Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,8371,8381,8391,8401,8411,8421,843. . .2,6342,635»

Middle Barael wrote: If I were him, I would’ve picked either Karen Bass, Barbara Lee, or Ayanna Presley. They are all Black, female, and progressive,

....and this makes me glad you are not him (or the ones selecting the VP). This would be identity politics at its finest. The main question is....would she make a great VP and if necessary a good president. Maybe you need to start wondering how NOT picking a progressive VP would hurt his chances of winning against an opponent that has been classified by "On the Issues" as a "Hard-core conservative". The progressive vote should already be in the pocket....if that is not the case you have done something wrong as a party in selecting your candidate or explaining your stances during the campaign in the first place. The 2-party system in the U.S. needs to go.....the sooner the better and although I don't believe it will happen but if a second "Trump-term" is what it takes for the U.S. to finally realize that the path they have chosen has little left to do with "democracy" and more to do with who can create the biggest personality cult than I am all for it.

Middle Barael wrote:Joe Biden just chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Any thoughts?

If you'll forgive me from reposting something I sent in a politics channel elsewhere:

Harris is not risky. She's young enough to be a successor (Warren isn't). But she's also experienced enough to be a leader right now (Bass, Demings, etc. aren't), and she has a strong policy record (Duckworth doesn't, as much as I liked her) as well as good campaigning skills (Rice doesn't). She's not a lefty in the vein of Warren or Sanders, so she hopefully won't scare off moderates, but she is also the fifth most progressive-voting member of the Senate, so she'll be at least tolerable on the other end.

Middle Barael wrote:He greatly underestimated how important the Progressive vote is...

This sounds accurate only if (as I do) you live in an area that is heavily progressive. We consistently overestimate the number of people who would actually not vote for a Biden-Harris ticket but would vote for, say, a Biden-Pressley ticket. Some? Of course. More than would vote for Harris but not for Pressley? Probably not. I've heard a whole bunch of people -- all super-progressives themselves -- make this claim that the progressive vote is massive and needs to be placated or else it won't support Biden. And even as a pretty strong progressive myself, I've never seen any evidence of that being true. Like Sanders's claim in the primaries that he would bring out massive turnout from progressive non-regular-voters that no one else could get, it seems to be more of an aspirational claim than an empirical one.

Middle Barael wrote:Kamala’s popularity among black and minority voters. ... Kamala Harris isn’t even very popular among black people; even Biden is more popular than Kamala.

This is the bigger concern. If Biden wanted "someone who will appeal to black and brown voters", she's not necessarily the best person. Plus she's from California, which really isn't helpful at all electorally as she doesn't appeal to the Rust Belt or Florida especially either. Essentially, she doesn't specifically attract any one demographic.

That said, African-American voters about equally favored Harris and Warren as their top VP choices. And it's possible she doesn't need to attract any single demographic, as long as she doesn't repel anyone -- which, given what I said up top, I think she's unlikely to do.

Middle Barael wrote:If I were him, I would’ve picked either Karen Bass, Barbara Lee, or Ayanna Presley. They are all Black, female, and progressive, and they each carry with them some sort of weight. Karen Bass gained a lot of notoriety recently due to her being on Biden’s shortlist, Barbara Lee carries with her her experience in Congress as the former chair of the Progressive Caucus, and Ayanna Presley is very popular due to her being a member of the Squad.

"Being on Biden's shortlist" is not a qualification for the Vice Presidency by itself -- it's quite a tautological one, in fact. If one of your criteria is "carrying weight", I don't think Bass gets many positive points there (much as I liked her, experience is not her main asset). "Being a member of the Squad" is also far more likely to be a net detriment than an asset. Even solidly Democratic moderates don't have terribly favorable views of the Squad.

And while Barbara Lee is great -- and the fact that she didn't seem to be under consideration is still confusing to me -- she does fail the "young enough to be a successor?" test.

Middle Barael wrote:... and her moderate views.

