USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Cimber posted:

Thanks Joe Leiberman, you did us all a solid.

I would like to think that the myth that "Lieberman killed the public option" died when he did, but I guess that's not the case. Max Baucus, chair of the Finance Committee & who was given the task of creating the Senate ACA bill by Obama, killed the public option in committee; it never got a floor vote in the Senate (by design).

Lieberman voted against lowering the Medicare age to 55, which was as opposed by the health-insurance industry at the time as the public option was (and currently is), but for some reason the notion that Lieberman "killed the public option" is on up there with teflon myths like "Obama voted against the Iraq war."

(I'm ready for my posting punishment, Mr. DeKoos, but as my longtime D&D fans know, this has been an issue close to my heart, and I cannot let such myths prevail among meaningful debate & discussion.)

# ¿ Apr 11, 2024 22:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:49

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Name Change posted:

https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/49912-baucus-advances-without-public-option/

Baucus voted against a public option in committee & neither story says otherwise, only that Baucus used the threat of a filibuster as a reason to preclude it from the Senate bill:

quote:

His bill will not include a government-run insurance option to compete with the private sector because �a public option cannot pass the Senate,� Baucus said.

The public option is a core provision for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and liberal members, and was approved by three House panels and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

It was not approved by the Senate Finance Committee, the committee charged with writing the ACA, which is what I said. Baucus's reasoning that it was due to Lieberman's threat of a veto, when the health-insurance industry & other "stakeholders" didn't want one from the jump, came months after Obama promised "stakeholders" there wouldn't be one included during off-the-record meetings that later came to light.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924

quote:

The reason Robert Gibbs gives for President Obama's health care plan not including a public option -- that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate -- doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option.

***

There is no evidence that President Obama has ever twisted the arm of a single Senator to support a public option and plenty of evidence that he has assiduously avoided doing so, sending a message to Senators that he doesn't want a public option. When the Senate passed its version of the health reform bill, the reason the White House gave for there being no public option was that it couldn't garner 60 votes. But Joe Lieberman, who could have been the 60th vote, insists that the Obama administration never pressured him to support either a public option or a Medicare buy-in. And Sen. Russ Feingold blamed the demise of the public option in the Senate on the White House's failure to push for it.

Now the White House is saying they're not including a public option in Obama's plan because they can't get even 51 Democratic votes in the Senate. Does anyone really believe that if President Obama really wanted a public option -- if he hadn't dealt the public option away in a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry -- he couldn't get 51 out of 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote for it?

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Apr 11, 2024

# ¿ Apr 11, 2024 23:29

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I understand & agree; I put it in quotes because I saw the term used by bureaucrats during the early months of 2009 when it seemed to encompass PhRMA, the AHA, AHIP, medical-supply companies, and other for-profit interests--but precluded single-payer advocates (even Quentin Young, who had served as Obama's private physician in Chicago) and, more importantly, the people who'd hired Obama & the legislators put in charge of crafting the bill.

Goatse James Bond posted:

I don't see a forumban on your rap sheet, so I don't know why you think you'd be probated for a civil, on-topic post with some effort and content put into it.

Thanks; I may be unduly skittish based on the specious premises of some of my past probations.

# ¿ Apr 12, 2024 01:42

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Main Paineframe posted:

Baucus was not the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote against the public option. Five Dems voted against Rockefeller's proposal, and three Dems voted against Schumer's proposal.

Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln voted against both, while Tom Carper and Bill Nelson voted against one but not the other.

Conrad was a notorious deficit hawk and big beneficiary of health industry lobbyist bucks, who was known for his tendency to come out strongly against just about any federal spending that wasn't agricultural subsidies for North Dakotan farmers. It wasn't exactly shocking when he opposed the public option.

Lincoln had supported the idea of a public option earlier in her career, but by 2009 she'd taken a rather drastic turn in the conservative direction in an attempt to shore up some rather difficult reelection prospects, and had publicly vowed to filibuster the ACA if it had a public option in it. So it wasn't terribly shocking that she also opposed it in committee. Her sudden plunge into deep-red waters didn't seem to help her get reelected, though!

Carper claimed to like the idea of a nonprofit public option, but didn't want it to be able to outcompete private insurance, and so he didn't want it to be government-run. He tried to offer up a compromise plan in which each state would have the option to create its own public option.

Nelson spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He suggested that he was open to the idea of a public option, but also voting against a government-run public option on the grounds that it was "socialized healthcare" and declaring that it would definitely not pass; he was thought likely to join in on a filibuster if the public option had hit the floor of Congress.

