Aint No Right

SR wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:01 am

Well, these summaries completely ignore the General Election polling. I'll save you the effort....I am aware of the polling issues in 16.

Booker has no chance. Biden will be an issue if he gets the nomination. I viewed the debate a bit differently than what I have heard described. I saw a couple of functional nominations; I saw a couple of excellent tickets, and I saw a snapshot of a few very capable and serviceable cabinets.

With the exception of Jay Inslee, who I think would be an excellent Energy or EPA chief, there were qualified people for Chief of Steff, State, Education, HUD, and Defense.

I am most impressed with Buttigieg. By far, the best thinker on the stage with neither too much nor too little idealism. I remain in the Sanders camp.

I think a real issue for trump is his declining popularity with his more silent base. Farmers and steel states are bewildered with what has transpired in the last few years. I still don't understand the postion that trump is not vulnerable in 20

BTW SR, I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say here, outside being in Sanders camp and especially your last paragraph.
I was impressed with the candidates in the debate as well. I am just comung in hard on the electability front from the workung class perspective.

SR wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:01 am

Well, these summaries completely ignore the General Election polling. I'll save you the effort....I am aware of the polling issues in 16.

Booker has no chance. Biden will be an issue if he gets the nomination. I viewed the debate a bit differently than what I have heard described. I saw a couple of functional nominations; I saw a couple of excellent tickets, and I saw a snapshot of a few very capable and serviceable cabinets.

With the exception of Jay Inslee, who I think would be an excellent Energy or EPA chief, there were qualified people for Chief of Steff, State, Education, HUD, and Defense.

I am most impressed with Buttigieg. By far, the best thinker on the stage with neither too much nor too little idealism. I remain in the Sanders camp.

I think a real issue for trump is his declining popularity with his more silent base. Farmers and steel states are bewildered with what has transpired in the last few years. I still don't understand the postion that trump is not vulnerable in 20

Buttigieg is worryingly pro-military, and a bit authoritarian-feeling, but I can't quite say exactly why I get that vibe. I also don't think he's got a chance.

I'm probably closest to Bernie economically and socially, but I don't know if I see him winning, or if he wins, being able to deliver on anything. I'm not sure how to think about this as an international observer: I'm used to voting based on local representation and usually trying to either reflect my local interests or vote someone out if possible. We don't get to vote directly for our national leader in Canada. I mean, in a way Americans don't either, since they're effectively voting for their state's electoral college votes to go to someone in the hopes that that counts enough to make a difference (which is only really true in a handful of states in any given election).

I wonder how many will treat this as an "anyone but Trump" vote, versus the clear 18-34 block's focus on climate change.

Pretty much anyone I have talked to who aren’t Trump supporters really don’t care who the Democrat nominee will be, they’ll vote for him or her just to vote against Trump. Which is kind of a dangerous thing as that is exactly the same mindset a lot of voters had regarding Hillary Clinton and look what that got us.

SR wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:17 am

Yeah, I don't really understand what you are saying. If I do, it is overly reductive. Reducing this election and the disparate interests of a disparate electorate to love and hate is a bit to simple for me to wrap my head around. I agree people are pissed though, but not to the point of anarchy or revolution. Or is trump a lock because he is the new normal and by extention a conduit for the fury?

Yeah, I'm being a little flippant, but I stand by the thought that the privileged class is really not seeing the forest for the trees here. I am being reductive. I see being otherwise would be a waste of time. Its like obsessing over the wheel alignments of a gutted car in a junkyard, on the way to the compactor...politics as we knew it is over.

Maureen Dowd actually did a really good job in her piece addressing this:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... p.amp.html

Yes, the working/borderline poverty people in this country are pissed to the point of faux anarchy. Trump is the perfect protagonist. Unfortunetly he is the conduit for fury. Everytime he makes chaos, there is an adrenaline hit........the thought...."..maybe they're getting the message!.......?" Because certainly, nobody else,....maaaybe Clinton, in the last 40+ years has delivered "the message"..... Black voters gave up a long time ago, actually they never had a chance to begin with, you couldnt cook up a better candidate in a lab than Obama, strangely enough.......what Im trying to get at is tgat it hasnt been "normal" for a really long time. Its just laid out all bear now. We're never going back. Trump will win on 2020, unless there is someone well known out of left field. You know who I am thinking of.

SR wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:17 am

Are satiated people capable of fury, or is just a diluted version from a different type of suffering?

The satiated/privileged are afflicted. They are not furious. Fury would be the result of direct and immediate harm. That is not the case for the satiated.

OPRAH and the Cauliflower Crust Cabinet

Wow.... I made a lot of spelling errors in that post.
I am blaming my crappy phone.....

After some thought, I really dont think much of her and she is sometimes really awkward, but Id have to say Kamala is the only one -in the current field- who has a chance in hell of beating Trump. She would have to have a major transformation in the meantime though.......

Well, here is the data for the General by top tier Dem candidates...most well outside reasonable margins of error

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... _election/

And yes, Hype....I too fear what can't be accomplished by the more progressive candidates, but it's enough to know what they won't do that would be significant progress.

SR wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:31 am

Well, here is the data for the General by top tier Dem candidates...most well outside reasonable margins of error

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... _election/

ring.....ring.................. 2016 CALLING!

chaos wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:15 pm

Bloomberg kind of lost the plot when he was Mayor of NY and tried to ban big gulp sized sodas and railed against legalizing pot and some other nanny-state bullshit that I'm too lazy to look up. And really, another old guy billionaire wall streeter is gonna appeal to the already fractured Liberal voting base? Will be interesting to see how things shake out over the next 6-10 months with the impending public portion of the impeachment process likely going to hurt Biden's chances.

mockbee wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:43 am

After some thought, I really dont think much of her and she is sometimes really awkward, but Id have to say Kamala is the only one -in the current field- who has a chance in hell of beating Trump. She would have to have a major transformation in the meantime though.......

Whoa...I was way off on this prediction.....

I'd be surprised if she makes the next debate

I forgot when I lived in SF her campaigning was awful.. she never changed.


Now my next prediction is Klobuchar. Too bad she is so nervous all the time. She has the chops if she can find a level of comfort wwhen Biden finaaly gies down.

Warren will not get the Dem ticket.

Christ.

chaos wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:07 pm

Christ.

CIRCUS

Not that the country will be paying a lick of attention to this in the next 2-3 months.
But seems clear to me with Clinton attacking Bernie on the sexist front and Kamala endorsing Biden, it will be a Biden/Harris ticket.
Clinton would have an inside to presidency with her alliance with Kamala, as Biden would be the new W.


Alas, it will be a disaster and Trump will win with close to Reagan '84 type victory.
I only see the Biden ticket getting California, Washington, Oregon?, New York, Massachusettes with maybe another New England state thrown in......

Alas, it will be a disaster and Trump will win with close to Reagan '84 type victory.

If this happens, where "close to Reagan '84" means greater than, say, 55% of the popular vote, and greater than 45 of the states (Reagan had 58.8% of the PV and 49 states, but not DC), then I'll personally buy you a book from your Amazon wish list.

Hype wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:14 pm

Alas, it will be a disaster and Trump will win with close to Reagan '84 type victory.

If this happens, where "close to Reagan '84" means greater than, say, 55% of the popular vote, and greater than 45 of the states (Reagan had 58.8% of the PV and 49 states, but not DC), then I'll personally buy you a book from your Amazon wish list.

Alright.......your terms, you're on.

You have to admit the over under is well in your favor.
Here's the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Murcutt-Bu ... utt&sr=8-6



Just to make it more interesting, if Trump just flat wins the popular and, of course, electoral....

Then this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Murcutt-Si ... 1864701366

And if Dem ticket wins ELECTORAL/presidency I will get you a book of your choice. $60 or under....

Finally, if it mirrors '16 and Trump loses popular and wins electoral its a draw. No prizes.....

Deal?

This is serious now. That book is expensive! I'm convinced that Trump won't win the popular vote by much if he does because of California and NY, but I do think it's possible he will take more of it than the Democratic challenger, just not anywhere near Reagan levels.

The more reasonable terms of part you're suggesting lead me to want to suggest a lower price limit.

Alright, counter offer with terms for the book price. But I think the popular percentages will be a little wack because of third party/protest votes. So 55% for Trump is going to be really hard to acheive. I'll throw in a like $40 if that helps.

Or if you want to eliminate your original terms and go with my introduced terms I'm alright with that. And this can be the book and $50 Amazon for you if Dem wins Electoral .

https://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Murcutt-Th ... 488706294X





This is fun!

An friend of mine said trump would win 48 states and 75% of the popular vote. I said I'd put a thousand on it. We shook on it.

SR wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:47 am

An friend of mine said trump would win 48 states and 75% of the popular vote. I said I'd put a thousand on it. We shook on it.

I'm not crazy, like your friend, those are crazy popular vote perentage numbers, would never happen with third party/protest vote.
But if it were just the 48, you maaaaaybe out $1k my friend....


Being here I could see Oregon/Washington just going FUCK IT I'm not showing with this Biden disaster. The progressives here are already either big for Bernie and pissed or completely apathetic. And once you leave the urban growth bounday of Portland/Seattle -Trump signs start popping up all over. They are amped.

I don't know if have heard of a single person who wants to vote for Biden. Not a single person. You may as well spend your time looking for Bigfoot...


My parents are middle of the road Dems and they HATE Biden.


But luckily for you, I dont see the percentages working for your friend.

I admit, it's possible that the Democrats have royally screwed up this coming election.

Hype wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:13 pm

I admit, it's possible that the Democrats have royally screwed up this coming election.

possible....?


When Biden gets the ticket (and the lead up) you are going to see some nutzoid stuff going on from the progressive left.

And this:




The more I think, I could see Oregon and Washington going Trump. There are very conservative factions here...
Dems will lose the House and probably lose some Senate seats.

It's going to be really odd, because effectively there will be no Democratic Party left, and Repubs already died.......

If I am not mistaken, Clinton carried in the mid 50% of popular vote in '16 and trump was 40%.

I am not concerned at all about this wager. Wasn't it 30 states to 20 in '16 as well? Any of the three possible D nominees will positively carry:
-Cali
-NY
-Massachusetts
-Vermont
-Delaware
-Connecticut
Very likely are:
-Minnesota
-Illinois
-Washington
-Maryland
-Maine
And very possible are:
-Virginia
- Oregon
-Nevada
-New Mexico
-Colorado

I am quite aware of your thoughts on where all this is going, and with your level of certainty, I would like to see what materials you rely on to form your ideas.

When Hillary enters the race does that make things better or worse for the Democrats?

If only. Clinton's entrance would be an interesting wrinkle probably resulting in much the same damage as 16....the defection votes alluded to in this thread. Without her, there will be those defect votes, but she was a bit more polarizing than the present dems. No one polarizes like trump though. He's the best polarizer. Ask anyone