Octopus Overlords

I love Sanders take on voting for Biden if he's the nominee:

"If I lived in a swing state, I might get piss-drunk and go in there. I'd take all types of painkillers first and make sure I have a resuscitating machine with me. And then I'd flip the switch for that scumbag."

You and me both Bernie.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:33 pm I love Sanders take on voting for Biden if he's the nominee:

"If I lived in a swing state, I might get piss-drunk and go in there. I'd take all types of painkillers first and make sure I have a resuscitating machine with me. And then I'd flip the switch for that scumbag."

You and me both Bernie.

What The Fuck?

I assume you're quoting viral Bernie Bro idiocy rather than something Sanders actually said.

You and (your version of) Sanders believe that someone has to be high to vote for a moderate Dem WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS THE FUCKING REPUBLICAN??

"Scumbag"? Really? What's the definition of a scumbag when DONALD TRUMP IS THE FUCKING REPUBLICAN??

Are you stupid? Don't be stupid. You don't have to be stupid.

Jesus. Wake up. Grow up. This shit was the problem in 2016 and it's the problem in 2020.

It looks like it's a quote of a "Sanders super-volunteer who treks around the country", not Sanders himself.


https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/ ... ution-ends

Defiant wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:05 pm It looks like it's a quote of a "Sanders super-volunteer who treks around the country", not Sanders himself.


https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/ ... ution-ends

Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard?

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:33 pm I love Sanders take on voting for Biden if he's the nominee:

"If I lived in a swing state, I might get piss-drunk and go in there. I'd take all types of painkillers first and make sure I have a resuscitating machine with me. And then I'd flip the switch for that scumbag."

You and me both Bernie.

And there you go again.


scumbag. really.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:39 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:33 pm I love Sanders take on voting for Biden if he's the nominee:

"If I lived in a swing state, I might get piss-drunk and go in there. I'd take all types of painkillers first and make sure I have a resuscitating machine with me. And then I'd flip the switch for that scumbag."

You and me both Bernie.

And there you go again.


scumbag. really.

Sorry was that directed at me? If yes, Go squat on a cactus.

Sorry. My reading comprehension today is... Off.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:21 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 8:05 pm It looks like it's a quote of a "Sanders super-volunteer who treks around the country", not Sanders himself.


https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/ ... ution-ends

Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard?

Yep. You're right. The image of Bernie having to get piss drunk and doped up, defibulator in tow to be able to vote for Biden just cracked me up.

YellowKing wrote:I think Nancy's speaking realistically. There's no way in hell we're going to be off all fossil fuels in 10 years.

It’s only not realistic because we think it’s not realistic and so we’re tying tiny incremental steps instead.

In any case, I think Pelosi is wrong. Many of the policies considered to be on the far left have pretty broad support. For example, the Green New Deal polls pretty well in swing districts.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:54 am

YellowKing wrote:I think Nancy's speaking realistically. There's no way in hell we're going to be off all fossil fuels in 10 years.

It’s only not realistic because we think it’s not realistic and so we’re tying tiny incremental steps instead.

In any case, I think Pelosi is wrong. Many of the policies considered to be on the far left have pretty broad support. For example, the Green New Deal polls pretty well in swing districts.

+1. I think politicans need to be better at making the case to constituents for foward thinking policies. Look at the terrible damage Fox "News" has been able to do with a terrible message that objectively sucks.

Elections aren't usually won by timid people with cautious plans. Revolutionary change doesn't often win, either, but I think it's a winning proposition in a time of crisis, if only because revolutionary changes are coming whether we like it or not.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:54 am

YellowKing wrote:I think Nancy's speaking realistically. There's no way in hell we're going to be off all fossil fuels in 10 years.

It’s only not realistic because we think it’s not realistic and so we’re tying tiny incremental steps instead.

In any case, I think Pelosi is wrong. Many of the policies considered to be on the far left have pretty broad support. For example, the Green New Deal polls pretty well in swing districts.