Harris votes more progressively on average than Sanders in the Senate. She's not a moderate, you've been leaning into the progressive bubble too hard. :P

The only reason she's labeled as a moderate is because she's part of the establishment-friendly "Progressive New Guard", as opposed to the anti-establishment "Very Progressives" or "Super Progressives". Policy-wise, she's just as left as any of your favorite progressive big names, but she's willing to play game with the party establishment, which apparently makes her unworthy.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/

The only thing I don't like about her is that she's from California and not somewhere useful like Michigan or Georgia.

Middle Barael wrote:Joe Biden just chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Any thoughts?

Hot take: Biden will lose because her name autocorrects to Kampala. ;-)

---

Well, maybe not. But in all seriousness, I'm not sure that one's running mate really matters all that much in the end. It might produce a small polling bounce, depending on where the person is from and what they bring to the dynamic, but I don't think that very many people are going to change their vote or suddenly become more or less likely to vote because the VP pick for the non-incumbent is so-and-so as opposed to another so-and-so. I mean, obviously you could torpedo your chances by picking Hilary Clinton as VP, or something dumb like that, but it just doesn't seem like something that moves the needle much one way or the other, in the end.

And of course people will say "this time is more important because Biden is 78," which is true, but Trump is also the oldest president ever, too, and at 74, it's not exactly like Biden should expect to croak within 12 months but Trump can expect to retire for the next 35 years after this is over. If anything, Biden is probably in better health than Trump, so whatever gravitas goes towards Biden's choice of Harris should also be considered for Trump's choice of Pence.

---

I think that ultimately, the 2020 election boils down to an up-down vote on Donald Trump. Part of the reason why Trump is having a harder time bringing down Biden is because Biden doesn't really matter. He's the non-Trump in a race where Trump has now occupied the position for four years. There are also many fewer undecided voters this time around than in 2016, precisely because there is now an incumbent on the ballot, which is always sort of the "default" option, when it exists.

Practically speaking, I think that whether or not Biden wins, this nicely sets Harris up to run again (and again, if necessary) in her own right in the future, barring some strange turn of events. Depending on how things go, I could see her running in 2024 if Biden either loses the 2020 election or else wins but does not seek a second term. If Biden were to win in both 2020 and 2024, on the other hand, I doubt we'd see Harris run until 2032, since things would probably swing back to the right in 2028.

---

Also, I agree with Mount Seymour. As someone who is rather liberal on certain issues myself, I can say that the presence of left-wing voters is much smaller in reality than they are in their own minds, outside of a few enclaves.

Ruinenlust wrote:Hot take: Biden will lose because her name autocorrects to Kampala. ;-)

Or everyone assumes she's dead because wrestler James 'Kamala' Harris died the day before the announcement.

Mozworld wrote:Or everyone assumes she's dead because wrestler James 'Kamala' Harris died the day before the announcement.

...ouch

Octopus islands

Kamala worries me somewhat, with her promises to use executive orders when Congress fails to do her bidding. I'm less concerned about her specific gun control plans, and more concerned with the idea that the American populace seems to support ideas that are Constitutionally questionable at best, and that a potential future leader is backing this.

I don't really think she was the best pick. Now is the best time for moderates. The Democrats literally just needed a competent moderate with a clean record to sweep house - unfortunately they've already forgotten the second part. And now, with a fairly left (for America) candidate as VP in a presidency where the VP might actually matter, I really don't think it's a promising sign for the Dems. I do still think that they have a good chance at winning over Trump this year though, as it seems most moderates/swing voters disliked Trump's COVID handling.

Hm. At least this board is more active than TSP’s...

So...hello, everyone!

EDIT: Wow, nevermind.

if they loose, we're all up a creak anyway. if they win, which i hope people have sense enough for this to be more likely, i will feel a lot better about the real world country i happen to live in. of course i don't know all the details of all the uphill battles they're going to have to fight, once they've been administered the oath of office. but there are quite a number of good, logical sensible things, whatever compromises it might also take, to bring them about. good for environment and good for infrastructure and how these interrelate. certainly not a minuet too soon.

Shwe Tu Colony wrote:Did I miss something? What's with the talk about trees—

I'll have to join in later, I can say a few things for my array of favorite trees and I'm too lazy to type them on mobile.

