American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yawn, this narrative again. How about instead of blaming the voters, blame the DNC for running a terrible campaign? The "Bernie Bros" were far more loyal to the party than the disaffected Hillary voters were in 2008.

https://www.businessinsider.com/hill...st-2016-2020-1



It also wasn't the Bernie Bros who decided not to bother targeting the rust belt States.

Biden has lost ground with Latinos and young black voters during this campaign (compared to 2016). Is that somehow the fault of the Bernie Bros, too?

God forbid the Democrats ever look in the mirror and just do an ounce of self-reflection. Much easier to blame Russia and Bernie and just keep trucking along the same path.

Data doesn't support the claim made by the author of your article (not surprising considering he's from Reason.com).

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...lection-654320

Here's a better article on the data and a much better analytical take on it.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

"To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump.

Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words."

Here’s How Many Sanders-Trump Voters There Were In Key Swing States
Political scientist Brian Schaffner recently tweeted out rough numbers on the share of Bernie Sanders primary voters who eventually went on to vote for Donald Trump in the general election, based on the massive CCES poll. Using those numbers and other available data, here is our back-of-the-envelope math on how many Sanders-Trump voters there were in those states — potentially enough to have handed Hillary Clinton those states (and the presidency).

Sorry, no graphic on this data.

STATE
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS SUPPORTING TRUMP
SANDERS-TRUMP VOTERS (EST.)
TRUMP'S 2016 MARGIN OF VICTORY
Michigan 598,943 8% 47,915 10,704
Pennsylvania 731,881 16% 117,100 44,292
Wisconsin 570,192 9% 51,317 22,748

The data is there. The Bernie Bros get a big heaping of the responsibility for Trump being in office. Own it.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It would be if they said that, what they actually said was they wouldnt take a vaccine based only on Trump's word it was safe, and neither would any body with half a brain

And yet, people were ingesting bleach as soon as he said it.

There is a pretty ridiculous "cult of personality" thing that is happening in the US right now.

Something you really only see in most dictatorships or countries with low education standards.

Wild to see it happening south of us.

[rubecube]

FTR, on that Harris quote, here's the full clip:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1302324443608481792

Reporter: "Let's just say there is a vaccine that is approved and even distributed before the election? Would you get it?"

Harris: "Well I think that's gonna be an issue for all of us. I would say that I would not trust Donald Trump. And it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and reliability of whatever he talks about."

The responsible answer to that question should have been a straightforward "If it's approved by the appropriate government agencies, yes I would." She chose to play politics instead.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The responsible answer to that question should have been a straightforward "If it's approved by the appropriate government agencies, yes I would." She chose to play politics instead.

Well, she is campaigning against Trump in an election, so it isn't really playing politics. It is politics.

She shouldn't have to tell people not to trust Trump for medical advice, but unfortunately, some people do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by New Era

Data doesn't support the claim made by the author of your article (not surprising considering he's from Reason.com).

Ummm...well the data doesn't come from the author. It comes from three different surveys, but full marks for the ad hominem response.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-election/

First, the political scientist Brian Schaffner analyzed the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which was conducted by YouGov and interviewed 64,600 Americans in October-November 2016. In that survey, Schaffner found that 12 percent of people who voted in the primary and reported voting for Sanders also voted in November and reported voting for Trump.

Schaffner examined only voters whose turnout in the primary and general election could be validated using voter file data. This excludes people who said they voted but actually did not — although it also excludes people who voted in caucuses or party-run primaries, for which validated turnout data are not as readily available.

Second, the same 12 percent figure emerges in the 2016 VOTER Survey, which was also conducted by YouGov and overseen by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group (of which I am research director). In 2016, this survey interviewed 8,000 respondents in July, when they were asked their primary vote preference, and then in December, when they were asked their general election preference. This has the advantage of measuring primary preference closer to the primaries themselves and then tracking people over time. But their turnout in both elections has not been validated as of yet.

The third survey is the RAND Presidential Election Panel Survey, which interviewed the same group of about 3,000 Americans six times during the campaign. Again, this survey has the advantage of tracking voters over time, but nobody’s turnout has been validated. Among voters who reported supporting Sanders as of March 2016, 6 percent then reported voting for Trump in November.

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

The data is there. The Bernie Bros get a big heaping of the responsibility for Trump being in office. Own it.

The data shows that Bernie Bros were actually less likely to vote for the other candidate than Hillary supporters were in previous elections, and pretty much on par with the amount of Rubio supporters who voted for Hillary instead of Trump. So to say their votes were some sort of abnormal temper tantrum not historically seen among other disaffected primary voters is a complete fabrication.

