Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Interesting one.

I got Sanders and Warren Ex aequo, with Steyer just one point behind and Yang following just afterwards. But some questions and policies which would really put Sanders in front for me are missing imo.

The B-Team (Biden, Bennet, Bloomberg and Buttigieg), along with Kobluchar, got the least points from me.

Also, I said it before: Don't just dismiss Steyer for being a billionaire, he's a real progressive. Not quite as great as Sanders or even Warren, but still miles ahead of someone like Biden or Bloomberg (to name another billionaire).



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
LurkerJ said:

Few bits from the articles that make my eyes roll:

"Rogan has made his show a safe space for anti-Muslim bigotry as well. Islamophobia, like transphobia, has a history of being more tolerated in mainstream media outlets than other forms of bigotry, and the backlash against Rogan reflects frustration over that double standard as well."

So is Christianophobia but no one cares about that. Being Islamophobic, Christianophobic & religionphobic is not only reasonable, but necessary. After all, those religions have contributed heavily to the oppression of LGBT community throughout history & every where in the world. You should never be muslim-phobic, christian-phobic though, there is a big difference between the two.

Sick of the left taking the side of a religion that are composed of set of abhorrent believes just because there is a minority in the US that hold those value dearly. The left should stand for progressive values, not with a religion that goes completely against them just to please minorities. The mainstream believes among the majority of Muslims are far more dangerous than whatever Jo Ro ever said. 

The author seems to have accepted the fact that Rogan is a bigot and it discusses where to go from there, which is a shame, but it's Vox so my expectations were low to begin with.  

Fear is a strong feeling, and as all strong feelings it turns off rational thinking. Therefore fear is very bad for basing political decisions on. But we can't ignore the fears either, because strong feelings while detrimental to rational thinking are still real and existant. We should therefore reduce the fears and reintroduce thinking rational about the issues. Most christians and most muslims are fine, and I say that as an atheist. Some of the messages in the religious texts are harmful, but over the centuries people got used to ignoring stuff in their religious texts or reinterpret it. Still, there are a few christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists, that are damaging or endagering society (Westboro Baptist Church for instance). We shouldn't ignore these real dangers, but also shouldn't vilify everyone in these religious groups.

I want also add, that as fear is a strong emotion, it is despicable to use said fear for political gain. Fearmongering is used among the left and the right, and in both cases it is hurtful for all.

We largely agree, I specifically mentioned no one should be muslims-phobic or christians-phobic, in other words, never vilify the individuals. Being religion-phobic on the other hand, is reasonable, this is why the term islamophobia irks me. You say that humans learned to ignore the harmful stuff in religious texts, the evidence suggests otherwise for some religions, especially when we're looking at the global picture, not just the western one. 

The left has turned standing up for minorities into a mission, even when it doesn't make sense. The main focus should be standing up for the oppressed, not minorities, as not all minorities are oppressed after all.

Jo Ro has made his podcast "a safe space" for anti-christian "bigotry" as well, but that Vox article fails to mention any of that. If you actually believe that being critical of religions spreads religion-phobia, then you should definitely criticize Jo Ro for spreading "bigotry" against Christianity and being Christianophobic, but no one does that because we rightfully believe religions aren't above criticism........ until you inject the word "minority" then all rational thinking is thrown out of the window, for example, Muslims are a "minority" in the west, so Rogan allowing guests to be openly critical of Islam HAS TO be a problem, on other hand, no one is trying to cancel him over his identically hostile behavior against Christianity, not that I want anyone to do that, I am an atheist after all, but I can't help pointing out the hypocrisy.

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 28 January 2020

Bofferbrauer2 said:
haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Interesting one.

I got Sanders and Warren Ex aequo, with Steyer just one point behind and Yang following just afterwards. But some questions and policies which would really put Sanders in front for me are missing imo.

The B-Team (Biden, Bennet, Bloomberg and Buttigieg), along with Kobluchar, got the least points from me.

Also, I said it before: Don't just dismiss Steyer for being a billionaire, he's a real progressive. Not quite as great as Sanders or even Warren, but still miles ahead of someone like Biden or Bloomberg (to name another billionaire).

I'm gonna have to hard disagree with you on the Steyer comment. Up until last year, he was a board member of CAP. You know the one that Neera "The ghoul herself" Tanden runs? If you're associated with CAP, especially as a board member, that's not only a red flag, but that's disqualifying.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2019/08/12/candidate-tom-steyer-resigns-center-american-progress-board



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Interesting.. Though I question how accurate this is given it was cobbled together by just a few people at WaPo and only consists of 20 random questions. Not enough to cover the bulk of these candidates' ideals, policies, etc. Regardless:

12:
Bloomberg (honestly shocked haha)
Gabbard
Steyer
Patrick (who..?)

11:
Biden (again, pretty shocked!)
Buttigieg
Klobuchar
Yang

10:
Bennet

8:
Warren

7:
Bernie - this is what surprises me most, as Bernie is my #3 after Gabbard and Yang, and many of his messages/philosophy resonates with me. Though ultimately I guess I AM more moderate, and these days I tend to support Bernie more based off his support of Tulsi and empathizing with the smears against him, more so than agreeing w/all his policies beat for beat. Overall I just trust him more, especially more than the old guard establishment like Biden.