Oh, yes, here's my list:
Longan — I like the fruit, therefore I like the tree.
Brazilwood — op culture bonus in civ v. Color looks nice, too.
Greenheart — One of my childhood trees from FTB Ultimate, a Minecraft modpack that featured the Forestry mod, which in turn featured Greenheart wood.
Rainbow Eucalyptus — Same with Greenheart. Looks pretty, too.

Middle Barael wrote:Joe Biden just chose Kamala Harris as his running mate. Any thoughts?

To the man in the street outside of the USA it probably makes no difference who his running mate is within reason

Shwe Tu Colony wrote:Rainbow Eucalyptus

Wow! I can't believe this is a real tree...looks more like some that might be found in a Dr. Seuss forest. In today's world of photo-manipulation, I'm having a hard time not suspecting some sort of artificial coloring. This is a tree I need to see in person.

"As the rainbow eucalyptus sheds, it first reveals a bright green inner bark. Over time, this ages into different colors—blue, purple, orange, and maroon. The colorful striations are created due to the fact that the tree doesn't shed all at once. Slowly, over time, different layers fall off, while other exposed areas have already begun aging."

Thanks for sharing.

Fun trivia fact about Kamala Harris: 'Kamala' means terrible or horrible in Finnish.

Drasnia wrote:Fun trivia fact about Kamala Harris: 'Kamala' means terrible or horrible in Finnish.

Approved.

Ruinenlust wrote:Hot take: Biden will lose because her name autocorrects to Kampala. ;-)

Biden will lose because of Biden.

No jokes.

Wait, one joke, because I can't make any serious RMB posts:

A minister, a rabbit, and a priest walk into a blood donation clinic.

"What blood-type are you?" asks the nurse.

"I think I'm a typo", replies the rabbit.

Done. Anyway, I remember the day when Biden became the formal candidate - my very first thought was, "so they want Trump to win, then?"

I think I was talking to Turbeaux on this very RMB (and please do correct me if I'm wrong, it's been longer than four hours so it could actually literally have been any of the 449 of you) about this a couple of weeks ago, and Turbeaux-or-whoever-it-actually-was were saying something to the effect of that they wanted to vote with their principles, not tactically. I fully understand that position, and under normal circumstances I'd agree with it - Joe Biden isn't the person to usher in change to the United States. He's not the guy to fight for the people who need fighting for. He's not going to change the world. His entire campaign is based on the fact that he isn't Donald Trump. If he'd stood as a Republican 20 years ago, I doubt anybody would've noticed.

Big whoop. I'm not Donald Trump either You'd all vote for me anyway. Even if I swore that if you didn't vote for me, I'd hunt down your families and tickle them to death, you'd still vote for me. And if that were my campaign promise, which in literally any other year outside of 2016 - 2020 would be insane, I'd still win votes because I wouldn't be Donald Trump.

My argument against Turbeaux-or-whoever-it-actually-was voting for an independent/not voting at all was essentially "you can't put out the fire until you've stopped the idiot from repeatedly setting the building on fire", and that's still true. Everybody with a brain or a heart in America should vote for Biden. You want any positive change of any kind in the United States (or the rest of the world which they affect), ever, or a functioning democracy at the end of it all, you first need to get rid of the guy who's trying to turn it into a fascist dystopia.

The issue is that for people who're ignorant or already on the fence, there's not a huge amount to choose from between the two. The people who wanted to 'shake things up' get nothing from Biden.

And oh my Illuoch-taer, why did they go for Biden? Of all the candidates the Democrats had available, he was the one they went with. Wwwhhhyyy? More than any other time since THE WARS, this was the time when progressive issues might actually get some votes. You could've had a 1st World health system! A government that didn't let corporations give you lead poisoning in your own water! A dude who, to the best of my knowledge, actually gives a damn! Fox News could've done whatever they wanted, but with a global pandemic underway, and a recession almost certain to follow (if it hasn't already begun), they went with Biden?

