I doubt it, Hillary has had a terrible campaign the biggest problem right now is she's coming across as unlikable and part of the politico machine , and she looked pretty bad last time around in the debates.
The Democratic field looks pretty bad right now as well. Even if Biden runs how he's attached at the hip to this current administration which is kind of the cause of this voter rebel backlash that's happening now.
Yeah, I don't know why people are looking to Biden as anything but a desperation candidate.
Sanders represents what the Democrat Party USED to be, hence his appeal to that blue-collar or student base. It is what got Jeremy Corbyn elected as Labour leader in the UK. There are some real problems, especially in the lower half of the US demographics, that Sanders is speaking to in a very direct way.
The problem is, even if Sanders wins, social and economic pressures make his platform impossible. Or not. Who knows.
Last edited by peter12; 09-17-2015 at 09:50 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I doubt it, Hillary has had a terrible campaign the biggest problem right now is she's coming across as unlikable and part of the politico machine , and she looked pretty bad last time around in the debates.
The Democratic field looks pretty bad right now as well. Even if Biden runs how he's attached at the hip to this current administration which is kind of the cause of this voter rebel backlash that's happening now.
The democratic field is pretty bad though I'm glad Sanders is on the ascent. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not he is the type of politician the US needs more of...on both sides of the aisle.
The problem with the GOP field is that they are all having to run sooooo far right to get the nomination. Attacks on planned parenthood, the mostly ludicrous immigration policies, a complete inability to relate to minority populations etc will hurt many of these candidates when it comes time for the real election race to start. McCain and Romney both succumbed to the right wing fringe of the party and it cost them.
Can whoever manages to get out of this GOP quagmire manage to get the nomination while not saying something damaging to major voting blocks (women, hispanics, black)?
First he claims there is an autism epidemic, citing as reference his own casual observations. On this issue Trump is dead wrong. I have written extensively about the fact that there is no autism epidemic. The apparent rise in diagnoses is an artifact of increased surveillance, broadening the definition, and diagnostic substitution.
What about the “massive injections?” Here I have not idea where Trump is getting his information. At various times he has referred to kids getting, “pumped with 10 and 20 shots at one time, with one injection that’s a giant injection.” At no time during the vaccine schedule are 10-20 shots given at once, individually or even if you count combination vaccines. It’s just not true. He also exaggerates the size of the needles and the amount of fluid injected, comparing them to “horse” vaccines.
I’m for freedom too, Rand Paul. I’m for freedom from disease. I’m in favor of ensuring that my child and those in my community don’t get sick from measles and die because fear has led others in the community not to vaccinate their children. As former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
Last edited by troutman; 09-17-2015 at 11:18 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
It's too bad Cory Booker is still so young and inexperienced (comparatively), because a guy like him could absolutely clean up in an election like this with such a terrible field
It's too bad Cory Booker is still so young and inexperienced (comparatively), because a guy like him could absolutely clean up in an election like this with such a terrible field
Or Gavin Newsom out of San Francisco. Seems like both might be future options once they get some more deasonug.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
First he claims there is an autism epidemic, citing as reference his own casual observations. On this issue Trump is dead wrong. I have written extensively about the fact that there is no autism epidemic. The apparent rise in diagnoses is an artifact of increased surveillance, broadening the definition, and diagnostic substitution.
What about the “massive injections?” Here I have not idea where Trump is getting his information. At various times he has referred to kids getting, “pumped with 10 and 20 shots at one time, with one injection that’s a giant injection.” At no time during the vaccine schedule are 10-20 shots given at once, individually or even if you count combination vaccines. It’s just not true. He also exaggerates the size of the needles and the amount of fluid injected, comparing them to “horse” vaccines.
That's all great. But right-wingers the world over have shown time and again to not care about scientific evidence at all. So I doubt this changes anything for the type of person that would vote for Trump anyways.
I don't get how politicians can just spout absolute nonsense with no empirical back-up whatsoever, and people just kind of shrug and move forward. He's either knowingly lying through his teeth at you, or he's just plain stupid. Those are the only two choices.
That's all great. But right-wingers the world over have shown time and again to not care about scientific evidence at all. So I doubt this changes anything for the type of person that would vote for Trump anyways.
I don't get how politicians can just spout absolute nonsense with no empirical back-up whatsoever, and people just kind of shrug and move forward. He's either knowingly lying through his teeth at you, or he's just plain stupid. Those are the only two choices.
Oh you mean PEOPLE, right?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
People overall tend to not act on new scientific knowledge, but there's a difference between that and being willfully ignorant of the facts and attempting to spread misinformation.
I know that my carbon imprint can be greatly decreased, and that we all need to make large sweeping changes to have any real impact on climate change. I know those facts, but don't act on them as much as I could. That doesn't mean I deny climate change.
To have someone straight up deny things when faced with actual empirical evidence, is largely a right-wing politician practice.
People overall tend to not act on new scientific knowledge, but there's a difference between that and being willfully ignorant of the facts and attempting to spread misinformation.
I know that my carbon imprint can be greatly decreased, and that we all need to make large sweeping changes to have any real impact on climate change. I know those facts, but don't act on them as much as I could. That doesn't mean I deny climate change.
To have someone straight up deny things when faced with actual empirical evidence, is largely a right-wing politician practice.
The "glitch" in evolution is that even though our survival is more or less dependent on the future of the species, we are only capable of showing real, boundless empathy to ourselves, and those closest to us.
The pathology of climate change makes perfect sense, especially in an age with out effective mediating and meaningful institutions. For the average person, it is all about what makes ME comfortable versus the long-term prospects of the human race.
To deny the science at this point is just to accept that today's climate debate is really about taking things from individuals in the name of a vast, amorphous, poorly understood political project. This is why the Right, typically, is anti-climate change because all too often left-wing popularizers of the debate (not most scientists) swing it as some sort of techno-crusade against the industries that still employ and maintain the comfort of a lot of people (ie. oil & gas - arguably the last blue collar industry in the world).
To that end, the political debate remains a hopeless venue for any meaningful conversation about climate change, and the human species. However, it probably remains the only venue in which genuine understanding, and thus, change can emerge.
As a self-proclaimed conservative, I personally am open to the truth about climate change, insofar, as I recognize that humans are not very good at treating their home like a home. We are trashing this place, and we North Americans are pretty lucky insofar that our wealth, and geography tend to protect us from the growing adverse effects. I would probably be open to a combination hybrid/political solution to this problem, except that so far, the only solutions peddled are the insane hyper-distributionist and utopian fantasies from populists on the Left (see Naomi Klein).
^^^ Right, but what my first comment was in reference to is the flat out denial, in the face of raw empirical data to the contrary, of various issues. In this instance, it's the anit-vax issue, and we have decades of raw data showing no link whatsoever to autism, yet a person running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can come out and make that claim and receive cheers. And then, no one in the mainstream media (outside of, embarrassingly, comedians) will make a peep about how this person just spouted a whole lot of BS to the American people in an effort to get elected. And not on theoretical things like economics or job creation, but on something that has actual science behind it. It's like if the candidates were asked "Mr. Trump, what is 2+2?" and he responded with "well, there are those who will try to convince you that the answer is 4. Pfft, scientists. But it's obvious to me, that when I do my own version of the math, it actually equals 5." And the whole crowd cheers and not a single news outlet runs a story stating that Donald Trump can't do basic math.
This is a frustration with politics in general I guess, but it just seems more prevalent, and more ignored, in the US than pretty well anywhere else.
I'm not sure what's worse....Trump ignoring prevailing science on vaccines or Carson saying the prevailing science on vaccines is that they don't cause autism yet ignoring the prevailing science on Climate change. It's almost like Carson will say whatever he needs to to get votes. Anti-vaxx isn't a huge political issue to begin with and tends to lie more on the liberal side of the scoreboard.
^^^ Right, but what my first comment was in reference to is the flat out denial, in the face of raw empirical data to the contrary, of various issues. In this instance, it's the anit-vax issue, and we have decades of raw data showing no link whatsoever to autism, yet a person running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can come out and make that claim and receive cheers. And then, no one in the mainstream media (outside of, embarrassingly, comedians) will make a peep about how this person just spouted a whole lot of BS to the American people in an effort to get elected. And not on theoretical things like economics or job creation, but on something that has actual science behind it. It's like if the candidates were asked "Mr. Trump, what is 2+2?" and he responded with "well, there are those who will try to convince you that the answer is 4. Pfft, scientists. But it's obvious to me, that when I do my own version of the math, it actually equals 5." And the whole crowd cheers and not a single news outlet runs a story stating that Donald Trump can't do basic math.
This is a frustration with politics in general I guess, but it just seems more prevalent, and more ignored, in the US than pretty well anywhere else.
No, you don't understand. I am trying to explain the psychology as to why such an appeal works.
^^^ Oh I know why it works, it's just frustrating to watch. It's like people trying to tell you that the Earth is 6000 years old. It's not up for debate, it's just not the case, yet the feet get buried deeper and deeper into the sand. And the more they try to tell you that it's true, the more infuriating it becomes that it's just not.
