Jump to content

chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts


5 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

Love how you state this as fact, when the polling does not reflect this at all.

Polling pretty clearly shows that Sanders would run weaker than Biden. Including the NYT Siena Iowa poll which has been trumpeted by the Sanders crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

They may be true, but if Warren drops out a large percentage of her supporters will go to Sanders as well. According to the latest Morning Consult poll which tracks second choice responses, 37% of Warren supporters said Sanders was their second choice and only 20% said Biden. So whatever bump Biden will get from Klobuchar or Mayor Pete dropping out, Sanders will also get a bump if/when Warren was to drop out.

But if less than 1/2 of Warren voter's 2nd choice is Bernie, her exit will leave Biden's combined bump as the last moderate standing with a bigger total bump than Berniee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

But if less than 1/2 of Warren voter's 2nd choice is Bernie, her exit will leave Biden's combined bump as the last moderate standing with a bigger total bump than Berniee

I still think there's a contingent of Warren's support that isn't necessarily going to Sanders... there's some Hill 2016 folks in her base of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

I still think there's a contingent of Warren's support that isn't necessarily going to Sanders... there's some Hill 2016 folks in her base of support.

the other wild card here is Bloomberg though. Whatever traction he gets most likely is going to pull from Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

Love how you state this as fact, when the polling does not reflect this at all.

 I can state whatever I want however I want.  Does not require your approval.

If Sanders is the nominee he will lose.  If I am wrong I will send $100 to the charity of your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Polling pretty clearly shows that Sanders would run weaker than Biden. Including the NYT Siena Iowa poll which has been trumpeted by the Sanders crowd.

Does it show that he would lose to Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

the other wild card here is Bloomberg though. Whatever traction he gets most likely is going to pull from Biden.

The saving grace for Biden wrt Bloomberg is that Bloomberg basically won't come into play until after SC, I believe. If he were to pull out a W in Iowa and Nevada, and then perform as expected in SC, Bloomberg becomes a non-factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

Does it show that he would lose to Trump?

He's -6 to Trump in Iowa. Joe is -2, per Siena. And other state polls largely show the same effect as well.

I don't necessarily agree with Oblong that Sanders *will* lose, but I absolutely do believe that he's more likely to lose than Biden would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

Don't see how this adds any context. He supported the same bill Joe Biden did. It's always a damned if you and damned if you don't. Crime has decreased since the bill passed. More minorities are jailed, but at the same time, fewer minorities are victims of crime. The revolving door bail system in New York looks promising. Crime is already up 30% but it's early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

Don't see how this adds any context. He supported the same bill Joe Biden did. It's always a damned if you and damned if you don't. Crime has decreased since the bill passed. More minorities are jailed, but at the same time, fewer minorities are victims of crime. The revolving door bail system in New York looks promising. Crime is already up 30% but it's early.

Also interesting how context all of a sudden matters when it's Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Also interesting how context all of a sudden matters when it's Bernie.

I'm pretty certain Biden has expressed some regrets as well. There are some good things in the bill and crime was reduced. I don't have a problem with Sanders supporting the bill back in 1994. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of Bernie Bros attacking Biden for a bill Sanders supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

He's -6 to Trump in Iowa. Joe is -2, per Siena. And other state polls largely show the same effect as well.

I don't necessarily agree with Oblong that Sanders *will* lose, but I absolutely do believe that he's more likely to lose than Biden would be.

Bernie (or Warren) won't lose because of the Socialist label, but he could lose because of what he says on the campaign trail once he has the nomination and voters actually start to listen to him.

I think the big risk for the progressives is the 'evil corporation' rhetoric. AFAIK, neither Warren nor Sanders as ever made their living working for a US corporation (certainly not in recent decades anyway), but the majority of Americans do. They may not have much sympathy for their corporate overlords but if a pol starts talking about putting them out of business they hear their paycheck being threatened, and that doesn't go over so well. 

Corporations are not evil be nature, they are only as good or bad as the people running them and those people respond mostly rationally to the incentives they see. The progressives need to keep their rhetorical focus on changing the rules of the game so everyone can do better. You don't want the voters to immediately hear the players being threatened. That plays well to students, academics and others who get their paychecks from other sources, but you can't win an election there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Also interesting how context all of a sudden matters when it's Bernie.