538 notices Sanders surge: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-sanders-is-pulling-closer-to-biden-but-hes-still-got-a-ways-to-go/

There are a few things to notice here, which aren't covered in the article. First: the model includes expected bounces from winning primaries. So if the model expects Sanders to win Iowa closely, but actually Biden does win by a hair, it consequently changes the outcomes of the following races. Similarly the model has a baked in bounce bonus for the early states. That may or may not be the reality. If not for instance that would be good news for Bloomberg who doesn't focus on the early states. But how much the effect of the early states actually is, is hard to really put a finger on. As this is the first primary model by 538 the effect are hand-picked numbers for the four early states.

For more information look at how the model works: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-2020-primary-model-works/

Also note the following: even small changes in polling for Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg are important for delegates, because of the 15% rule. The more states a candidate actually goes above 15%, the more overall delegates this candidate gets and the more loses the winner of the state. Actually a small change in polling probably has a smaller effect on the states winner as if another candidate ends up with 14% or 16% in that same state. In the second case the winner probably loses more delegates, even if he also gains 2%. That is also something to keep in mind and watch for in the polls.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube said:
haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Interesting.. Though I question how accurate this is given it was cobbled together by just a few people at WaPo and only consists of 20 random questions. Not enough to cover the bulk of these candidates' ideals, policies, etc. Regardless:

12:
Bloomberg (honestly shocked haha)
Gabbard
Steyer
Patrick (who..?)

11:
Biden (again, pretty shocked!)
Buttigieg
Klobuchar
Yang

10:
Bennet

8:
Warren

7:
Bernie - this is what surprises me most, as Bernie is my #3 after Gabbard and Yang, and many of his messages/philosophy resonates with me. Though ultimately I guess I AM more moderate, and these days I tend to support Bernie more based off his support of Tulsi and empathizing with the smears against him, more so than agreeing w/all his policies beat for beat. Overall I just trust him more, especially more than the old guard establishment like Biden.

Well, this is a nice little game, but not a real political predictor. There are nuances that can't be captured by this quiz, there is the selection of questions, there is the probability that the candidate keeps his campaign trail promises if elected. It might be helpful to click on the notes what the candidates actually said, that made WaPo put them into one of the possible groups of answers.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter



It seems like Biden is losing it in regards to his contact with voters. Of particular note in this video, someone compared him to Hillary when she kinda lost it at the final stages of her 2008 campaign by saying stuff like "we need white voters". 

It also reminded me of a documentary I saw of the Bush vs Dukakis race where Dukakis kept making awful mistake after awful mistake when the campaign was about to end. The pressure of running a campaign for the highest office in this planet must be tremendous enough to crush people.



With just days to go before the Iowa Caucus, here's where we stand.

National RCP Polling Average

Biden: 28.1%
Sanders: 23.8%
Warren: 14.8%
Bloomberg: 7.8%
Buttigieg: 6.8%
Yang: 4.8%
Klobuchar: 4.3%
Steyer: 1.8%
Gabbard: 0.9%

Iowa RCP Polling Average

Sanders: 24.2%
Biden: 21%
Buttigieg: 16.8%
Warren: 14.7%
Klobuchar: 9.2%
Yang: 3.3%
Steyer: 3.2%
Gabbard: 1.2%
Bloomberg: 1%

New Hampshire RCP Polling Average

Sanders: 24%
Biden: 16%
Buttigieg: 14.8%
Warren: 13%
Klobuchar: 7%
Gabbard: 4.8%
Yang: 4.7%
Steyer: 2.3%

While these figures suggest Biden to still be the most likely nominee, I'm starting to feel more optimistic about the direction of things in this race for the first time since early October! After the Warren surge abated, I felt pessimistic about the chances of a progressive candidate winning the nomination for a change. But polling data a week out from voting day is usually the most accurate, I find, and you can see what it suggests might just happen! Let me add this headline that's pretty self-explanatory to the indications: Everyone's Drawing Huge Crowds in Iowa Except Biden.

Crowd size indicates activist support, and that matters a lot in a caucus state like Iowa, as caucuses are basically votes of activists! I've also been seeing reports that Joe Biden's campaign is less organized on the ground than Hillary Clinton's was and that could translate into lower mobilization on voting day.

There are a lot of indications, in other words, that a Bernie Sanders upset is possible! I mean if he can win in both Iowa AND New Hampshire, I think the perception of Biden as the "most electable candidate" will start to erode, and that argument has been his only real strength in this campaign. (Seriously, the guy can barely form a sentence.) Although Sanders doesn't poll as well among black voters, who are crucial, you could see that start to change as a result of back-to-back early victories like this. Hopefully I'm not being premature again in my optimism this time, but I think an upset is possible! I mean Clinton won Iowa narrowly in 2016. If Biden loses to her main opponent, Sanders, I think that tells you that he is, in fact, a weaker candidate than Clinton, not the stronger one that his supporters insist him to be. Iowa's a Midwestern state. Democrats really want to win in the Midwest this time around. "

Also, something else to look for in this race: turnout levels. Will the turnout levels for the Democratic nominating contest be unusually high, as in higher than they were in 2016? That's an early indication of which way the general election might go. High interest is a good sign. Low interest is a bad sign. Let's pay attention to what those numbers tell us too, not just to who wins.



I'm starting to have second thoughts about Bernie. I love the guy, but damn if some of his policies aren't popular. Medicare for all isn't popular, even though I agree with it. Decriminalizing border crossings isn't popular (because it sounds like open borders). I really feel like Bernie will fail to carry down ballot Senators in areas that voted Trump in 2016. We absolutely need to flip the Senate, and that's already a nearly impossible task!

On the flip side, we have Biden (who voted for the Iraq War, and still believes we can compromise with the GOP), and Buttigeig (who probably isn't electable due to his sexual orientation and stands no chance of getting the nomination at this point anyway.)



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Jaicee said:

With just days to go before the Iowa Caucus, here's where we stand.

National RCP Polling Average

Biden: 28.1%
Sanders: 23.8%
Warren: 14.8%
Bloomberg: 7.8%
Buttigieg: 6.8%
Yang: 4.8%
Klobuchar: 4.3%
Steyer: 1.8%
Gabbard: 0.9%

Iowa RCP Polling Average

Sanders: 24.2%
Biden: 21%
Buttigieg: 16.8%
Warren: 14.7%
Klobuchar: 9.2%
Yang: 3.3%
Steyer: 3.2%
Gabbard: 1.2%
Bloomberg: 1%

New Hampshire RCP Polling Average

Sanders: 24%
Biden: 16%
Buttigieg: 14.8%
Warren: 13%
Klobuchar: 7%
Gabbard: 4.8%
Yang: 4.7%
Steyer: 2.3%

While these figures suggest Biden to still be the most likely nominee, I'm starting to feel more optimistic about the direction of things in this race for the first time since early October! After the Warren surge abated, I felt pessimistic about the chances of a progressive candidate winning the nomination for a change. But polling data a week out from voting day is usually the most accurate, I find, and you can see what it suggests might just happen! Let me add this headline that's pretty self-explanatory to the indications: Everyone's Drawing Huge Crowds in Iowa Except Biden.

Crowd size indicates activist support, and that matters a lot in a caucus state like Iowa, as caucuses are basically votes of activists! I've also been seeing reports that Joe Biden's campaign is less organized on the ground than Hillary Clinton's was and that could translate into lower mobilization on voting day.

There are a lot of indications, in other words, that a Bernie Sanders upset is possible! I mean if he can win in both Iowa AND New Hampshire, I think the perception of Biden as the "most electable candidate" will start to erode, and that argument has been his only real strength in this campaign. (Seriously, the guy can barely form a sentence.) Although Sanders doesn't poll as well among black voters, who are crucial, you could see that start to change as a result of back-to-back early victories like this. Hopefully I'm not being premature again in my optimism this time, but I think an upset is possible! I mean Clinton won Iowa narrowly in 2016. If Biden loses to her main opponent, Sanders, I think that tells you that he is, in fact, a weaker candidate than Clinton, not the stronger one that his supporters insist him to be. Iowa's a Midwestern state. Democrats really want to win in the Midwest this time around. "

Also, something else to look for in this race: turnout levels. Will the turnout levels for the Democratic nominating contest be unusually high, as in higher than they were in 2016? That's an early indication of which way the general election might go. High interest is a good sign. Low interest is a bad sign. Let's pay attention to what those numbers tell us too, not just to who wins.

100% agree

And with the last polls in Nevada showing Biden and Sanders head-to-head, Biden might even loose the 3 first states.

Worse, he's at risk dropping below 15% and behind both Buttigieg and to a lesser degree Warren in NH. If Biden would get beaten not just by Sanders, but also other candidates, his electability myth is most likely shattered that moment and his election bid lost.

Biden will win SC, but his elan is gone by that point, and he will also have a Bloomberg stealing votes from him starting Super Tuesday, seriously not helping matters for him at that point.

Also, Sanders not doing well with black voters is a myth. He's not doing as well as Biden, but he still gets 25% of the black vote in the latest morning consult: https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Morning-Consult-Political-Intelligence-Weekly-Report_January-22-2020.pdf

Cerebralbore101 said:
I'm starting to have second thoughts about Bernie. I love the guy, but damn if some of his policies aren't popular. Medicare for all isn't popular, even though I agree with it. Decriminalizing border crossings isn't popular (because it sounds like open borders). I really feel like Bernie will fail to carry down ballot Senators in areas that voted Trump in 2016. We absolutely need to flip the Senate, and that's already a nearly impossible task!

On the flip side, we have Biden (who voted for the Iraq War, and still believes we can compromise with the GOP), and Buttigeig (who probably isn't electable due to his sexual orientation and stands no chance of getting the nomination at this point anyway.)

Buttigieg doesn't only has little chances because of his orientation, but much worse is that only white people vote for him, just look at the morning consult poll I linked above.

But maybe it's wise to have Sanders tell you why voting for him is awesome:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjmT-zx4nyI

Really powerful message!

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 30 January 2020