|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
the_steve posted:Let's be real here. There are two reasons that Biden chose Harris. Also let's not forget that Klobb was almost certainly the preferred Biden team pick right up until it came out that her office had given the cop that murdered George Floyd a pass years before on another shooting and the pick became unworkable.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Also let's not forget that Klobb was almost certainly the preferred Biden team pick right up until it came out that her office had given the cop that murdered George Floyd a pass years before on another shooting and the pick became unworkable. The fall of the Klobb was the best thing to happen in 2020. I'm curious when an identical event will happen to Kamala though. If it happens before the inauguration, people gonna be pissed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:07
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Also let's not forget that Klobb was almost certainly the preferred Biden team pick right up until it came out that her office had given the cop that murdered George Floyd a pass years before on another shooting and the pick became unworkable. Let's hope that public opinion keeps making it clear that picks like that are unworkable! Centrist dems are only willing to satisfy their conservative urges and their donors' demands up to the point where it starts loving with their votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Let's hope that public opinion keeps making it clear that picks like that are unworkable! Centrist dems are only willing to satisfy their conservative urges and their donors' demands up to the point where it starts loving with their votes. glad to read this, but I'm confused. so why should people have supported biden, if the only way to make his ilk listen is loving with their votes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:glad to read this, but I'm confused. so why should people have supported biden, if the only way to make his ilk listen is loving with their votes? Because otherwise Donald Trump would've been President.  You actually make a really good point here. I mean, I absolutely still would've voted for Biden if he had selected Klobuchar, I just would've been even more unsatisfied with the ticket than I was with Harris. Stuff is complicated. The meta-dynamics of how vote totals are affected by different actions is bigger than can be reflected in the vote of one white, thirty-something, middle class solid-D voter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Let's hope that public opinion keeps making it clear that picks like that are unworkable! Centrist dems are only willing to satisfy their conservative urges and their donors' demands up to the point where it starts loving with their votes. Not really sure how you square this with the Dem messaging machine regularly vaporizing public support for social-ish policies when it suits them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Not really sure how you square this with the Dem messaging machine regularly vaporizing public support for social-ish policies when it suits them. It seems to me like their perception up until this point has been that social-ish policies hurt them electorally.* Obviously, we see people like Spanberger and Kasich and Eichenwald still pushing this narrative, as it suits their own ideological preferences. But as the influence of under-45s grows, in concert with Boomer influence declining, and as the party realizes that running a radical centrist wasn't the "press button to win big" they were hoping it was when they pushed Biden in the winter, this perception could change. We haven't seen much change in party leadership as a result of this election, so I doubt that the pendulum has swung much on that score right now. But hopefully that will change in future elections. * We could debate forever how much this is something they were actually seeing in the data vs. something that they wanted to believe because it fits their worldview. Obviously it was something that they at least professed to believe during the primaries; whether that was driven more by fear of Trump or fear of Bernie remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It seems to me like their perception up until this point has been that social-ish policies hurt them electorally.* Obviously, we see people like Spanberger and Kasich and Eichenwald still pushing this narrative, as it suits their own ideological preferences. But as the influence of under-45s grows, in concert with Boomer influence declining, and as the party realizes that running a radical centrist wasn't the "press button to win big" they were hoping it was when they pushed Biden in the winter, this perception could change. You see the national Democratic party as a tool of the electorate/their base. I see the national Democratic party as a tool of the people who are actually in positions of influence in the party and the people that give them the resources to stay in those positions (the donor class). Their ideological preferences may change over time, but there's no guarantee (or even suggestion) that those preferences will follow the changing preferences of the electorate on most issues. And I see the Democrats being more than willing to eat electoral losses to maintain their own personal and donor interests. Why would Dems keep moving away from legal weed if they weren't some combination of ideologically motivated against it at the upper echelon of the party and/or serving private prisons by keeping it illegal at the national level?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