And those were just the Dem opponents on the Senate Finance Committee! In addition to those five, several other Dem senators were openly signaling that they were unlikely to support a public option. Lieberman's threat to filibuster it is the best-remembered, but he wasn't the only one. Mary Landrieu also suggested that she'd filibuster it, saying that there was no way she would ever vote for government-run healthcare.

It's wrong to say that Lieberman was solely responsible for killing the public option. But it's even more wrong to say that Baucus was solely responsible for that. Regardless of where Baucus may have personally stood on the public option, he was definitely telling the truth when he said that there weren't 60 votes to pass it.

Baucus (and, more importantly, his former health-insurance lobbyist chief of staff [who Obama later appointed to oversee implementation of the ACA]) were given the directive to craft the bill by the president, and he led the committee hearings on the Senate version of the bill; he was pretty much considered the architect during its crafting.

As the Huffington Post link points out, there were many Senate Democrats (including those on the finance committee, as you said) opposed to the public option. But the hairball during all of this was that, prior to the actual hearings on the amendment, Obama had made a backroom deal to preclude a public option.

So yes, you're correct: Baucus didn't unilaterally kill the public option; it's probably more truthful to say that it was Obama who killed it, with the assistance of Baucus & several other Democrats. And it all circles back to the Lieberman Lie, which somehow persists even after 15 years.

(How ironic that the "deficit hawks" like Conrad were against the option that would have likely saved the feds the hundreds of billions of dollars they wound up subsidizing private health insurers, although I do recall Schumer saying, at the time, that any public option would have to be priced "on an even playing field" with private insurance.)

eta: I will note that your contention that I said "that Baucus was solely responsible for that" is factually incorrect; I said that "Baucus killed the amendment in committee" and that he refused to bring it for a floor vote, powers that he wielded as chair of the Senate Finance Committee at that time, and that Lieberman did not. I'm confused how those facts are "more wrong" than assigning the blame for killing the public option on Lieberman, which was the original claim to which I responded.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Apr 12, 2024

# ¿ Apr 12, 2024 03:40

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Speaking of Obama, has anyone read the roman � clef "Great Expectations" about the Obama years that was released last month?

Jacobin posted a review of it:

quote:

n 2007, the New Yorker staff writer Vinson Cunningham was in his early twenties, working as a tutor in Manhattan. These were exciting times for the liberal public sphere: the iPhone, Tumblr, and Nancy Pelosi had just made debuts, the latter as the first woman speaker of the House of Representatives. Through luck, or fate, or divine intervention, Cunningham�s tutoring connections drew him into the orbit of a charismatic black senator from Illinois making a bid for the presidency. Working on Barack Obama�s campaign, he called potential donors, collected checks, clutched a clipboard at the entrance to the apartments of the rich and famous � the kind of work that inspires and requires jaded cynicism. Cunningham has lent his own potted biography to the protagonist of his debut novel, Great Expectations. Like its namesake, this is a story about searching for identity, but race, religion, and political disillusionment in early 2000s America take the place of Charles Dickens�s class-inflected Victorian romance.

Great Expectations follows David Hammond, a black man, also in his early twenties, over the eighteen months he spends working for the senator�s campaign. One character jokes about the similarity between his and the name of the artist David Hammons, whose work has dealt ironically with symbols of race and power in the United States (�magical things happen when you mess around with a symbol,� he told the critic Kellie Jones in 1986). Cunningham�s novel, much like Hammons�s art, explores the hollowness and malleability of symbols. At its center is the unnamed senator, referred to throughout as simply �the candidate� but clearly more than inspired by Barack Obama.

***

By the end of the book, David has learned � from the candidate, from donors he�s become close to � �a language of signs.� He has lost the reverence he once held for the world of politics, seen behind the curtain and witnessed scurrying assistants, frantic fundraisers, and not much else. By the novel�s close, he has no capacity for admiration �now that I could interpret the symbols [the candidate] offered in such profusion.� When he arrives in Chicago for election day, David finds himself attracted to the �veiled God of my youth, if only because He still spoke words I couldn�t comprehend.�

Great Expectations asks what happens when what was once clouded in smoke comes clearly into view, and we discover that the symbols we had treated as synecdoche for something larger are in fact empty. Belief in hope and change alone can only get you so far.

https://jacobin.com/2024/04/vinson-cunningham-great-expectations-obama-era/

# ¿ Apr 12, 2024 03:55

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Forget about Democrats taking GOP Senate seats; the real nail-biters will be Dem incumbents and open seats:

* Tester is polling even in MT against one potential challenger in particular.

* If OH doesn't make an exception to allow Biden on the ballot, Brown would suffer bc of low turnout. (I think Biden will be on the ballot, though.)

* NV has taken a turn to the red in presidential polling; Rosen could end up losing her seat.

* MD Dems' former bff Larry Hogan is wiping the floor against both likely Dem candidates.

* WV is a GOP lock, not that it'll make much of a pragmatic difference unless it literally tilts the balance of the senate.

But a lot of states haven't yet had their party primaries, so the situation is pretty fluid & subject to change.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 18:58

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Cimber posted:

Candidate vs Generic GOP is always a terrible poll result. Sure, you might hate the guy you know, but wait until you hear about his opponent.

Is this a response to my post? If so, I meant polling in which there's more than one announced challenger in the other party but the polls are head to head by name, because the primary hasn't yet happened to choose a candidate.

E.g.:

Although in that instance it's Hogan vs. Democrats the other polling I referenced also was about primary candidates who have yet to win the nomination.

eta MT:

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 16, 2024

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 19:31

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

nm.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 16, 2024

# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 20:32

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The Ohio state attorney general has rejected provisional certification for Biden's nomination in order to have him on the ballot in November:

quote:

Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has rejected a Democratic proposal meant to get around a legal technicality that could prevent President Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot here this November.

In a Monday letter to Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose�s office, Julie Pfeiffer, a top lawyer in Yost�s office, said the idea floated by Democrats � that LaRose accept a �provisional� certification of Biden as the Democratic Party candidate before the party�s official convention in mid-August � isn�t allowed under state law, which sets the deadline for parties to nominate their presidential candidates in early August.

The development means that Democrats will have to figure out another way to deal with the issue.

Bill Demora, a state senator from Columbus who�s also a longtime operative with the Ohio Democratic Party, said he isn�t surprised Yost rejected the proposal, floated in an April 9 letter to LaRose�s office from Don McTigue, a longtime Democratic elections attorney in Columbus who has done work in the past for national Democrats.

�It was a Hail Mary to think that the Secretary of State had any ability to change the law when he�s an executive,� Demora said. �I never expected it to go, but they did it just to say they did it.�

Demora spoke with cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer from Chicago, where he was participating in a walkthrough for the Democratic National Convention, scheduled to be held in the city from Aug. 19-22. He said he�d spoken with Democratic National Committee Chair Jamie Harrison about the issue, and is reassured that Biden will qualify for the Ohio ballot one way or another.

�I think it�s going to be solved through Democratic Party processes that aren�t that complicated,� said Demora, who declined to specify them for use in this story, although others have described how national Democrats could hold an earlier �mini-convention.� �We�re just waiting on D.C. to tell us what to do.�

The Biden campaign said that Alabama, Illinois Montana and Washington in 2020 all granted provisional certification to presidential candidates that year to deal with similar issues.

�Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states,� a Biden campaign official said.

While Ohio Democrats have been aware of the issue internally for months, the issue with Biden qualifying for the ballot first became public on April 5, when LaRose wrote a letter to Ohio Democratic Party leaders.

Specifically, LaRose�s office said the Democratic convention date will occur after a state deadline that says major political parties must certify their presidential candidates no later than 90 days before the general election. This year, that deadline is Aug. 7 � about two weeks before the Democratic National Convention.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ohio-ag-yost-shoots-down-democrats-proposed-fix-to-get-biden-on-the-ohio-ballot/ar-BB1lJE93

I'm guessing that the DNC will support a "mini-convention" to technically nominate Biden, probably virtually, or make some sort of rules change that allows them to certify Biden as the nominee in order to meet the deadline.

As I've said, I believe that Biden being precluded from the ballot would damage Sherrod Brown's chances for reelection.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2024 17:34

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Yesterday The Baltimore Sun published the results of the U.S. Senate poll the toplines of which I mentioned the other day in which Hogan is burying both Democratic candidates in head-to-heads, while the millionaire Trone looks to be the likely D candidate.

The sample for this poll was a respectable 1300 likely voters for the general election with a much smaller 600 likely voters for the D primary subset.

quote:

David Trone, a multimillionaire who has spent more than $40 million in Maryland�s U.S. Senate race, has opened a wide gap between himself and Angela Alsobrooks for the Democratic nomination, a new poll from The Baltimore Sun, FOX45 and the University of Baltimore found.

But either would lose to former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan in the general election if it were held now, according to the poll�s sample of nearly 1,300 likely voters. Hogan�s popularity suggests Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1, will be a battleground in the national parties� push to win a majority in the narrowly divided Senate.

***

Hogan beat Trone, 53% to 40%, and Alsobrooks, 54% to 36%, in the poll�s hypothetical November matchups. OpinionWorks, which has conducted polls for The Sun since 2007, surveyed a total of 1,292 likely voters of Republican, Democratic, other party and no party affiliation on those questions.