Vote for him. Do it if you can. Please. Of the two choices, he's the least-evil. But it shouldn't be a choice between the least-evil. It should've been a choice between 'evil' and 'dude who actually gives a damn about human beings'. Biden ain't him. And I'm very, very scared that because of the frankly bewildering choice between "at least he isn't Trump" and "actual Trump", Trump might get a second term.

Anybody with any formal education in 20th century history should be extremely concerned about the possibility of Trump getting a second term. And I'm very, very worried that Trump may get a second term.

Biden was a terrible choice of opposition. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I really hope I'm proven wrong.

Shalotte wrote:Biden will lose because of Biden. No jokes.

etc...

Those are good points.

My go-to for statistics about the electoral situations in the US is 538, which aggregates all of the polling data and fundamentals and everything, and they seem to be very open and rigorous about their methodology. As such, I use them as a one-stop shop for seeing how things are going.

This is their official 2020 forecast: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

They find that, at present, the figures are 71% Biden, 29% Trump, which essentially means that Trump currently has the same chance of winning as he did in 2016, essentially. So definitely the minority percent chance, but not anywhere near low enough to rest assured of his defeat. Indeed, the editor wrote an article about that precisely: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-way-too-soon-to-count-trump-out/

---

I wonder what will happen in November. I think there's a decent chance that Trump pulls off another electoral victory. Despite polling, I wonder if some of the Rust Belt states will actually switch from Trump to Biden.

It seems that the Democrats have a knack for running very poor candidates as of late. I share your "really? Why...?" sentiment about Biden. Why did it have to be him? I could be entirely misreading both of them, but I think that Trump is going to railroad Biden [with nonsense, but that doesn't matter] in the debates, and I could see where Trump gets ahead by crap like leaning into the microphone and interrupting with "wrong" and "that's a lie" and "fake news" and stuff like that, and I'm not sure if Biden is going to really be able to come out swinging and seem like he's the one in the control of the situation.

It's amazing, because there are several very major, very severe things going on (i.e. the pandemic above all, the recession, the racial tension, the decayed international situation, etc.) that would seem to make the Democrats a shoo-in, with a firm repudiation of the Republico-Trumpist Party of 2016-2020, but the Democrats have once again managed to field an uninspiring, nearly 80 year old guy who may ultimately neither be able to convince enough rare, young, liberal voters to show up, nor to convert enough moderates or conservatives who are profoundly unhappy with Trump.

I hope people will vote for Biden because even if he goes totally braindead the vice president will take over. 9 of them have taken over before in the US, so it can't be that bad, right? Horrible Harris would be better than Trump, I mean anything is better than Trump - An amoeba or a shoe. A rock could work also.

All I can say is that two party system is the closest thing to one party system, but still parties can actually choose who they elect to represent the party. Yet still those two parties offer candidates like that even when they could actually pick some competent people to do that job. But I guess populism is the word of today - fake news and something on twitter! And yes, I know that two party system is basically so strong that it would take a miracle to get some parties to even compete with those two monsters that are actually very close to each other.

I would also like to add that the current Forest flag reminds me a lot of Wunderbaums (disposable air fresheners). I believe they are called Little Trees in English.

Ruinenlust wrote:Those are good points.

My go-to for statistics about the electoral situations in the US is 538, which aggregates all of the polling data and fundamentals and everything, and they seem to be very open and rigorous about their methodology. As such, I use them as a one-stop shop for seeing how things are going.

This is their official 2020 forecast: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

They find that, at present, the figures are 71% Biden, 29% Trump, which essentially means that Trump currently has the same chance of winning as he did in 2016, essentially. So definitely the minority percent chance, but not anywhere near low enough to rest assured of his defeat. Indeed, the editor wrote an article about that precisely: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-way-too-soon-to-count-trump-out/

---

I wonder what will happen in November. I think there's a decent chance that Trump pulls off another electoral victory. Despite polling, I wonder if some of the Rust Belt states will actually switch from Trump to Biden.