You guys love acting like every Bernie supporter is insane. And yet it is the Bernie crowd that overgeneralizes and is reactionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gehringer_2 said:

 

Corporations are not evil be nature, they are only as good or bad as the people running them and those people respond mostly rationally to the incentives they see. 

Corporations exist to maximize profit. That means exploitation is to be expected, unless you have organized groups fighting back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm pretty certain Biden has expressed some regrets as well. There are some good things in the bill and crime was reduced. I don't have a problem with Sanders supporting the bill back in 1994. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of Bernie Bros attacking Biden for a bill Sanders supported.

It's pretty hard to pick out the results of that bill from the overall downward demographic trend reducing the number of persons in the prime crime prone ages. That probably had a bigger effect in both the rise in crime in the 60's/70's and the subsequent fall later than any of the laws passed in any direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

Corporations exist to maximize profit. That means exploitation is to be expected, unless you have organized groups fighting back. 

exactly. But there is nothing wrong with profit per se either. Without it you get the stagnant economy of 60's England or post war USSR. That is why the game has to be regulated (and can be) to produce better outcomes. But talking about ending the game is going to be a loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

It's pretty hard to pick out the results of that bill from the overall downward demographic trend reducing the number of persons in the prime crime prone ages. That probably had a bigger effect in both the rise in crime in the 60's/70's and the subsequent fall later than any of the laws passed in any direction.

Crime peaked in 1990. The crack epidemic hit basically every major city by the 80's. There was need for the government to do something in the early 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 313DetroitCity said:

You guys love acting like every Bernie supporter is insane. And yet it is the Bernie crowd that overgeneralizes and is reactionary.

Nice strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Crime peaked in 1990. The crack epidemic hit basically every major city by the 80's. There was need for the government to do something in the early 90's.

IDK MB, show me a place in the history of any free society where addition was dealt with successfully by a legal regime (in a repressive one you can just kill the addicts of course) . The situation creates political pressure for governments to act, and like the hammer that only sees nails, legislators only see problems that need laws, so laws are passed. Do they actually make any difference ? I'm pretty sceptical. I think it takes societies internalizing the experience of addiction and for that  knowledge to be absorbed into the social psyche before things really change. The law is always just a lagging indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Crime peaked in 1990. The crack epidemic hit basically every major city by the 80's. There was need for the government to do something in the early 90's.

There is a decent amount of evidence that the crack epidemic was overstated considerably to explain the elevation in crime.

To the extent some believe it was a dog whistle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, when I was in college I had an entire course about crime & the media, and a huge portion of the course was about the crack epidemic, and resultant crack babies, were largely a media creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is unhelpful, but former GOPs at Bulwark think Bernie is a bad choice to run against Trump

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

Sanders is America’s least supple politician, captive to an unyielding inner vision which brooks no compromise. His candidacy is rooted in the unwavering belief that America is about to awaken to the rightness of his unwavering beliefs.

Take the crowd-pleasing title of his major campaign address: “How Democratic Socialism Is the Only Way to Defeat Oligarchy and Authoritarianism.” Here self-solemnity meets opacity, the instinct to hector rather than seduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

There is a decent amount of evidence that the crack epidemic was overstated considerably to explain the elevation in crime.

To the extent some believe it was a dog whistle.

I think what affects crime is enforcement - particularly preventive enforcement - i.e. things like security cameras (since we won't pay to put a cop on every corner for the benefit of minorities). For instance in Det the technology for video surveillance (whether you like it or not) has done more to stop crime in the DT area than anything the DPD or Lansing or DC have done over 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I think what affects crime is enforcement - particularly preventive enforcement - i.e. things like security cameras (since we won't pay to put a cop on every corner for the benefit of minorities). For instance in Det the technology for video surveillance (whether you like it or not) has done more to stop crime in the DT area than anything the DPD or Lansing or DC have done over 100 years.

Has it really? Crime is worse, or at least the same, in Detroit than it was before. There was a decrease in crime nationwide at the time the crime bill was adopted. The crime bill wasn't all about locking everyone up. I do believe there was preventive measures in it.

New York is experimenting with basically a revolving door bail system. So far it isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,671
    • Total Posts
      2,975,326
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...