In 2018, Hogan became the first Republican in 70 years to be reelected Maryland governor. He prevailed by presenting a low-key brand of moderation to win critically needed, crossover Democratic votes in one of the nation�s bluest states. His second four-year term ended in January 2023; Maryland governors are limited to two terms.

Raabe said it is significant that 63% of the nearly 1,300 polled viewed Hogan as �independent-minded,� while just 23% considered him �a partisan Republican who will vote with Republicans most of the time.�

�That�s the thing that I would be happiest about, if I were him,� Raabe said.

�Democrats are going to try very hard to cast him as another vote for the Republicans in the Senate. He can say, �I�m an independent.��

The landscape that surrounds Hogan will look different than during his gubernatorial runs.

Unlike in 2014 and 2018, he is running in a presidential election year. While Hogan has clashed with Republican presidential contender Donald Trump, analysts say the likely presence of the polarizing candidate at the top of the November ballot may significantly boost Democratic turnout in the state.

�It�s going to be a much bigger electorate than his gubernatorial runs,� said University of Baltimore professor John Willis, who was secretary of state in the administration of Democratic Gov. Parris Glendening. �And you�ve got to do a lot of number crunching to see where that turnout is coming from and what issues are they motivated by. Whichever the opponent, there�ll be an opportunity to reshape the issues that voters would have to consider.�

Maryland Democrats� hopes in November will rest partly on voters � such as poll respondent Jane Jenkins � who were happy with Hogan as governor, but won�t vote for him now because his election could tip the Senate balance to Republicans.

While she says his views are to the right of her own, �I liked Hogan as governor,� said Jenkins, 71, a Cumberland retiree.

But she says maintaining the Democrats� Senate majority, which allows the party to shape the chamber�s agenda, �is extremely important. Frankly, I think the Democrats have better ideas and are leaning more the way the country feels about issues.�

Jenkins said she will vote for Trone � she is in his congressional district � in the primary and that she had never heard of Alsobrooks �until she threw her hat into the ring.�

Another person surveyed for the poll, Raymond Waters, 44, of Baltimore, said he would likely support Hogan. A former registered Democrat, Waters said he lost faith in the party and became a Republican because of corruption among Baltimore officials, including former Mayor Sheila Dixon�s conviction for stealing gift cards in 2009.

�Maybe the Republicans will do a better job,� Waters said.

***

If she wins in May and November, Alsobrooks would be Maryland�s first Black U.S. senator. Also, she would return a woman to the state�s 10-member congressional delegation.

The poll shows Alsobrooks with a 39% to 35% margin among Black voters in the Democratic primary. Her margin among women and men is identical: she is losing both by 18 points, Raabe said.

�It is surprising there is no gender gap in this race,� Raabe said.

Alsobrooks raised $5 million and spent $1.8 million from May through the end of last year, according to her Federal Election Commission reports.

At this point in time that bipartisan support for & approval of Hogan as governor has really paid off for his Senate run. The margin of his lead in the g.e. is greater than any other R candidate running for the Senate this year among recent polling.

Biden won the state by 33 points in 2020, and Black voters comprise around 30 percent of the electorate, two data points that buttress how unusually well Hogan is doing there.

The DSCC has some heavy lifting to do in order to make him toxic to voters over the next six months.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 18, 2024

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 14:58

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Xombie posted:

This is just the numbers you posted the other day, and the same problems with it remain. Hogan is still winning on name recognition ahead of the Democratic primary. "Independent-minded" helps someone running for governor, but doesn't help when he might hand power in the Senate to the GOP just by having "R" next to his name. Hogan has only won elections in non-presidential election years and he'd have to split off Biden voters by double digits.

Hogan would not be the first popular "bipartisan" governor to lose a senate race because of his party affiliation.

I posted the Baltimore Sun story today bc it was a deep dive into the numbers; all I posted the other day were the margins by which Hogan was winning.

I found it particularly notable that the sample size was large (larger than many national g.e. polls), was comprised of likely voters (instead of registered voters or all adults), and that Hogan is doing far better than the other Republican candidates running for the Senate, even in deep-red states like Texas & Florida.

I also found it interesting that the Black candidate on the Democratic side isn't leading by a notable margin among Black voters.

I guess we'll see as we get closer to November, and after the Democratic primary, whether Hogan will be successfully tainted as a Republican or continue to hold a lead that his fellow GOP candidates would envy.

eta:

RBA Starblade posted:

There's no way imo, Hogan's pretty well regarded in the area. Even a couple socialists I know in real life like him. The guy's a shoe-in.

