DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
nohero said:
jimmurphy said:
There were arguments over Hillary due to her systematic, 30-year vilification by Republicans.
And I wasn't referring to extreme candidates, but rather extreme supporters, you know, the ones trawling the internet for fringe video sources and brawling on Twitter. The candidates are not doing that.
Apparently, too subtle and indirect for some, but I think the rest of the readers got it.
I tend to skim over the personal attacks. I prefer actual arguments about worthwhile ideas, not someone who dismisses people who disagree as "fringe" or "extreme." For the record, more and more people are getting their news from YouTube. The median age of a CNN/MSNBC/FOX viewer is around 60 (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/355379/), so it looks like that is not the future of news. As for brawling on Twitter--you do that yourself--so I guess, according to Jim Murphy's definition, you must be extreme.
nohero said:
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
Signs also don't talk either, at least in a two-way exchange. People talking have more influence than signs.
nan said:
nohero said:
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
Signs also don't talk either, at least in a two-way exchange. People talking have more influence than signs.
Based on personal observation, the most enthusiastic "talkers" for their candidates on social media are not the best "listeners" in any two-way exchange. Sometimes, they barely acknowledge the other views but just plow right ahead. So that could explain why they're not engaged more often from other points of view.
nohero said:
Based on personal observation, the most enthusiastic "talkers" for their candidates on social media are not the best "listeners" in any two-way exchange. Sometimes, they barely acknowledge the other views but just plow right ahead. So that could explain why they're not engaged more often from other points of view.
LIstening for you often means agreeing with you, so I'm not surprised you are disappointed.
nan said:
nohero said:
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
Signs also don't talk either, at least in a two-way exchange. People talking have more influence than signs in turning people off and causing them to vote for the other candidate(s).
Fixed that for you.
cramer said:
nan said:
nohero said:
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
Signs also don't talk either, at least in a two-way exchange. People talking have more influence than signs in turning people off and causing them to vote for the other candidate(s).
Fixed that for you.
Reject a candidate based on how you feel about their supporters rather than platform, history or funding. Yeah, that makes you look good. Pat yourself on the back.
nan said:
cramer said:
nan said:
nohero said:
Re: the significance of social media activity, or lack thereof, with respect to a candidate's strength.
As is often said during local elections when a comment is made about support for candidates that appear on people's lawns: "Signs don't vote."
Signs also don't talk either, at least in a two-way exchange. People talking have more influence than signs in turning people off and causing them to vote for the other candidate(s).
Fixed that for you.
Pick a candidate based on how you feel about their supporters rather than platform, history or funding. Yeah, that makes you look good. Pat yourself on the back.
Do you think your haranguing does any good?
If voters robustly support the Green New Deal, as progressives maintain, shouldnt inslee have gained at least some traction and stuck around for a while longer?
nan said:
nohero said:
Based on personal observation, the most enthusiastic "talkers" for their candidates on social media are not the best "listeners" in any two-way exchange. Sometimes, they barely acknowledge the other views but just plow right ahead. So that could explain why they're not engaged more often from other points of view.
LIstening for you often means agreeing with you, so I'm not surprised you are disappointed.
No, I'd settle for a disagreement which actually addresses the contents of what the person is allegedly "responding" to, instead of a personal insult or a "whatabout".
For anyone not sure to what I am referring, DON'T GO TO THE RUSSIA SUBCATEGORY IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN THERE.
nohero said:
For anyone not sure to what I am referring, DON'T GO TO THE RUSSIA SUBCATEGORY IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEEN THERE.
I've avoided that area for a while now. Is it still active? I'm loathe to find out myself.
drummerboy said:
I've avoided that area for a while now. Is it still active? I'm loathe to find out myself.
Let me put it this way ...
Smedley said:
If voters robustly support the Green New Deal, as progressives maintain, shouldnt inslee have gained at least some traction and stuck around for a while longer?
Maybe, but I think Inslee had some other problems. He was viewed as a one-issue candidate, he did not have much name recognition, and he got little media attention. I was also confused about him because he was promoting climate change as the major issue and when I looked at him closer, I found that he had support for fracking, which climate change activists oppose. I think he also came to oppose fracking, but his establishment background might have made some climate activists more leery of supporting him.
The best thing he did was demand the climate change debate which is now going to happen, so he should feel good about that. Probably, not being able to participate in it, helped him decide to drop out. They should have made an exception for him to appear since it was his idea.
nan said:
Smedley said:
If voters robustly support the Green New Deal, as progressives maintain, shouldnt inslee have gained at least some traction and stuck around for a while longer?