It seems that the Democrats have a knack for running very poor candidates as of late. I share your "really? Why...?" sentiment about Biden. Why did it have to be him? I could be entirely misreading both of them, but I think that Trump is going to railroad Biden [with nonsense, but that doesn't matter] in the debates, and I could see where Trump gets ahead by crap like leaning into the microphone and interrupting with "wrong" and "that's a lie" and "fake news" and stuff like that, and I'm not sure if Biden is going to really be able to come out swinging and seem like he's the one in the control of the situation.

It's amazing, because there are several very major, very severe things going on (i.e. the pandemic above all, the recession, the racial tension, the decayed international situation, etc.) that would seem to make the Democrats a shoo-in, with a firm repudiation of the Republico-Trumpist Party of 2016-2020, but the Democrats have once again managed to field an uninspiring, nearly 80 year old guy who may ultimately neither be able to convince enough rare, young, liberal voters to show up, nor to convert enough moderates or conservatives who are profoundly unhappy with Trump.

I no longer trust polls. I remember the ones from the Brexit Referendum - the same ones that likely convinced a bunch of people that they didn't need to turn up.

More importantly, whether Trump is the man to resolve racial tensions and all of those other things or not, the actual point to consider is how many people believe he is the man to resolve them. Coronavirus has highlighted a huge, like, astonishingly huge problem in the critical thinking abilities of our respective populaces. One side has an interest in maintaining those problems, and I'll leave it to the readers to determine which side has been focussed on anti-intellectualism since all of this began.

The Democrats have a tendency to run centrists when their back is against the wall, but the voting record indicates that those centrists don't perform well. I can understand their reasoning there, and a similar phenomenon happens in other countries, including mine. "Let's try and rope in as many people as we possibly can with a centrist - if we're not too extreme, we might get folks from the other side!" they presumably think.

Flip-side of that coin, of course, is the fact that centrists aren't especially exciting either, and as Plato pointed out - democracy doesn't prove who the best leader is, it just proves who's best at winning elections.

As an aside, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, I'm concerned about January either way. If Trump wins, he will no longer need to worry about a re-election. If Trump loses... he will no longer need to worry about a re-election. And he'll have two months left in-office afterwards. Either way, I don't envisage him going quietly - and if he does, I don't envisage his supporters allowing him to go quietly.

Shalotte wrote:Biden will lose because of Biden.

~snip~
I think I was talking to Turbeaux on this very RMB (and please do correct me if I'm wrong, it's been longer than four hours so it could actually literally have been any of the 449 of you) about this a couple of weeks ago, and Turbeaux-or-whoever-it-actually-was were saying something to the effect of that they wanted to vote with their principles, not tactically. I fully understand that position, and under normal circumstances I'd agree with it - Joe Biden isn't the person to usher in change to the United States. He's not the guy to fight for the people who need fighting for. He's not going to change the world. His entire campaign is based on the fact that he isn't Donald Trump. If he'd stood as a Republican 20 years ago, I doubt anybody would've noticed.

Big whoop. I'm not Donald Trump either You'd all vote for me anyway. Even if I swore that if you didn't vote for me, I'd hunt down your families and tickle them to death, you'd still vote for me. And if that were my campaign promise, which in literally any other year outside of 2016 - 2020 would be insane, I'd still win votes because I wouldn't be Donald Trump.

My argument against Turbeaux-or-whoever-it-actually-was voting for an independent/not voting at all was essentially "you can't put out the fire until you've stopped the idiot from repeatedly setting the building on fire", and that's still true. Everybody with a brain or a heart in America should vote for Biden. You want any positive change of any kind in the United States (or the rest of the world which they affect), ever, or a functioning democracy at the end of it all, you first need to get rid of the guy who's trying to turn it into a fascist dystopia.

The issue is that for people who're ignorant or already on the fence, there's not a huge amount to choose from between the two. The people who wanted to 'shake things up' get nothing from Biden.

And oh my Illuoch-taer, why did they go for Biden? Of all the candidates the Democrats had available, he was the one they went with. Wwwhhhyyy? More than any other time since THE WARS, this was the time when progressive issues might actually get some votes. You could've had a 1st World health system! A government that didn't let corporations give you lead poisoning in your own water! A dude who, to the best of my knowledge, actually gives a damn! Fox News could've done whatever they wanted, but with a global pandemic underway, and a recession almost certain to follow (if it hasn't already begun), they went with Biden?