Yeah, I think he's a shoo-in too, especially given his prior approvals as governor by Democratic voters (and their votes!) as well as the huge margin I mentioned.

etaa:

I edited the prior post to note that it's the same poll the toplines of which I referenced the other day.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Apr 18, 2024

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:01

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Shammypants posted:

Lol get the gently caress out of here man.

I don't understand this post; can you go into a little more depth, please?

eta the poll I mentioned the other day about Hogan's high approvals among Democrats; it was taken in Jan. 2023.

quote:

Gov. Larry Hogan (R) will leave office Wednesday with the same stratospheric job approval ratings that he�s enjoyed for most of his time in office.

A recent poll conducted for Gonzales Research & Media Services, an Arnold-based polling firm, showed Hogan leaving office with an eye-popping 77% of Marylanders approving of the job he�s doing as governor. That�s just one tick below the 78% high-water mark he received two other times in the Gonzales poll, which has been tracking Hogan�s popularity since January 2016, a year after he became governor.

In the poll, Hogan had an astonishing 81% job approval rating among Democrats � 13 points higher than it was among Republicans. Seventy-six percent of non-affiliated voters said they approved of the job Hogan is doing. Equally significant, Hogan�s job approval rating among Black voters was at 81%, compared to 76% for white voters.

The telephone poll of 823 registered voters was taken Jan. 9-14, using a combination of land lines and cell phones. It had a 3.5-point margin of error.

Hogan�s job approval ratings would be the envy of any politician, and far outstrip voters� feelings for President Biden. In the Gonzales poll, 58% of Maryland voters said they approved of the job Biden is doing, compared to 41% who did not. And they�re far more divided along partisan and racial lines.

Biden�s job approval rating among Democrats was equal to Hogan�s: 81%. Pollster Patrick Gonzales called that statistical tie �the most fascinating finding in this survey.�

https://www.marylandmatters.org/202...-lobbying-firm/

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Apr 18, 2024

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:05

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Xombie posted:

None of that negates all of the problems with the poll, namely that there isn't an actual Democratic candidate yet. This is on top of the issues with polls right now in general, where it's too far ahead of the election and they are done by phone poll and will therefore skew toward "people who pick up their phone for anonymous numbers".

Why? She's a "County Executive", while Trone is a US House rep. She isn't a particularly strong candidate for US Senate.

Again, this would be a shoe-in for governor, but not Senate. People who want a Democratic Senate are going to coalesce around a centrist with a D next to their name, not a centrist with an R next to their name. Party matters far more when running for Senate than Governor, because of the fact that it actually does matter.

"Hogan will hand the US Senate to the Republicans and Donald Trump" is going to be an easy refrain for the Dems, and hard for Hogan to fight against because it will be objectively true.

As I said, I found the sample size for the g.e. to be notable bc of its size & its likely-voter population.

As I also said, things could possibly change once a Dem nominee is chosen, but I also think that Hogan having an 81 percent approval rating among Democrats once he left office is going to be a heavy lift for the DSCC, which I also said.

I found the Black primary polling interesting because Alsobrooks would be the first Black senator from a state in which 30 percent of the electorate are Black. That looks to be moot anyway bc Trone will likely win the primary.

We'll see how easy it is for the Democrats to paint their former preference for governor as senatorial poison, but I'd put my money on a Hogan win even as Maryland is sure to vote Biden by a wide margin.

eta: The polling wasn't done exclusively by phone, btw:

quote:

Voters were randomly selected from the Maryland State Board of Elections� voter file and contacted by trained interviewers by phone (landline and cellular). Additional voters were interviewed online through voter file sampling and databases known as consumer panels.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Apr 18, 2024

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:57

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Once the Maryland primary has happened and a Democratic nominee is chosen I expect the polls to tighten but I also expect Hogan to lead Trone up until the g.e.

And I doubt that Bredesen carried an 81 percent approval rating among GOP voters as governor, although I'm willing to be educated about it if he did.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 18:25

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

ElegantFugue posted:

Has Hogan said anything about abortion since Roe was overturned? I feel like that's an as-yet-unapplied variable that could change things pretty heavily. I'm not sure the standard R "I personally oppose all abortions except the ones you like, but will totally not pass any laws against it except for the ones I've already passed restricting it (ignore those please)" stance he used to espouse is gonna work as well now.

Even as he scored his 81 percent approval rating among Democrats in the state he was busy vetoing bills that expanded abortion. His record as governor is solidly conservative, which is why it's so mystifying that Maryland Democrats have adored him so much.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 18:39

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1780748530753196525

That's kind of a push-y question, though it is from a GOP commissioned survey, I'd be interested to see what the number was on an open ended "Who's to blame" question.

I checked the tweet & follow-ups but there's no link to the source poll or its sampling methods. There's also no mention of which polling outfit conducted it. The x account appears to be run by some rando.

Do you have more info about this particular poll, or at least the name of the pollster?

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 20:25

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

While noodling around trying to find info on that poll from other accounts that focus on polling I came across this one:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1780660371495203132

Small sample size, but of likely voters. When all registered voters are asked, Baldwin is up by 5.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 20:29

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

FlamingLiberal posted:

It's also April, and is the GOP primary already done there?

Yep, a couple weeks ago.

I've found this link to be handy when checking the primary calendar.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 21:28

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

Is TikTok any more a hub for leftism than it is a hub for right wing lunacy?

You'd have to extrapolate by demographics, but its U.S. users are overwhelmingly young & majority female (54F to 46M, according to Statista) . Other countries are more balanced by gender but still skew young in age.

eta: Hmm, that chart seems to indicate percentage of certain users' age groups but not the actual breakdown of users by age, so I'll try to find that and edit it in.

etaa: Found this, but without a source.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 19, 2024

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:06

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Koos Group posted:

As a reminder, regarding the last several pages, in-depth discussion of electoral politics and political strategies should be taken here so that this thread can remain about current events.

For clarification purposes, pending legislation used as a political strategy may still be discussed here, right? What about the political ramifications of legislation?

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:10

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

I don�t think you can really make a meaningful extrapolation in this instance just from age. I�m not saying that TikTok doesn�t have a left lean, but it is so effective at siloing people that I think most people are going to think it is aligned to whatever their individual predilections are. I would be interested to see if it actually skews one way or another.

I wasn't making an argument for leftism dominating tiktok but rather presenting the only demographics I was able to find.

Ah, leave it to Pew Research:

On the other hand, one can't necessarily assume Democrats to be "leftists."

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Apr 19, 2024

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:26

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

I don't have time to read this research right now but it seems pertinent to the convo.

TikTok as a Key Platform for Youth Political Expression: Reflecting on the Opportunities and Stakes Involved

It's an academic paper published in a journal that cites other research throughout.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 19:36

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Fork of Unknown Origins posted:

That�s a bit more of a Democratic lean than the overall US population but not an extreme difference.

Also according to Pew, political affiliation in the U.S. is currently 49D-48R*, so the TikTok demographic is +11% more D and -16% less R, for an overall difference of 26 percent.

(Someone correct me if I figured this out wrong.)

I'd say that's a notable statistic rather than an "extreme" one or a "bit" of a difference; would you agree?

* including "leaners"

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Apr 19, 2024

# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 21:11

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

IT BURNS posted:

At the very least, he looks like a hypocrite having only recently created an account expressly to appeal to younger voters. It's a dumb move.

The Intercept ran a piece yesterday on how Biden has courted TikTok influencers "help him shore up youth support for his reelection":

quote:

Though the Biden administration has directly consulted on the creation of the legislation that could ban TikTok, the Biden campaign has embraced the app, creating an official account in February. The decision has drawn criticism from even some of Biden�s most stalwart allies.

�I�m a little worried about a mixed message,� Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said of the decision.

The White House, for its part, has brushed off accusations of hypocrisy, pointing to the fact that the federal ban on the use of TikTok on government devices is still in place and applies to White House officials, referring questions to the Biden campaign.

The campaign has said that it will �continue meeting voters where they are.�

Unless, of course, the app is banned.

As beerinator noted, the legislation gives a deadline beyond the election, but I don't think the effect of the ban-pending-sale should be shrugged off. Over 100 million Americans use TikTok--almost one out of every three Americans. And, as we've discussed, users skew more Democratic as well as younger. Further, the ban-pending-sale was, as haveblue pointed out, included in legislation funding a military action that is increasingly unpopular among all Americans, but especially younger voters.

I've seen people in left-ish spaces argue that TikTok is a way for marginalized people to earn money & find affinity with others but I don't know the extent to which that's true.

World Famous W posted:

most ain't saying that, more that the i/p stuff lit a fire under its rear end to get done

Yeah, and news stories have covered how the pro-Israeli political groups amped significant pressure on politicians to ban it after Oct. 7, particularly the ADL. (I'm happy to provide links if people are still skeptical.)

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 16:24

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

socialsecurity posted:

So Tiktok is the only place where pro-palestinian content exists and that's why there's been studies and investigations into banning Tiktok for years? Do you have any sources or anything for this claim?

Why and how are you extrapolating "Tiktok is the only place where pro-palestinian content exists" as well as ignoring that pro-Israeli political groups have increased their pressure since October 7? That's like saying 4-chan is the only rightwing social media.

It's an app popular among younger, more liberal voters, who are also the least inclined to support Israel in its current genocide of Palestinians. Again, if you need me to provide news sources on how pro-Israeli groups have greatly increased pressure since Oct. 7 I'm happy to provide them, but they're also available by a date-limited google search.

eta:

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

If Trump says he'll stop the TikTok ban then he's going to win.

No, it doesn't matter if I can't actually stop it or that he banned it himself, if he markets himself as the "save tiktok guy" he's winning.

He's already doing it.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 16:44

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I think he is asking why they aren't trying to ban the other places with pro-Palestinian content if that is the primary motivation for the ban. If banning speech is the reason, then it doesn't really make sense that they wouldn't target other places or explain why they started efforts to ban it in 2017.

It would, however, explain how it became necessary to resurrect what was once a dead-in-the-water Republican policy into a very broad-based policy supported by both parties.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 16:48

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

According to the NYT article, the Gaza TikTok controversy was part of what prompted them to reveal the bill earlier because they thought it would give them momentum to pass it, but the most recent resurrection already had a majority of people from both parties in support and started in March 2023.

The bipartisan committee had majority support, but the story says nothing about Congress at large "already" supporting it in March 2023. In fact, the story points out that:

quote:

Their efforts got a lift after TikTok was accused by lawmakers including Mr. Gallagher and others of intentionally pushing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel content to its users last year. Mr. Krishnamoorthi and others said the Israel-Gaza conflict stoked lawmakers� appetites to regulate the app.

In November, the group, which then numbered fewer than 20 key people, brought in officials from the Justice Department, including Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, and staff from the National Security Council to help secure the Biden administration�s support for a new bill.

The NYT piece also fails to mention the newly found pressure by pro-Israeli pressure groups post-Oct. 7 that other news stories have documented. The piece does mention how it was a conservative-backed proposal that most likely had to be included along with military funding in order to get Democrats' approval (oh, the irony...), which again is a far cry from your claim that "a majority of people from both parties in support and started in March 2023."

eta:

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

I guess I don't find any of the pearl clutching over TikTok's shady data practices convincing given the absolute fascist, criminal hellholes that Facebook and Twitter have become. We don't police our own companies, why should I be worried about this one? There's obvious proof that FB and Twitter are pro-fascism, so if TikTok isn't that, then it's far less of a threat to me personally than those two.

I know SO many people who have been criminally targeted for fraud via FB. My wife's grandfather almost gave away tens of thousands of dollars to someone impersonating a relative of theirs on FB. FB is so much more dangerous and it's not ever lifted a finger to fight this poo poo, and it's pervasive, especially in rural areas among the elderly.

The government does police U.S.-based social media groups; it's the underlying premise of Missouri v. Biden wending its way through the courts. But they can't police TikTok, nor "nudge" it in favor of promoting governmental policies or outright censor it as they have with U.S. media & social media.

(As far as elderly scams, it's the same via other media, including telephone calls. My AARP newsletter keeps running stories on PREVENT YOURSELF FROM FRAUD.)

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 17:05

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

nm.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:03

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The propaganda angle has always been an aspect, but that angle started really getting pushed harder after October 7th and when TikTok set up a system to have all of its users automatically call the offices of members of congress and tell them to oppose a ban. When thousands of 12-year olds started calling and saying they had no idea what was happening, but that TikTok was their life that really backfired and made a lot of members see it as a mobilization and propaganda problem.

To what extent were the legislators' distress at the idea of constituent outreach influenced by pressure brought to them by pro-Israeli political groups as well as those 12 year olds?

Legislators also felt that constituent outreach by those older than 12 was also a bridge too far when it came to calls about our government's unconditional support of genocide given the stories that came out about frustrated citizens trying to catch the ear of their elected employees.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:07

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

^^^ I think that's a huge slippery slope & a dangerous approach that will be wielded against the left as much (if not more) than the right. Hell, look at what's happening to the college students accused of "inflammatory hate speech" toward Jews right now.

RBA Starblade posted:

To be clear, I want all social media banned, besides our happy forums here. I'm not a fan.

What's the line between social media & traditional media? Is it the gatekeeping?

You originally said that you don't think people here would object to Fox News being banned, but that's trad media, not social media. Would you be happy if Fox News were banned, and if so, do you believe that the government should be able to wield the power to do so?

eta: In which case my additional questions to your prior post are still relevant.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:28

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Crows Turn Off posted:

Not exactly banning Fox News, but it wouldn't exist as it does today if the Fairness Doctrine was not reversed in the 80s.

Do you consider the Fairness Doctrine to be censorship?

I considered the Fairness Doctrine to be the opposite of censorship, but it's totally unworkable under today's traditional media much less social media. Twitter's "community notes" are the closest thing to an independent rebuttal similar to the doctrine short of government interference.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:43

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:47

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Democratic Member of Congress died due to complications from a heart attack and diabetes.

Seat is very safe D, but will be empty until the election. There are no other candidates in the Democratic primary currently.

https://twitter.com/wildstein/status/1783166660536418722

Was the following commonly known or acknowledged before now?

quote:

Payne suffered a heart attack on April 6 and had been unconscious and on a ventilator since then at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. He battled a series of health issues in recent years, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and kidney issues that required regular dialysis.

Because it'd seem to be newsworthy with the House margin being what it is these days, but I don't remember any d.c. press having covered it.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:51

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

The sit-ins ramped up this week, as did the arrests because of the heinous violations of sitting on private property. Police actions seem to have ramped up over the last 24 hours, which is also the time period in which we learned that the FBI is advising universities on how to quell the protests.

I'd give it time before trying to downplay a student movement that's pretty much obviously spreading across the country & the militarized responses we're seeing in several cities now.

What universities have in their favor is the end of the term in a few weeks; otoh, it's likely that the students now protesting on campus will take a far wide approach in expressing their anti-genocide sentiment.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:00

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It would be kind of silly to claim that it will never happen. But, there is a pretty big difference between "mass brutality" and "literally 0 people injured at peaceful protest" just as a matter of fact.

You were the one who used the term "mass brutality"; the post to which you responded simply said "local and state governments are meeting [protestors] with brutality."

Maybe it's hair-splitting but given the video of police actions we've seen today from NYC, Austin, and Los Angeles (as well as the old standby "recorded history") I didn't consider that to be hyperbole, and I also said the police crackdowns only just began in the last day or so.

Give the police some time in addition to the benefit of your doubt and I have a hunch which of the two of you will be proven correct.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:37

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's not really hair splitting because there isn't really any nuance between "it happened" vs "it didn't."

You're being kind of silly and asserting that saying it hasn't happened is some sort of endorsement of any future action. It's just a literal factual statement based on the linear nature of how time works and not some value statement.

As of today, there have been no reported major injuries at Columbia.

Police brutality can encompass more than major injuries; it can include the use of (and threatened use of) tear gas, lrads, kettling & various other intimidation tactics short of those requiring broken bones or hospitalization.

And, for the third time, we're talking about police actions that began over the last 24 hours; I think you're being kind of silly in assuming a static police response given its first day, as well as the police response to other protest movements in the recent past such as BLM and Occupy.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 24, 2024

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 22:47

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

I'm probably memory holing a bunch of incidents, but I feel like that the authorities didn't care that much about the BLM protests for instance. People can take a stance on guns or abortion or whatever controversial issue, but something about I/P gets a harsher response than just about anything else

I'm not sure what the rules say about linking or quoting a post from cspam but I urge you to check out DJJIB-DJDCT's analysis over the last couple pages of the I/P thread there; he answers that bolded part incredibly well in context of western politics (he's a military scholar & instructor, I believe).

# ¿ Apr 24, 2024 23:15

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

selec posted:

And the press. They arrested a cameraman for a local station. His colleague has confirmed on Twitter.

https://x.com/DavidGriscom/status/1783271873708507384

That was.... brutal.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:37

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Goatse James Bond posted:

if enough other people did what I did the national convention is going to vote to demand a ceasefire, so,

A ceasefire isn't going to be enough at this point. Nothing less than complete financial divestment, no more arms sales, and a commitment to Palestinian self-determination & reconstruction should or will be an acceptable sop--and we know that the current makeup of U.S. government will never agree to those terms. (eta: Also getting rid of anti-BDS loyalty oaths & laws.)

I have some first-hand knowledge of running as a delegate to the DNC and maybe it's easy in your neck of the woods but ime it's extremely hard to overcome institutional barriers and decades of rear end-kissing to the PTB that afford that influence. And that's leaving aside the institutional barriers to becoming a voting member of the DNC's rules committee to even get poo poo on the official platform (fwiw, which isn't much).

I'm sure there will be delegates who make their voices heard against genocide while present at the convention, particularly since the delegate-selection process requires that certain seats are held by younger people, but I'm guessing that most people who run or who have run as Biden delegates lean toward the hardcore Biden supporters who can afford the $5000 or so it takes to go to a national convention.

The delegates from my neck of the woods are all local politicians who haven't had a word to say publicly about Gaza except that they "condemn antisemitism".

edit: If I misunderstood the meaning of "who did what I did" then I apologize.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Apr 25, 2024

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:49

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

davecrazy posted:

People are fighting with riot cops because they want the schools to sell stocks????

Do you know about the anti-divestment movement against South Africa, and how universities were involved?

edit: Here's a link.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 01:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

«‹›5 »