Maybe, but I think Inslee had some other problems. He was viewed as a one-issue candidate, he did not have much name recognition, and he got little media attention. I was also confused about him because he was promoting climate change as the major issue and when I looked at him closer, I found that he had support for fracking, which climate change activists oppose. I think he also came to oppose fracking, but his establishment background might have made some climate activists more leery of supporting him.
The best thing he did was demand the climate change debate which is now going to happen, so he should feel good about that. Probably, not being able to participate in it, helped him decide to drop out. They should have made an exception for him to appear since it was his idea.
He was never going to be the nominee and he wasn't the perfect candidate but he was reasonable enough. If climate change is as big of a Democratic policy issue as some people think, Inslee should have been at 5% support and stuck around for another 6 months.
Smedley said:
If voters robustly support the Green New Deal, as progressives maintain, shouldnt inslee have gained at least some traction and stuck around for a while longer?
I'm guessing this is actually a rhetorical question, because it's obviously fallacious thinking to conclude from Inslee's poor showing that it reflects at all on the GND.
Initial polling back in the winter when the first news reports of the GND came out seemed to mostly show that only conservatives knew anything about it, and of course what they had heard was that it was terrible idea. More recent polling from Marist from just a few weeks ago shows something different -- 63% of all adults favor the Green New Deal, including 64% of Independents and 86% of Democrats. And overall 60% of registered voters are in favor.
It never was about climate change primarily. It's a New Deal that's green. Not a Green Deal. And it addresses health care among other issues, which IS the top issue for Democratic voters.
Don't you think that the GND diminishes the chances of getting anything serious done on climate change, because it ties in a broad socialist wish list with climate change? If you want to do something on climate change, do something on climate change. Don't lump it in with unrelated stuff like guaranteed jobs and free college.
Smedley said:
Don't you think that the GND diminishes the chances of getting anything serious done on climate change, because it ties in a broad socialist wish list with climate change? If you want to do something on climate change, do something on climate change. Don't lump it in with unrelated stuff like guaranteed jobs and free college.
it probably increases the chance by pairing it with popular ideas liked guaranteed health insurance, clean air and water, and infrastructure improvements.
I think there is a tendency on this message board for folks to engage in the Pundit's Fallacy, which is the belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively. I'm sure some folks here think I'm doing the same with my insistence that the middle is a terrible place for Democrats to flee to. But I'm aware of the Pundit's Fallacy, and I do try to avoid it in my own views on what candidates should be doing. Which is why I look at polls and I only suggest that Democrats should do things that other people favor, like the GND or a wealth tax. OTOH, I'm personally in favor of the government looking into UBI and reparations for slavery. But I wouldn't be advising candidates to go out on the stump touting those ideas and expecting to gain a lot of votes.
Bernie provides the details for his Green New Deal plan:
This is the most pro-business, pro-labor, pro-survival and therefore pro-life proposal of all time.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/
The only losers are the fossil fuel companies.
The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.
"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share." Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past. Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.
Trump is going to crush him over this. Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.
jamie said:
The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.
"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share." Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past. Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.
Trump is going to crush him over this. Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.
you pay for it by printing money.
Exactly the same way the fed govt pays for everything now.
drummerboy said:
jamie said:
The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.
"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share." Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past. Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.
Trump is going to crush him over this. Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.
you pay for it by printing money.
Exactly the same way the fed govt pays for everything now.
Three letters: O M G
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
If voters robustly support the Green New Deal, as progressives maintain, shouldnt inslee have gained at least some traction and stuck around for a while longer?
I'm guessing this is actually a rhetorical question, because it's obviously fallacious thinking to conclude from Inslee's poor showing that it reflects at all on the GND.
You can disagree, but it’s hardly “obviously fallacious thinking”. Inslee was the one single-issue climate candidate. The GND is the biggest and most well-known climate proposal out there. Surely there’s a correlation between how the two fare. It’s not 1.0 correlation but it’s not 0.0 either.
Nate silver out this morning with this:
“Inslee, who could never improve on ~1% in the polls despite an intense focus on climate change, is a datapoint against the proposition that Democrats' votes are deeply motivated by policy concerns.
People will try to spin it differently but Inslee's lackluster performance is an obviously bearish indicator for the prioritization of climate change in Democratic politics.“
Is that “obviously fallacious thinking”?
jamie said:
The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.
"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share." Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past. Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.
Trump is going to crush him over this. Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.
The $16 trillion is spread over 30 years.
Two years ago the WSJ reported we had spent $5.6 trillion on Middle East wars. So that estimate is already higher. And this is spending for nothing useful that has little multiplier effect in the economy like purchases for research, technology and infrastructure.
How did we pay for $5.6 trillion-plus on death and destruction that made the world less safe?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
The second biggest loser will be Sanders with a 16 trillion dollar project with a vagueness in how to pay for it.
"Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share." Um, ok Bernie - like companies haven't found loopholes in the past. Seems like the only real solution would be for the government to takeover the oil and gas industries.
Trump is going to crush him over this. Fortunately Trump is self-imploding himself these days.
The $16 trillion is spread over 30 years.
Two years ago the WSJ reported we had spent $5.6 trillion on Middle East wars. So that estimate is already higher. And this is spending for nothing useful that has little multiplier effect in the economy like purchases for research, technology and infrastructure.
How did we pay for $5.6 trillion-plus on death and destruction that made the world less safe?
It didn't come from taking money from companies who need to pay their fair share - or wall street speculation. It would have been a good way have done it though. Companies,. wall street and billionaires would have found the loopholes - and we wouldn't have been able to afford these wars.
Bernie's plan reads as if it was written by someone with no clue about the business of electricity generation and transmission - or for that matter what current (no pun intended) efforts are now under way.
[Edited to add] Also, it's not clear that his "GND" team has coordinated with his "M4A" team. Both plans are based upon significant industry restructuring - which in the case of the energy industry, will require significant dollar amounts to address existing capital investments (often made with specific governmental approvals for cost recovery). We've already been told that Bernie's "M4A" will be accomplished by mobilizing a "full court press" of popular support.
Smedley said:
You can disagree, but it’s hardly “obviously fallacious thinking”. Inslee was the one single-issue climate candidate. The GND is the biggest and most well-known climate proposal out there. Surely there’s a correlation between how the two fare. It’s not 1.0 correlation but it’s not 0.0 either.
Nate silver out this morning with this:
“Inslee, who could never improve on ~1% in the polls despite an intense focus on climate change, is a datapoint against the proposition that Democrats' votes are deeply motivated by policy concerns.
People will try to spin it differently but Inslee's lackluster performance is an obviously bearish indicator for the prioritization of climate change in Democratic politics.“
Is that “obviously fallacious thinking”?
it's fallacious because virtually all of the major Democratic candidates have endorsed some version of the GND. Supporting it didn't set Inslee apart from Sanders for example (see paul's post above). In a different article on fivethirtyeight.com today, Geoffrey Skelley noted that Inslee wasn't alone in his support for the GND.
For instance, most of the Democratic presidential field has either co-sponsored or endorsed the “Green New Deal,” a sweeping resolution that House Democrats introduced earlier this year that demands the government tackle climate change with ambitious actions like net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, all the candidates want to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, and nearly all want the U.S. to strengthen its commitment to lowering emissions. And it’s not just the candidates — Democratic voters say climate change is a top issue for them and one they want to hear about in the debates. But in the end, focusing on climate change wasn’t enough for Inslee to break out.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democratic-voters-care-about-climate-change-but-not-enough-to-support-jay-inslee/
Even Nate Silver occasionally slips into fallacious arguments.
And as I noted above, the "New Deal" part of the Green New Deal is the important part. In your argument you're conflating the wide ranging issues of the GND with the single issue of global warming. They are related, but not the same thing.
jimmurphy said:
There were arguments over Hillary due to her systematic, 30-year vilification by Republicans.
And I wasn't referring to extreme candidates, but rather extreme supporters, you know, the ones trawling the internet for fringe video sources and brawling on Twitter. The candidates are not doing that.
Yes. Heaven forbid there be discussions and even arguments about policy and the direction of the party somewhere outside the smokey back rooms. Lets just leave that sort of thing to Joey D and his big brothers at the national level.
This article reenforces much of what Nan was saying a day or two ago although they come at it from a different angle.
Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge
In essence, many if not most people who support Biden's candidacy are doing so because they think other people are doing the same. Its a lemming effect that threatens to drive America over a cliff to its doom.
Klinker said:
This article reenforces much of what Nan was saying a day or two ago although they come at it from a different angle.
Joe Biden’s Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge
In essence, many if not most people who support Biden's candidacy are doing so because they think other people are doing the same. Its a lemming effect that threatens to drive America over a cliff to its doom.
Biden is a ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
but the media props him up because he is on their side. Comcast, a big Biden donor, owns MSNBC.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
Apparently, too subtle and indirect for some, but I think the rest of the readers got it.