That asterisk leaves out the possibility that it's just a useful thing for them to say and that individual actors may not care whether it is accurate or not in a given case, however much they may have internalized the belief in general. A big Biden win was always going to be messaged by centrists as a crushing refutation of the left, and a narrow Biden win or a loss was always going to be explained away by left weighing him down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:That asterisk leaves out the possibility that it's just a useful thing for them to say and that individual actors may not care whether it is accurate or not in a given case, however much they may have internalized the belief in general. A big Biden win was always going to be messaged by centrists as a crushing refutation of the left, and a narrow Biden win or a loss was always going to be explained away by left weighing him down. I will say that people tend to genuinely believe things that they want to be true, even if the data don't support them. Those centrists actually believe that the left will kill the party, and would require overwhelming evidence to believe otherwise. As the data drift further and further from their beliefs, they may begin to question those beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I will say that people tend to genuinely believe things that they want to be true, even if the data don't support them. Those centrists actually believe that the left will kill the party, and would require overwhelming evidence to believe otherwise. As the data drift further and further from their beliefs, they may begin to question those beliefs. That's one option, and it's the most optimistic. We've seen with QAnon what happens if they don't question the underlying beliefs- they instead start questioning the evidence beyond the point of reasonableness, and eventually start defying that evidence, and then the presence of additional evidence is more proof that their beliefs are right and they become susceptible to other, more dangerous beliefs. And once that happens, there is no getting them out of that spiral short of outright cult deprogramming tactics. I don't think that will happen, but I didn't think QAnon was going to get as big as it did, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Somfin posted:That's one option, and it's the most optimistic. We've seen with QAnon what happens if they don't question the underlying beliefs- they instead start questioning the evidence beyond the point of reasonableness, and eventually start defying that evidence, and then the presence of additional evidence is more proof that their beliefs are right and they become susceptible to other, more dangerous beliefs. And once that happens, there is no getting them out of that spiral short of outright cult deprogramming tactics. Absolutely it's a concern. I think there's an advantage in the fact that liberalism, as an ideology, is very compatible with the idea of questioning, reframing and changing your beliefs. This is not as much the case with the conservatives and apolitical people that QAnon is catching on with. Liberals are full of doubt, which I say neither to praise us or drat us; it's just a fact. \/\/\/\/\/\/ I've been watching way more MSNBC than is healthy over the last week and I don't think I've heard the words "Russia" or "Putin" once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
the left and Russiagate is already Qanon for the centrist libs lol, just watch some MSNBC once things calm down or hell probably even right now
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:That is absolutely a possibility, and I didn't intend to disqualify that as a possible explanation, so thanks for saying it explicitly. The incoherent nature of the response so far is probably related to the fact that Biden didn't lose or win big, and so the left-hating people in the party aren't quite sure how to fit their narrative to the reality. I think it needs to be stated again and again and again: when Democratic officials thought that they were going to going to get blown out in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc., they blamed: 1) The left (typically by painting them as disloyal purity testers who can't be trusted no matter who the party puts up or stealth racist Bernie Bros or both) 2) Hispanic men being cryptoracist misogynists 3) Trans folks being unpalatable to "real Americans" Now that they're spinning a narrative around a squeaker win, they're blaming the narrowness on: 1) The left (typically by painting them as disloyal purity testers who can't be trusted no matter who the party puts up or stealth racist Bernie Bros or both) 2) Hispanic men being cryptoracist misogynists 3) Trans folks being unpalatable to "real Americans" The rationale machine is not taking output from the results machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It seems to me like their perception up until this point has been that social-ish policies hurt them electorally.* Obviously, we see people like Spanberger and Kasich and Eichenwald still pushing this narrative, as it suits their own ideological preferences. But as the influence of under-45s grows, in concert with Boomer influence declining, and as the party realizes that running a radical centrist wasn't the "press button to win big" they were hoping it was when they pushed Biden in the winter, this perception could change. VVV Oh I know, I was just trying to address what you both were saying. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I know that this is a electoral thread and we can't be totally cynical or there's no conversation to be had. But I think we can all agree that the people who say "X ran on the most progressive platform in history, didn't you read it?!" are either lying or incredibly stupid and deserve the Online equivalent of a pantsing and a swirly. I was definitely not saying that, I'm saying the people who are saying that, need to point to Biden actually saying it, instead of saying "Oh it's on his website." Or whatever the current liberal excuse is for why Joe Biden is secretly Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Absolutely it's a concern. I think there's an advantage in the fact that liberalism, as an ideology, is very compatible with the idea of questioning, reframing and changing your beliefs. This is not as much the case with the conservatives and apolitical people that QAnon is catching on with. there was a thread in gbs asking whatever happened to tara reade, and multiple posters shared the galaxy brain take that it was a psyop by perfidious vlad. the damage is already done
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:there was a thread in gbs asking whatever happened to tara reade, and multiple posters shared the galaxy brain take that it was a psyop by perfidious vlad. the damage is already done I wouldn't read into that too much; for every person saying Tara Reade was a Russian psyop there's probably 10 who disbelieve her for non-Russia reasons, 100 who believe her but voted for Biden anyway, 1000 who forgot about it, and 10,000 who never even heard the story because of the selective way it was reported.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Absolutely it's a concern. I think there's an advantage in the fact that liberalism, as an ideology, is very compatible with the idea of questioning, reframing and changing your beliefs. This is not as much the case with the conservatives and apolitical people that QAnon is catching on with. They'll come home to it once the victory wine is all drunk, it was basically a solid 90% of Joy Reid and Maddow's shows Expect it to shift from them conspiring with Republicans to them tricking or working with toxic latino men and the left, but the rest shall remain unchanged because it's all they've got and they need it more than ever My personal favorite is the Jill Stein and Sarandon obsessives who will literally say without a 2nd thought that they believe these two women can decide on a whim who will win elections, which is why they need to be alienated and destroyed
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Russiagate was a convenient explanation to a phenomenon that liberals didn't understand: the Trump victory. Everyone was running on the assumption that the best candidate wins, but because life's not a meritocracy that didn't happen. Instead of examining how they were defeated by a deflated orange moron, they refused to challenge their own viewpoints and instead edited the facts to fit their narrative: he cheated. Also, let's stop worrying about motivation. I'm sure Biden is a delightful fellow that only hopes for the best. It's his actions that matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:They'll come home to it once the victory wine is all drunk, it was basically a solid 90% of Joy Reid and Maddow's shows Epic High Five posted:My personal favorite is the Jill Stein and Sarandon obsessives who will literally say without a 2nd thought that they believe these two women can decide on a whim who will win elections, which is why they need to be alienated and destroyed  I've never seen that one, but I guess you get to see some pretty wild stuff when you're in the habit of scouring Twitter for the absolute worst takes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I wouldn't read into that too much; for every person saying Tara Reade was a Russian psyop there's probably 10 who disbelieve her for non-Russia reasons, 100 who believe her but voted for Biden anyway, 1000 who forgot about it, and 10,000 who never even heard the story because of the selective way it was reported. you're literally describing the damage being done, dude, "never even heard the story because of the selective way it was reported" is a key part of the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
It's a pretty common one, tbf. Less common now than it was a couple years ago, but still pretty common, to the point where one unfortunately doesn't have to scour Twitter for it. It'll pop up in the replies pretty much every time there's a headline that involves Turner. \/\/\/ Mellow Seas posted:That's... incredibly disappointing. Still, I think it's pretty far from a mainstream view among liberals. (We just love Rocky Horror too much to ever fully turn on Sarandon. Sure, it's mainly an extremely online thing. It does unfortunately have a tendency to trickle downstream, though. While most liberals may not know about the Sarandon thing, or even know who Nina Turner is, they can quickly internalize, "Any criticism of the President/VP I support is being made in bad faith." Which isn't the most productive environment, I'm sure you'll agree. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:you're literally describing the damage being done, dude, "never even heard the story because of the selective way it was reported" is a key part of the point. Wake me up when people on cable TV start blaming Putin for the losses in the House or not retaking the Senate. I am reasonably sure that Russiagate is just not a thing if Trump is not a thing. Majorian posted:It's a pretty common one, tbf. Less common now than it was a couple years ago, but still pretty common, to the point where one unfortunately doesn't have to scour Twitter for it. It'll pop up in the replies pretty much every time there's a headline that involves Turner.  )
Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's a pretty common one, tbf. Less common now than it was a couple years ago, but still pretty common, to the point where one unfortunately doesn't have to scour Twitter for it. It'll pop up in the replies pretty much every time there's a headline that involves Turner. What on earth is going on with peoples' twitter feeds if they're seeing this poo poo regularly? Asking seriously because that seems unbelievably fringe
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
didn’t some reporter/celebrity announce their desire to fight susan Sarandon this year over 2016
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What on earth is going on with peoples' twitter feeds if they're seeing this poo poo regularly? Asking seriously because that seems unbelievably fringe One of the advantages of posting incessantly in CSPAM is that I haven't actually had to hear Trump speak in years and barely engage with social media anymore. Anything notable will be discovered by someone there and presented to me It's not really fringe, it usually just appears in the comments of any progressive for whom it's not at all strange to be following
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What on earth is going on with peoples' twitter feeds if they're seeing this poo poo regularly? Asking seriously because that seems unbelievably fringe You don't need twitter, you can see Bill Maher say these things on HBO if you are so inclined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
I would carve my owns eyes out before I'd voluntarily listen to that dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:One of the advantages of posting incessantly in CSPAM is that I haven't actually had to hear Trump speak in years and barely engage with social media anymore. Anything notable will be discovered by someone there and presented to me I can understand that if you just look at the relatively mild policy impacts of his presidency, he doesn't seem as bad as he does when you actually listen to his rhetoric. Epic High Five posted:It's not really fringe, it usually just appears in the comments of any progressive for whom it's not at all strange to be following Herstory Begins Now posted:I would carve my owns eyes out before I'd voluntarily listen to that dumbass [Maher]. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Nov 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I would carve my owns eyes out before I'd voluntarily listen to that dumbass. Hey, remember when Chris Matthews melted down when it looked like Bernie might win? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5MRDEXRk4k
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think that not hearing Trump speak regularly is also why CSPAM regulars found the idea of him remaining president less horrifying than people who consume media where Trump speaking is a regular occurrence. Because Jesus Christ, listen to the guy. Most do listen to him, I cannot understand it but I'm definitely an aberration. I'll even skip over him speaking in podcasts lol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think that not hearing Trump speak regularly is also why CSPAM regulars found the idea of him remaining president less horrifying than people who consume media where Trump speaking is a regular occurrence. Because Jesus Christ, listen to the guy. It almost like, entirely consistent with our analysis of Biden’s campaign “promises”, actions count more in our eyes than cheap words
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:It almost like, entirely consistent with our analysis of Biden’s campaign “promises”, actions count more in our eyes than cheap words  Of course actions matter more than rhetoric, but I still believe rhetoric plays an important role in the formation of public opinion. (For example) Biden name-checking trans rights in his acceptance speech is pretty worthless if he doesn't take action on the issue, but it's better than if he hadn't mentioned them at all, both in signifying his future choice of action and affecting the position of partisans who like him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Rudy did something good for once...
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-idUSKBN27P2NE U.S. Senator McConnell says Trump within his rights to probe election 'irregularities' quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday said President Donald Trump was completely within his rights to look into “irregularities” from last week’s election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
I’ve seen a few folks come to this thread to criticize leftist posters for platforming nobodies, and they all make a specific point of assuming that these folks’ feeds/algorithms are all messed up and that they’re not representative of any real life political tendencies among the general population. These assumptions don’t make a lot of sense to me. A commenting platform on the level of Twitter is certainly not representative of the general population, but it’s gotta be representative of somebody. I think a lot of the most politically motivated Americans consume content there, actively or passively, and the conversation there likely mirrors conversations going on in real life among politically active Americans. But if there’s evidence to the contrary, I’d change my mind. (One day, these vast troves of people madly tweeting at one another will have to be fascinating to study for future historians, assuming it’s archived correctly.) Otherwise I’ll note that most of the topics being brought up as fringe really aren’t all that unusual to see in comments, but most people on the left are encountering them through lefty Twitter sharing it to laugh at it or raise the alarm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
'sup?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Joe Biden posted:'sup? You spent $10 on a account named Joe Biden, presumably for gimmick purposes, to make this your first post in the General Election thread? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
Guiliani: thanks for making my porn shop great again. Wd are getting reports of the viewing booths running at full capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:10
|
|
