indeed, calling those voters a basket of deplorables is the smart move. This is actually worse than the basket of deplorables thing, in that the stuff Hillary was saying during that quote was actually technically true and just sounded bad. In this case Sanders is actually just wrong when he tries to downplay people not voting for Abrams/Gillum based on race as "not being racist." I mean, it's obviously not some disqualifying thing in context of 2020 candidates or anything, but it was definitely a bad thing to say. Jaxyon posted:At the risk of agreeing with LT2012, yes Bernie has always been a "if we solve class we solve race" type. It's one of his weak points. This isn't really true; his views on this have changed over the years and he's now at least as good as any other Democrats on the issue. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:I think whether or not he wants to run doesn't really matter, he needs to run, if for no other reason than to save the Dems from themselves. The field is crowded with sellouts who will gladly run to the middle at the first opportunity, and it seems like running to the middle is a recipe for losing in the current political climate. The voters have made it pretty clear they aren't interested in fence sitters or policy wonks who confuse statistics and analysis for a message, but that's what will get nominated if Sanders or someone like him isn't up on the debate stage asking what we're going to do to help people in the real world. The thing that bugs me about the "policy wonks" isn't that they use statistics and analysis, but that they do so poorly and in ways that involve bad assumptions. Like, a significant portion of "wonkery" is related to offsetting the costs of programs, a goal which has its own set of false assumptions build into it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
Starbucks guy is good demonstration of how detached from the rest of the country the wealthy are in their bubbles. Like, anyone with any exposure to other non-rich people wouldn't think for a second that someone like Schultz would have broad appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:And yet for the entire existence of drone warfare it has. Maybe drone warfare is just bad? I kinda agree about the focus on drones specifically being kind of bad, when the real issue is just "we shouldn't be bombing people." Even if doing so might be a good idea in some hypothetical world where the US military and government were good actors (and I'd be doubtful even if that were the case), that isn't the world we live in. Pretty much the only situations I can think of where it might make sense for the USA specifically to be bombing people is a "country invading another country" situation, or one where genocide is occurring on such a large scale that it's worse than the outcome that would result from a Libya-esque situation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Sanders' VP matters a bit more than most, see also McCain Palin In a surprising twist, Sanders will introduce a Very Good Dog as his VP. Just walk onto stage with a golden retriever and be like "I am proud to introduce my candidate for Vice President, Rex" followed by showing off Rex's intelligence with various complicated tricks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:This is all we need, and I increasingly question if Bernie can actually do well in the rural Midwest when not running against the Hated Clinton. Especially after seeing (and experiencing) a wave of progressives spin out and crash in rural Michigan during the 2018 primaries and generals. But it isn't "all we need"; there is actual harm from merely replacing Trump with a Democrat like Klobuchar, even if it's somewhat less harm than not doing so. If anything, I'd argue that the potential difference, in terms of impact to peoples' lives, represented by the ideological variation within the likely 2020 Democratic primary candidates is greater than that between the more centrist/right-leaning Democrats and Trump/Republicans. Most people currently in poverty, being killed by our bombs/weapons abroad, suffering from bigotry, etc will continue to do so regardless, but at least under the more left-leaning options like Sanders there's also a chance for policy with a very large positive impact (and he'd also probably murder fewer people abroad, since it's not exactly a high bar to clear to be better than most other Democrats/Republicans on that issue). And that's not even touching on the harder-to-quantify benefit to simply pushing the Overton window to the left through electing someone with Sanders' politics/reputation. Basically the point I'm trying to make here is that it's wrong to think "defeating Trump is so important it should take precedence over all other considerations," since at the end of the day most harm is bipartisan and someone seeking to lessen harm should have the goal of not just electing a Democrat, but electing one who will make a significant positive impact on the status quo. I feel like, when people say this sort of thing, they're using logic like "if I had to choose between replacing Trump with a crappy Democrat or not replacing Trump, I'd choose for the former," but that's not what's actually going on. It would be more accurate to say something like "if I had to choose between a 55% chance of replacing Trump with a crappy Democrat and a 50% chance of replacing him with an actually-decent one" (and this is very generously assuming a candidate like Klobuchar would have a higher chance of winning in the first place, of which there is no convincing evidence). The calculus is a lot less clear when you're just talking about some marginal difference in the chance of winning between two Democratic candidates. Internet Explorer posted:Bernie/Lee is my hope. I think it's important to have a credible progressive VP given Bernie's age. Like I think someone else mentioned at some point, I would rather have Lee in an actual substantive position like Speaker or something than the mostly ceremonial position of VP.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
To be honest, I feel like this is the sort of thing that is inherently impossible to quantify, to the extent that little (if anything) is gained by even attempting to do so. Electability in state/local elections obviously can't be compared with presidential (again, to the extent where I'm not sure doing so even gives you any useful information, other than "did this person do so incredibly bad that their terrible performance would likely translate nation-wide"). On the topic of ideology specifically, the issue with DW-NOMINATE is mainly that it's not weighting different votes (since doing so is basically impossible due to different ideological viewpoints valuing different things differently) and is mainly just measuring to what extent someone votes in a strongly polarized/partisan manner (not that there's anything better - it's just not really possible to quantify this). It can give you a good idea of whether a Democrat is some total centrist shithead, but it's not that useful for distinguishing anyone who isn't exceptionally conservative. A far better indicator is to just choose a small number of key issues that tell you a lot about a politician's ideology - MfA is probably the best thing to use currently for this. And even then there's an element where you have to look at stuff like how consistent a politician has been, the sort of language they've used, whether they've walked back their support, etc (for example various Democrats have, at some point recently, voiced support for MfA, but most are far less reliable in this position than someone like Sanders).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 03:21
|
|