Again though, the DNC would much rather look for any sore loser excuse they can than actually perform any sort of introspective analysis.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Well, she is campaigning against Trump in an election, so it isn't really playing politics. It is politics.

She shouldn't have to tell people not to trust Trump for medical advice, but unfortunately, some people do.

That's not the point though. You can campaign against your opponent without undermining the public's trust in vital government agencies. It's totally irresponsible and the reaction here really highlights exactly what Corsi was saying.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The responsible answer to that question should have been a straightforward "If it's approved by the appropriate government agencies, yes I would." She chose to play politics instead.

Really? I thought her answer was perfect. I would not trust a vaccine put out by this administration, and it goes back to the answer of the first question. This is an administration that has done nothing but lie at every turn during this pandemic. The president has promoted every kookie idea that has come into his head as to how to defend against this. Remember hydroxychloroquine? Remember bleach?

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...ust-crazy-more

Remember all of those scientific agencies that have been muzzled by the administration?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...virus-gag-rule

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-fauci-410861

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-critics-say

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...administration

No, I would not take this administration's word. I would not take the word of agency that Trump has influence over. I would only take the word of independent sources who have tested the vaccine and proved it to be safe. Until then, nothing coming from this government is believable.

[opendoor]

The American government isn't developing a vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are and they're running trials all around the world. It's not like they're going to short circuit their trials to help Trump get reelected.

And it's not like every government agency is just a lap dog. The Oxford vaccine trials still aren't back underway in the US (nearly 2 weeks after they started again in the UK) because the FDA is being more cautious about the possible side effects than other countries.

[CaptainCrunch]

The imagery and news coming out of the States is almost like a terrible Purge movie. Armed Militia's on the streets, riots with cops abusing protestors and people shooting cops and assaulting them. A insane president that won't commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses all while assaulting election processes. All the while we're seeing justice perverted.



Is there anyway I can buy the movie rights to this? Are we living in an insane network or frame work gone wild?


I'm horrified by what I'm seeing and hearing. Its sickening and just on another sci-fi video game level.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ummm...well the data doesn't come from the author. It comes from three different surveys, but full marks for the ad hominem response.

Yeah, when someone actually does some research on the providence of the author, that's an ad hominem. Get real. Know where your information is coming from and the track record of those you're using. Reason is a hack organization who has been pumping out disinformation on a number of topics for years. That's what happens when you're Koch sock puppet. Reason is a terrible source of information on anything because they have a history of fudging the numbers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-the-election/

Your own article even say this.

"Even if we assume that the overall percentage of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump was 6 percent and not 12 percent, and assume therefore that we can cut every state estimate in half, the estimated number of Sanders-Trump voters would still exceed Trump’s margin of victory."

It also concludes with this.

"In short, it may be hard to know exactly how many Sanders-Trump voters there were, or whether they really cost Clinton the election. But it doesn’t appear that many of them were predisposed to support Clinton in the first place."

So they weren't voting for Clinton, but they did vote, so where do you think those votes went? Own it Bernie Bros. Your guy didn't get the nomination so you voted against the nominee to show the DNC. Just own it already.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

FTR, on that Harris quote, here's the full clip:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1302324443608481792



The responsible answer to that question should have been a straightforward "If it's approved by the appropriate government agencies, yes I would." She chose to play politics instead.

Okay I'll play a game with you.

A vaccine is purported by Trump to be effective and is approved under the FDA Trump appointee and director of health and human services, also appointed by Trump. It shows up 3 or 4 days before the election and Trump runs around claiming a major victory and that he's done his job to lead us out of this crisis. At that point it has been approved by appropriate government agencies, yet, at that point in time, there has been no independent studies or vetting of the approval process.

Do you go out and take that vaccine?

I say this as someone who has been bullish on the idea that everyone should get the vaccine as soon as it's available. However, this is government influence over science, from someone who is as anti-science as you can possibly get, so he doesn't believe in the process and he only uses it as a tool to aid his bid for re-election.

Under any other circumstance, I'd agree with you. Under this president? No chance in hell do I trust his word on this.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by opendoor

The American government isn't developing a vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are and they're running trials all around the world. It's not like they're going to short circuit their trials to help Trump get reelected.

And it's not like every government agency is just a lap dog. The Oxford vaccine trials still aren't back underway in the US (nearly 2 weeks after they started again in the UK) because the FDA is being more cautious about the possible side effects than other countries.