When did the Green New Deal become an actual policy?

If you guys get your way it will be epic reading the upcoming thread discussing

How has the Green New Deal affected you?

I remember how the world was almost destroyed after we dropped leaded gasoline. Oh, and let’s not forget the “8 Track Riots” of the late 70s.

hepcat wrote: “8 Track Riots”

Throw back a Colt .45

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:07 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:54 am

YellowKing wrote:I think Nancy's speaking realistically. There's no way in hell we're going to be off all fossil fuels in 10 years.

It’s only not realistic because we think it’s not realistic and so we’re tying tiny incremental steps instead.

In any case, I think Pelosi is wrong. Many of the policies considered to be on the far left have pretty broad support. For example, the Green New Deal polls pretty well in swing districts.

When did the Green New Deal become an actual policy?

Yeah, polling for the Green New Deal is tricky because it's part slogan, part policy. And while people (including AOC) have proposed specific policies as a part of it, those proposals are wildly divergent.

So sure, polling for the slogan is going to be great, insofar as polling for "a better environment and more jobs" is generally going to be great. Once you start polling for specific policies, though, it's going to get muddy.

Also the Vox link in RW's post is broken, so I can't tell what the specific polling that he's talking about is saying.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:43 am I remember how the world was almost destroyed after we dropped leaded gasoline. Oh, and let’s not forget the “8 Track Riots” of the late 70s.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/elect ... blackouts/

I use a candle when the power goes out here. I guess that means electricity is a failed endeavor.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:51 am Also the Vox link in RW's post is broken, so I can't tell what the specific polling that he's talking about is saying.

Weird. Worked on my phone. Maybe fixed now?

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:35 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:51 am Also the Vox link in RW's post is broken, so I can't tell what the specific polling that he's talking about is saying.

Weird. Worked on my phone. Maybe fixed now?

Oh, I see. The URL in the link has an "Octopus Overlords" url component to it.

Yesterday's Daily podcast (NYT) was an interesting one. It explored the recently completed New York Times/Siena College poll of 3,766 registered voters in key 2016 battleground states.

The Daily did a good job of exploring how difficult these polls are to conduct and also why so many of the state polls in 2016 were so far off the mark while the national polls were more or less on track. The conclusion was that, unlike the national polls, the state polls did not take measures to weight the responses from less educated white voters, thus under representing this key demographic in the Trump MAGA coalition and skewing results against Tump.

This time around, state polls, including this one, are trying to correct for that error.

The poll was conducted from Oct. 13 to Oct. 26 and focused on the question of electability in 2020. Here's a graphic highlighting the key results:



Take-aways:
- Despite the impeachment proceedings (and everything else), Trump remains fiercely competitive in these states.
- If the election were held today - and these results are accurate - Biden would take these swing states. Bernie would split, and Warren would lose.
- In the polling, the voters preference for a moderate democrat over a progressive was on the order of 75-25.
- Respondents dinged Warren decisively on (1) her policies; and (2) her "likeability."
- These voters generally do not want "fundamental structural change."

As much as I've been disappointed in Biden, he still looks like the best shot to take down Trump.

da hell, North Carolina?

I'm convinced "likeability" directly relates to Warren being a woman. Americans as a whole can't stand the idea of a female being leader of the free world.

Because honestly I don't know how you find a blustering loudmouth windbag like Sanders more "likeable."

Kraken wrote:da hell, North Carolina?

I gave up on NC a long time ago. It's a couple of islands of sanity in a sea of racist Bible-thumping hillbilly gun nuts.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:00 pm I'm convinced "likeability" directly relates to Warren being a woman. Americans as a whole can't stand the idea of a female being leader of the free world.

Because honestly I don't know how you find a blustering loudmouth windbag like Sanders more "likeable."

I'm sure gender is a big part of that, plus her aw-shucks populism can't hide her intellect. The only thing more threatening than a powerful woman is a powerful ivory-tower intellectual woman.