Vote for him. Do it if you can. Please. Of the two choices, he's the least-evil. But it shouldn't be a choice between the least-evil. It should've been a choice between 'evil' and 'dude who actually gives a damn about human beings'. Biden ain't him. And I'm very, very scared that because of the frankly bewildering choice between "at least he isn't Trump" and "actual Trump", Trump might get a second term.

Anybody with any formal education in 20th century history should be extremely concerned about the possibility of Trump getting a second term. And I'm very, very worried that Trump may get a second term.

Biden was a terrible choice of opposition. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I really hope I'm proven wrong.

That was weeks ago, but I have changed my position. We have to put the fire out before we remodel the house! I might think differently about my vote if I lived in California, New York, or North Dakota. I do not though, so Biden has my vote simply because he is not Trump! It would be fantastic if RBG and/or Thomas could retire or pass without another Kavanaugh replacing her/him!

Ruinenlust, what do you think of this?: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/biden-will-beat-trump-says-historian-who-predicted-every-race-since-1984.html

I find it to be a refreshing perspective because it is not based on polling. Unfortunately, I still suspect that Russia/voter suppression will give Trump a second term.

The enthusiasm gap between Biden and Trump worries me. Who is as enthusiastic about Biden as Trump's cult is about Trump? Trump especially resonates with certain White men who often pressure their wives to fall in line with thier preference. Unfortunately, that is happening in a branch of my family that I generally clash with (except for some of the grandchildren, a few of them seem to be growing up to think for themselves). Certain flavors of "Christianity" are exceedingly toxic. Why do these people idolize a man who has had multiple divorces and picked his VP almost strictly to pander to them? (To be honest, that is an issue I have with the Kamala pick. Don't get me wrong, he could have done much, much worse!)

One more thing: someone here was painting Harris as a big-time leftist and that is very, very wrong. She is definitely to the left of Biden but that is not saying too much.

Turbeaux wrote:I find it to be a refreshing perspective because it is not based on polling. Unfortunately, I still suspect that Russia/voter suppression will give Trump a second term.

Well, given that Russia wants Trump to win and China wants Biden to win, hopefully they should cancel each other out. Ideally neither of them would interfere, but with nobody in power willing to stop them this is just kinda the world we're in right now.

If anyone's interested I get all my US politics/election news from www.electoral-vote.com

Turbeaux wrote:That was weeks ago, but I have changed my position. We have to put the fire out before we remodel the house! I might think differently about my vote if I lived in California, New York, or North Dakota. I do not though, so Biden has my vote simply because he is not Trump! It would be fantastic if RBG and/or Thomas could retire or pass without another Kavanaugh replacing her/him!

Ruinenlust, what do you think of this?: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/biden-will-beat-trump-says-historian-who-predicted-every-race-since-1984.html

I find it to be a refreshing perspective because it is not based on polling. Unfortunately, I still suspect that Russia/voter suppression will give Trump a second term.

The enthusiasm gap between Biden and Trump worries me. Who is as enthusiastic about Biden as Trump's cult is about Trump? Trump especially resonates with certain White men who often pressure their wives to fall in line with thier preference. Unfortunately, that is happening in a branch of my family that I generally clash with (except for some of the grandchildren, a few of them seem to be growing up to think for themselves). Certain flavors of "Christianity" are exceedingly toxic. Why do these people idolize a man who has had multiple divorces and picked his VP almost strictly to pander to them? (To be honest, that is an issue I have with the Kamala pick. Don't get me wrong, he could have done much, much worse!)

One more thing: someone here was painting Harris as a big-time leftist and that is very, very wrong. She is definitely to the left of Biden but that is not saying too much.

I'm just glad I was talking about the right person, to be fair!