Really? a company promised total legal immunity and a multi billion dollar government contract by an administration that doesnt care if it works or not and is clear they dont care, who wouldnt take that deal? its a license to print money

[Looch City]

From the President that brought you the hydroxychloroquine sham and injecting disinfectant, we are happy to announce the perfectly safe and definitely tested COVID19 vaccine.

It's also backed by none other than Vladimir Putin himself, just take out word for it okay?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Really? a company promised total legal immunity and a multi billion dollar government contract by an administration that doesnt care if it works or not and is clear they dont care, who wouldnt take that deal? its a license to print money

A couple of issues with that:

-the money part has already happened. Governments around the world have already agreed to buy doses of these vaccines as long as they're effective, regardless of which gets approved first. There's very little marginal value a company rushing it to market for the US just to help Trump.

-these trials have publicly released standards and benchmarks that need to be achieved before they can move forward. Pharmaceutical companies with $25-50B a year in revenue aren't going to just throw that out the window, potentially ruin their reputation, and possibly mess up their chances of producing a useful vaccine for the other 7.5 billion people who don't live in the US just to get a few hundred million in extra revenue from the US.

[FlamesAddiction]

Of course I would take it if Trump endorsed it. The last thing I want is Bill Gates implanting a microchip in me with some non-Trump approved vaccine.

[nfotiu]

Can we trust who is going to manufacture these vaccines if they are rushing to produce billions of doses?

I remember getting a back injection done right around when this happened and was injected with steroids from this compounding pharmacy. I was a little horrified to find out that a reputable hospital system was injecting steroids from loosely regulated compounding pharmacies that were operating as drug manufacturing facilities. How much of that funny business would happen if Trump tries to quickly ramp up production?

https://www.hss.edu/newsroom_meningi...0spinal%20cord.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I disagree with his views...

See, and that's ok. Many of us here can agree that we hate nepotism. I dont care if its Hunter or Jared, I dont like it, especially when it comes out theres kick backs involved with people who are essentially enemies of the state.
Trump is a complete dickhead. I wouldnt support him or this current state of affairs. But I hate the idea, as it plays out too often, that "both sides, many sides" have to play into this monolithic group think. Having ideas that conflict with party lines, say being pro 2nd amd and say pro socialized health care for example, basically puts you into either pinko commie territory, or say Pyschnets ultimate windmill, alt right pepe puffer. Just stop.
There are reasons why messages from Trump like "drain the swamp" resonates. People are tired of career politicians, corruption. Ex Republicans giving their buddies cushy positions in places like Ukraine where they are essentially being shook down like the mob. Extortion.
I dont give a flying #### if you have a D or an R behind your name, people are tired of it and the DNCs answer for getting this blowhard out of office? A geriatric stick in the mud who exemplifies the career politician, or "swamp" if you will.
If the Dems blow this, they damn well better not cast blame anywhere but on themselves. This should be a slam dunk and they are screwing the pooch.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I never thought I'd say this, but someone needs to bump a gun thread so he has something to do.

Overall I admit I find it fascinating how certain right wingers on here rely heavily on false equivalence. It's very indicative of the problem in the US right now for some republican supports, where the facade of morality has been stripped away, so they desperately need to point out things that feel the same to them "on the other side" which, of course, aren't remotely close. A disturbing lack of critical thinking.

It'd be one thing if it were "hey, there is also this questionable thing happening on your side," but it's never that. It's always "have you seen this thing which is the SAME! wow, I guess everyone is a hypocrite!" I guess it's the only way to cope, but it's sad.

Another dishonest framing of a conversation.

afc says antifa doesn't really exist (echoing comments made earlier by psycnet and others).

I point out that they actually do exist, and have played an active role in high--profile incidents of rioting and political violence. While also pointing out they aren't as widespread or as big a problem as their right-wing counterparts.

So the respsonse? You guys are saying they're equivalent.

Pointing out something exists is not equivocation. It’s just trying to introduce some reality and complexity into tribal circle-jerks.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I point out that they actually do exist

In a way I agree, they do...

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

and have played an active role in high--profile incidents of rioting and political violence.

You've lost me chief. Where is the proof of this? Fox News talking heads claiming it? Trump? The DoJ?

Any legitimate threat posed by some sort of organized Antifa group that you can point to?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

afc says antifa doesn't really exist (echoing comments made earlier by psycnet and others).

It exists as a concept in the same way freedom exists as a concept. People claim to represent it and often resort to violence to promote it, but it isn't something organized or well-defined. The parameters tend to shift depending on who is using it for their cause.

That is not to say that some organized groups don't wave an Antifa banner.