With so many fossils out ahead, I wonder how much that elevates the choice of VEEP?

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:00 pm I'm convinced "likeability" directly relates to Warren being a woman. Americans as a whole can't stand the idea of a female being leader of the free world.

Because honestly I don't know how you find a blustering loudmouth windbag like Sanders more "likeable."

Agreed. The Daily podcast actually made this point very well when talking about similar “likeability” polling results with Hilary.

It’s not the whole story as far as the challenges Warren is facing, but it’s definitely a part of it.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:00 pm I'm convinced "likeability" directly relates to Warren being a woman. Americans as a whole can't stand the idea of a female being leader of the free world.

Part of it may be that as an academic from Massachusetts, she can be perceived as a "coastal elitist"

One interesting table from the Sierra/Upshot article:

BY RACE	2016 POLLS	TRUMP V. BIDEN	TRUMP V. SANDERS	TRUMP V. WARREN
White, college (n=1,321)	Clinton +6	Biden +10	Sanders +6	Warren +7
White, no coll. (1,469)	Trump +26	Trump +24	Trump +24	Trump +26
Black (328)	Clinton +79	Biden +74	Sanders +69	Warren +68
Hispanic (370)	Clinton +35	Biden +34	Sanders +31	Warren +24
Other (186)	Clinton +11	Biden +10	Sanders +14	Warren +3

Warren looks like she's a much weaker candidate than Clinton was in 2016, and all of the candidates are doing a lot weaker among African Americans than Clinton was.

Aw man. Once the orange moron is out of office tax payers have to keep paying the Secret Service to protect him until he is dead. Lame.

I think another big part of the story on Warren and her poor electability numbers is centered on trust. Deep down, people know that you’re not going to get “big structural changes” without paying for them. Unlike Bernie, who - love it or hate it - gives a pretty unvarnished take on his push for American socialism, Warren tries to skate by convincing voters that all her sweeping policies will be paid for by some other guy (all those billionaires). I think there’s an inherent distrust in that message.

The NYT came out with an interesting info graphic today that drives home the extent to which Warren’s announced plans would result in additional federal spending.

The bottom line: Warren’s plans (including Medicare for All) will result in $30.5 trillion in additional federal spending over the next decade. That’s a 50% increase in federal spending.

Also interesting to note that all of Warren’s other big ticket policy proposals (universal child care, free college, student debt cancellation, addressing climate change, expanded social security benefits, increasing affordable housing access, etc.) combined account for about $10 trillion. So the cost of Warren’s MFA is more than twice the cost of all of her other policy proposals put together.

At this point, I don't know how many people are closely following policy positions/plans from the different candidates. So I think much of Warren's current low polling in head to head match-ups is 1) she isn't as well known as Biden or Sanders and, unfortunately, 2) she's a women. Hopefully that first one will change as the campaign continues; it definitely will if she wins Iowa. I'm not sure she can do much about the second issue, though.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:14 pm At this point, I don't know how many people are closely following policy positions/plans from the different candidates. So I think much of Warren's current low polling in head to head match-ups is 1) she isn't as well known as Biden or Sanders and, unfortunately, 2) she's a women. Hopefully that first one will change as the campaign continues; it definitely will if she wins Iowa. I'm not sure she can do much about the second issue, though.

There's also the perception (and it influences me as well) she has taken advantage of the system. She claims she was fired because she got pregnant. She claimed to be Native American.

And the fake beer drinking I dont follow any of them. Dont care for any of them. Some I wouldn't vote for if paid...unless it was a lot. Whoever is picked to run against the orange moron gets my vote. Isn't like the electoral college cares who has the most votes anyways. Just look at a few of the elections over the last 2 decades.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:08 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:14 pm At this point, I don't know how many people are closely following policy positions/plans from the different candidates. So I think much of Warren's current low polling in head to head match-ups is 1) she isn't as well known as Biden or Sanders and, unfortunately, 2) she's a women. Hopefully that first one will change as the campaign continues; it definitely will if she wins Iowa. I'm not sure she can do much about the second issue, though.

There's also the perception (and it influences me as well) she has taken advantage of the system. She claims she was fired because she got pregnant. She claimed to be Native American.

The story that she lied about her losing her teaching job is bullshit. The story rested upon some New Jersey teaching records that she was offered a job extension in April. But Warren was only four months pregnant at the time, so not visibly pregnant. It's when Warren became visibly pregnant that the school suggested that she might not want to return.

And lo and behold, CBS News found a couple teachers from the school who confirmed that that was the general policy (before this sort of thing became illegal):

Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don’t remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school. But Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed.

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer,” Randall said. “But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

As the school board minutes show, no member of the Riverdale school board at the time was a woman. A full year after Warren’s dismissal, the Associated Press wrote that a recent New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights decision meant that “pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey classrooms.”

On one side you have innuendo that I have no doubt is true. I'm sure the school board didn't want someone pregnant teaching, but the evidence shows a formal job offer. Couple that with her native American claims and I'm skeptical of her.


She's the one that made the claim.


Edit: seriously? This is her rebuttal... I didn't say I was fired... I said I was shown the door.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:12 pm On one side you have innuendo that I have no doubt is true. I'm sure the school board didn't want someone pregnant teaching, but the evidence shows a formal job offer. Couple that with her native American claims and I'm skeptical of her.


She's the one that made the claim.

Edit: seriously? This is her rebuttal... I didn't say I was fired... I said I was shown the door.

C'mon. You have three contemporaneous sources (two teachers and an AP article) all saying that the general rule / practice was to push out women teachers when they became visibly pregnant. Warren says that she was forced out when she became visibly pregnant. The contrary claim is based upon a job offer that was made BEFORE she became visibly pregnant.

*Could* she be making it up? Sure. But the evidence supporting her claim is WAY stronger than the supposedly contrary evidence.

And do you not understand the difference between a formal firing and being pushed out? I was not fired from a former law firm, during the recession. But I was most definitely shown the door. Similarly, big law firms notoriously have a practice wherein, if they have a summer associate that they strongly dislike, they make a "cold offer" - they offer them the job, but call them up and essentially tell them not to take it.

Michael Bloomberg is filing to enter the Democratic primary.

This should be a shitshow of huge and unwanted proportions.

[Initially I overreacted upon seeing wording elsewhere that Bloomberg was preparing a third-party run.]

From the field Warren is my choice but since when is "shown the door" anything other than fired or kicked out? You make me question myself but then,

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/show+you+the+door

I've been shown the door by not having a teaching contract renewed. I wasn't fired, but I lost the job.

People wanting to debunk Warren's claim need to find teachers in her district around that time who were retained after becoming pregnant.

She's running for president of the United States. We aren't measuring the veracity of her claims for truth. We're contemplating character and whether we like her or not.

I'm telling you that I think it has as much to do with her using situations to her advantage and then doubling down when it's clearly irrelevant as it does with her being a woman.

I give her the giant rolley eyes way more than I do Biden. I'm completely dismissive of Sanders so can't do a fair comparison.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:41 pm She's running for president of the United States. We aren't measuring the veracity of her claims for truth. We're contemplating character and whether we like her or not.

I'm telling you that I think it has as much to do with her using situations to her advantage and then doubling down when it's clearly irrelevant as it does with her being a woman.

I give her the giant rolley eyes way more than I do Biden. I'm completely dismissive of Sanders so can't do a fair comparison.

But....this whole being pushed out is part of your reason for thinking that she takes advantage of situations, right? Sooo....if it's not true, that would undermine the validity of the belief that she takes advantage of situations?

FWIW the Globe also did a pretty thorough debunking of the claim that she advanced her career by claiming Native American heritage.