Shalotte wrote:And oh my Illuoch-taer, why did they go for Biden? Of all the candidates the Democrats had available, he was the one they went with. Wwwhhhyyy? More than any other time since THE WARS, this was the time when progressive issues might actually get some votes. You could've had a 1st World health system! A government that didn't let corporations give you lead poisoning in your own water! A dude who, to the best of my knowledge, actually gives a damn! Fox News could've done whatever they wanted, but with a global pandemic underway, and a recession almost certain to follow (if it hasn't already begun), they went with Biden?

Let's rewind to 2016.

Darths and Droids wrote:Let's rewind to 2016.

I'd advise against time travel without fixing the systemic problems that led us to this point, unless we're all prepared to relive the last three years like a horror-movie version of groundhog day!

Shalotte wrote:I'd advise against time travel without fixing the systemic problems that led us to this point, unless we're all prepared to relive the last three years like a horror-movie version of groundhog day!

You misunderstand me. When I said, "let's rewind to 2016", what I meant was "let's remember that one other time the Democrats chose someone that did not work out for them and helped to defeat them". Admittedly, this is jumping the gun because of hindsight, but Biden is in the same boat as Clinton because of being the "safe" candidate.

Shalotte wrote:unless we're all prepared to relive the last three years like a horror-movie version of groundhog day!

I'll be happy to relive those last three years. :P

Turbeaux wrote:Ruinenlust, what do you think of this?: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/biden-will-beat-trump-says-historian-who-predicted-every-race-since-1984.html

I find it to be a refreshing perspective because it is not based on polling. Unfortunately, I still suspect that Russia/voter suppression will give Trump a second term.

Looking through each of the 13 keys, it seems that most of them allow for a degree of subjectivity, especially Nos. 12 and 13, which are whether the incumbent and the challenger, respectively, are charismatic. And in the guy's judgment, Trump is "not charismatic" because he only appeals to a relatively small base, but that because Biden is compassionate, he is therefore "charismatic." I would actually argue the opposite: Trump is obviously the one who can schmooze and cloud the issue and argue from ignorance and emotion, whereas Biden is decidedly not charismatic. He doesn't suck you in and sooth you with his honeyed tongue, he's just kind of there, for more people.

So I mean, by his determination, he gets to seven "false" keys that indicate a Biden win, but only six "true" keys for a Trump win. But by his own system, if you just reinterpret that Trump is charismatic and Biden is not, for instance, then the scores reverse. And as Lichtman himself says, there are additional forces at work outside of his 13 Keys.

I have to say, I don't put much stock into this method. I agree with him that polls are only a snapshot, but having an alternative system by which you decide as a true/false statement whether someone is "charismatic" or whether they "achieve a significant success in international affairs" is decidedly less than scientific, I would say, even if refreshing and different.

Also, just a note about Harris' Senate voting record: she's the fourth or fifth most liberal senator. For those who want her to be Bernie Sanders, there is plenty to contrast, but for anyone on the Republican or conservative-leaning independent side, she's so far to the left that she fell off the stage. The idea that Harris is a "moderate" is not quite accurate, based on her voting record, unless everyone to the right of Warren and Bernie is moderate-to-conservative by default.

Admittedly, voting records of members of Congress is not the best yardstick in highly polarized times, because there is little fluidity or elasticity in how they vote. Yet, being in the top 10 out of 100 senators for ideologically liberal votes "does not a moderate make," I would argue.

---
Edit:

Darths and Droids wrote:I'll be happy to relive those last three years. :P

Perhaps for different reasons, but I agree with you 100%. I would love to relive three months or three days of the old life, prior to the pandemic and economic downturn and everything else going wrong in society. When you look at 2017, 2018, and 2019 in relation to 2020, there is no question that things have significantly declined in the last year. As weird as things were becoming, there was MUCH more of the ability to retreat into regular life prior to the pandemic. Now, everything is morose and hard and filled with fear and anxiety and uncertainty.

(Not that 2017-19 was the dreamtime, by any means! In fact, I'd argue that it was worse than any other three-year period in the wake of World War II for the United States, but compared with what has happened so far in 2020, I'd love to relive those days and soak up every good thing, every easy day, every moment of normalcy and calm. Alas, we can only go forward, and who knows on to what.)

«12. . .1,8371,8381,8391,8401,8411,8421,843. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement