The Fight Against Fascists (I Can't Believe This Exists)

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 10:00 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Back then, Trump considered himself more Democratic than Republican.  A quick research of who accepted campaign contributions from Trump after this court case included....

Charlie Rangel, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Anthony Weiner, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe, Kamala Harris.  To be fair, Trump gave to Republicans also.  But this is almost a who's who of Democrats..if this case was so consequential...it didn't matter to them. 

Sure, but the question addressed here was not Trump's political affiliation or whether this one case was especially consequential, but whether or when the MSM began a "racist" narrative about Trump. 

I.e., whether Trump's "racism" is only a media creation with no foundation which only began when he wanted to run for president.

More consequential would have been his responses to the Central Park Five case.

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, that would be accurate.  My apologies for misinterpreting your position.

Harris was well out of the race before Biden began to pick up steam in the more heavily black state primaries.  You do, inadvertently, make a good point though, the voters overwhelmingly disliked Harris.

No, I did not make the point you projected into my post. 

So would Harris have done well in those "more heavily black state primaries"?  Beat Biden? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2021, 03:34 PM)Dill Wrote: No, I did not make the point you projected into my post.

No?  So you have an alternative reason for Harris's horrible showing in the Democratic primaries?

Quote:So would Harris have done well in those "more heavily black state primaries"?  Beat Biden? 

Unknown, as it did not happen.  However, we can extrapolate from earlier results that the answer is likely no.  Harris was intensely unpopular, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate her lunch in one of the debates.  Gabbard exposed Harris's, IMO, Achilles heel, namely that Harris will do, say or think anything that helps her get elected.  She appears to have no moral principles that are lines in the sand and is willing to let the current take her where it may.  As long, of course, as it helps her get elected.  Thankfully, most of the Democratic voters appeared to recognize this and gave her the huge thumbs down.  Unfortunately, Biden didn't seem to get that message and picked her for VP despite this.

What do you think?

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No?  So you have an alternative reason for Harris's horrible showing in the Democratic primaries?

Sure--STRONG showing at the beginning, but she was not ready for the national stage, running a CA campaign at the national level. Divided her camp between a CA and Baltimore. She and her staff did not know how to prepare policy-based long term strategy. Picking a busing fight with Biden could only ever have been a short term victory. Inability to step up with Sanders and Warren in debating healthcare did her in. Two months after Gabbard's accusations.

(06-21-2021, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Unknown, as it did not happen.  However, we can extrapolate from earlier results that the answer is likely no.  Harris was intensely unpopular, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate her lunch in one of the debates.  Gabbard exposed Harris's, IMO, Achilles heel, namely that Harris will do, say or think anything that helps her get elected.  She appears to have no moral principles that are lines in the sand and is willing to let the current take her where it may.  As long, of course, as it helps her get elected.  Thankfully, most of the Democratic voters appeared to recognize this and gave her the huge thumbs down.  Unfortunately, Biden didn't seem to get that message and picked her for VP despite this.

What do you think?

Harris was polling 5% of the Mississippi vote to Biden's 50% in June of 2019--a month before the Gabbard debacle.

I agree that Gabbard exposed something--lack of preparation. Whether the national stage or this forum, Democrats aren't impressed by dodgery, which does more damage than the accusations. (Biden weathered worse.) That, plus the fuzziness of her tax/healthcare policies, made her less desirable than other candidates who had clear, if less popular, agendas, like Warren and Bernie. From Gabbard deflection alone I can't infer that Harris "will do, say or think anything that helps get her elected." She needed to explain her record on marijuana prosecution and clarify the "withholding evidence" case. Should have put that out there earlier in the campaign. 

I can infer, though, that Dem voters are looking for something more than a "D" beside a candidates name, during the primaries.

That doesn't change during the general election. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-21-2021, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree that Gabbard exposed something--lack of preparation.

That's what you took away from that exchange, a lack of preparation?

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 05:48 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: That's what you took away from that exchange, a lack of preparation?

When someone with problems in her record steps into a forum where those problems are very likely to become debate matter,

and then is unable to respond directly to questions about those problems, 

then yes, I conclude lack of preparation. 

Hard to judge the tone of your question from a post, but are you supposing I think that a small mistake in national campaign? 

What did you take away? 

[Wes Mantooth]

(06-21-2021, 06:06 PM)Dill Wrote: When someone with problems in her record steps into a forum where those problems are very likely to become debate matter,

and then is unable to respond directly to questions about those problems, 

then yes, I conclude lack of preparation. 

Hard to judge the tone of your question from a post, but are you supposing I think that a small mistake in national campaign? 

What did you take away? 

So you're only going to judge the response to the problems that are raised, and not the validity of the problems themselves?

I took away from it that she got exposed as a fraud.  She got completely embarrassed, and no amount of preparation was going to save her from the facts.  She's a phony.  She went on to illustrate this over and over as time went on.  She almost reached Hillary's level of saying she always keeps a bottle of hot sauce in her purse.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2021, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure--STRONG showing at the beginning, but she was not ready for the national stage, running a CA campaign at the national level. Divided her camp between a CA and Baltimore. She and her staff did not know how to prepare policy-based long term strategy. Picking a busing fight with Biden could only ever have been a short term victory. Inability to step up with Sanders and Warren in debating healthcare did her in. Two months after Gabbard's accusations.

I'd agree that these are all factors.  I also think you're willfully ignoring my point about her.

Quote:Harris was polling 5% of the Mississippi vote to Biden's 50% in June of 2019--a month before the Gabbard debacle.

And what does this tell us?

Quote:I agree that Gabbard exposed something--lack of preparation. Whether the national stage or this forum, Democrats aren't impressed by dodgery, which does more damage than the accusations. (Biden weathered worse.) That, plus the fuzziness of her tax/healthcare policies, made her less desirable than other candidates who had clear, if less popular, agendas, like Warren and Bernie. From Gabbard deflection alone I can't infer that Harris "will do, say or think anything that helps get her elected." She needed to explain her record on marijuana prosecution and clarify the "withholding evidence" case. Should have put that out there earlier in the campaign. 

Incorrect, she exposed her rank hypocrisy and utter lack of convictions.  You rise through the ranks of government based primarily on a role as a prosecutor and then AG, all the while touting law and order credentials.  The minute the public mood turns against those things and all of the sudden you're raising money to bail out rioters.

Quote:I can infer, though, that Dem voters are looking for something more than a "D" beside a candidates name, during the primaries.

Seriously, read this sentence again.  It's honestly silly.

Quote:That doesn't change during the general election. 

Does it not?  Last I looked the general election is between people of two different parties, one with a "D" next to their name and one with an "R".  That's an extremely significant difference from the primaries, is it not? 

(06-21-2021, 06:37 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: So you're only going to judge the response to the problems that are raised, and not the validity of the problems themselves?

I took away from it that he got exposed as a fraud.  She got completely embarrassed, and no amount of preparation was going to save her from the facts.  She's a phony.  She went on to illustrate this over and over as time went on.  She almost reached Hillary's level of saying she always keeps a bottle of hot sauce in her purse.

Quite honestly she's more like that than even Hillary.  Hillary blatantly panders, Harris changes opinions like underwear based on polling numbers.  You are completely correct, she's both a fraud and a phony

[*Nately120*]

(06-21-2021, 04:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No?  So you have an alternative reason for Harris's horrible showing in the Democratic primaries?

The vote was rigged?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-21-2021, 08:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The vote was rigged?

It's the only other possible explanation.  

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(06-21-2021, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure--STRONG showing at the beginning, but she was not ready for the national stage, running a CA campaign at the national level. Divided her camp between a CA and Baltimore. She and her staff did not know how to prepare policy-based long term strategy. Picking a busing fight with Biden could only ever have been a short term victory. Inability to step up with Sanders and Warren in debating healthcare did her in. Two months after Gabbard's accusations.


Harris was polling 5% of the Mississippi vote to Biden's 50% in June of 2019--a month before the Gabbard debacle.

I agree that Gabbard exposed something--lack of preparation. Whether the national stage or this forum, Democrats aren't impressed by dodgery, which does more damage than the accusations. (Biden weathered worse.) That, plus the fuzziness of her tax/healthcare policies, made her less desirable than other candidates who had clear, if less popular, agendas, like Warren and Bernie. From Gabbard deflection alone I can't infer that Harris "will do, say or think anything that helps get her elected." She needed to explain her record on marijuana prosecution and clarify the "withholding evidence" case. Should have put that out there earlier in the campaign. 

I can infer, though, that Dem voters are looking for something more than a "D" beside a candidates name, during the primaries.

That doesn't change during the general election. 

I would assume so during the democrat primaries when everyone has a D beside their name. I disagree though I believe there are plenty of people that vote strictly on the D and R in the general election. Though there's certainly a larger group in between those extremes.

I am curious as to how much of a percentage the legitimate swingers are that can and have voted in either direction.

[Belsnickel]

(06-22-2021, 12:32 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I would assume so during the democrat primaries when everyone has a D beside their name. I disagree though I believe there are plenty of people that vote strictly on the D and R in the general election. Though there's certainly a larger group in between those extremes.

I am curious as to how much of a percentage the legitimate swingers are that can and have voted in either direction.

Estimates from studies range from 6% to 30%. This link is from Nate Silver's site, but the author is pretty good in describing the results of the studies (which I have read most of): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just-how-many-swing-voters-are-there/

The tl;dr is that the higher 30% number is based on registered voters, not likely, and about half of those were actually the "I don't like my party's person, so I won't vote" types, not actually swing voters. So the real range of estimates comes in between 6% and 16% of voters being what we would call "persuadable" or swing voters. The majority of people vote party-line.

[hollodero]

(06-22-2021, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Estimates from studies range from 6% to 30%. This link is from Nate Silver's site, but the author is pretty good in describing the results of the studies (which I have read most of): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just-how-many-swing-voters-are-there/

The tl;dr is that the higher 30% number is based on registered voters, not likely, and about half of those were actually the "I don't like my party's person, so I won't vote" types, not actually swing voters. So the real range of estimates comes in between 6% and 16% of voters being what we would call "persuadable" or swing voters. The majority of people vote party-line.

That is an important and interesting statistic. I'd take from it that the most extreme discrepancy in a presidential election is around a 45-55 result, realistically it's way closer, and probably also way closer in some crucial swing states. I suspect the number of swing voters that usually are just discontent with the present and hence tend to vote opposition is high in comparison. 
Meaning, any person running three times for president for one party is basically guaranteed to end up president. Or any type of person running three concecutive times. That's the scary part.

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 06:37 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: So you're only going to judge the response to the problems that are raised, and not the validity of the problems themselves?

I took away from it that she got exposed as a fraud.  She got completely embarrassed, and no amount of preparation was going to save her from the facts.  She's a phony.  She went on to illustrate this over and over as time went on.  She almost reached Hillary's level of saying she always keeps a bottle of hot sauce in her purse.

Most people who have been in politics for a while have political missteps in their past. 

I don't see how you get to "fraud" though. She was not misrepresenting herself or her position. 
 
At the national/presidential level "facts" will harm Dem candidates more than Republican for sure. 

But even Dems can "inoculate" themselves from surprises by 1) raising past misbehavior/embarrassments themselves and/or 2) having a prepared response. Worst possible move is to suddenly talk about something else.  If fact check sites can rebut at least some of Gabbard's accusations as hyperbole/false, why couldn't Harris have done that, rather than letting muddled half truths stand? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/09/viral-image/harris-didnt-frame-and-prosecute-man-murder/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-fact-check/

So I disagree that "no amount of preparation was going to save her."  Even as it was, that exchange with Gabbard is not what finally dropped Harris' numbers.

Had Harris been able to keep her campaign organized, showed more executive ability there and in articulating competitive policy alternatives, then it is not likely her problems from SF would have hurt her much. In retrospect, her mismanagement of the SF cases as AG could argue for a pattern occuring again in her national campaign--an example of the Peter Principle. In that sense, the "validity of the problems themselves" turns out to be important if they appear to be repeated. 

[Dill]

(06-22-2021, 12:32 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I would assume so during the democrat primaries when everyone has a D beside their name. I disagree though I believe there are plenty of people that vote strictly on the D and R in the general election. Though there's certainly a larger group in between those extremes.

I am curious as to how much of a percentage the legitimate swingers are that can and have voted in either direction.

The question here was not whether there are voters who just vote the "D." There certainly are.

Rather, the question I addressed was whether the majority of black voters were voting for Biden just because he had a "D" by his name, and not for any particular qualities he might have as candidate or the policies he might emphasize, as opposed to other Dem candidates.

Certainly the Dem party is seen by the majority of Black voters to more closely represent their interests, and so many will vote "D" no matter who is running. But it is rather an oversimplification to assume that's all there is at play for them when it is Dem vs Republican. 

To her chagrin, Hillary Clinton discovered this in the 2016 election, when 4.4 million Obama voters stayed home, and she lost the election by some 70,000 votes in three key states. Those abstent voters were looking for more than just a "D."

To foreground that "extra" quality which motivates voters beyond simply the "D," I mentioned the primaries, where everyone has a "D," and that cannot explain why people voted for Biden over, say, Harris or Gabbard. 

Is there any reason to suppose that factors leading Black voters to choose Biden over other candidates are suddenly nil in the national election--they preferred Biden's policy emphases during the primaries but "only" considered the "D" in the national election? 

[Dill]

(06-21-2021, 07:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd agree that these are all factors.  I also think you're willfully ignoring my point about her.

And what does this tell us?

If your point is that Dem voters overwhelmingly "disliked" Harris, then I'm not ignoring it, just rejecting it. Many candidates dropped in the polls, not because people disliked them, but because they liked other candidates better. And I don't see that you have any other evidence for this imputed "dislike" than that people preferred other candidates.  I didn't vote for Williamson, but I didn't "dislike" her. 

The Mississippi stats give us some indication of how states with large Black populations might have gone, had Harris stayed in the race.

(06-21-2021, 07:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect, she exposed her rank hypocrisy and utter lack of convictions.  You rise through the ranks of government based primarily on a role as a prosecutor and then AG, all the while touting law and order credentials.  The minute the public mood turns against those things and all of the sudden you're raising money to bail out rioters.

Seriously, read this sentence again.  It's honestly silly.

Does it not?  Last I looked the general election is between people of two different parties, one with a "D" next to their name and one with an "R".  That's an extremely significant difference from the primaries, is it not? 

You still haven't specified any examples of "rank hypocrisy and utter lack of convictions." It's not like she was pro-choice and then became pro-life when she ran for president. She presented herself as a "progressive prosecutor" from the beginning of her career. That's a narrow path to walk.

The "silly" sentence establishes that 1) people voting in primaries are making selections based on something more than a "D," and 2) that sets up the question of whether that "something more" is at play when it's D vs R.  You've answered "no." If you are correct, that means Harris or Gabbard or even Hillary would have had the same vote totals as Biden. That is in effect what you are asserting. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: If your point is that Dem voters overwhelmingly "disliked" Harris, then I'm not ignoring it, just rejecting it. Many candidates dropped in the polls, not because people disliked them, but because they liked other candidates better. And I don't see that you have any other evidence for this imputed "dislike" than that people preferred other candidates.  I didn't vote for Williamson, but I didn't "dislike" her. 

The Mississippi stats give us some indication of how states with large Black populations might have gone, had Harris stayed in the race.

Rejecting it based on what?  Look at the bare facts and provide us with an explanation for why Harris was so unpopular.

Quote:You still haven't specified any examples of "rank hypocrisy and utter lack of convictions." It's not like she was pro-choice and then became pro-life when she ran for president. She presented herself as a "progressive prosecutor" from the beginning of her career. That's a narrow path to walk.

"Progressive prosecutor?"  Either you're very susceptible to bullshit or you have no idea of her record as a prosecutor.  Unless you consider jailing parents of chronic truants to be progressive.  Is that what you're claiming?

Quote:The "silly" sentence establishes that 1) people voting in primaries are making selections based on something more than a "D,"

Which in a Democratic primary rightfully earns you the response of; no shit, Sherlock.

Quote:and 2) that sets up the question of whether that "something more" is at play when it's D vs R.  You've answered "no." If you are correct, that means Harris or Gabbard or even Hillary would have had the same vote totals as Biden. That is in effect what you are asserting. 

Absolutely.  At the most you'd see less votes for one of them due to an enthusiasm gap.  You would not see an increase in the black vote for the candidate with the "R" next to their name, which is the point.

[Dill]

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Rejecting it based on what?  Look at the bare facts and provide us with an explanation for why Harris was so unpopular.

Accepting it based on what?

I don't have to explain/argue for a thesis I reject. It's up to you to establish that Harris was in fact "intensely unpopular."

I have provided an explanation for why Harris went down in the polls--other candidates had better, more popular policy positions. They drew support away from candidates who did not. That does not make those candidates , including Harris', "intensely unpopular" or "disliked" by anyone other than those who already intensely disliked them.  It wouldn't make sense for Biden to choose an "intensely unpopular/disliked" candidate as a running mate, either. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Progressive prosecutor?"  Either you're very susceptible to bullshit or you have no idea of her record as a prosecutor.  Unless you consider jailing parents of chronic truants to be progressive.  Is that what you're claiming?

??? The caution here should be against hyperbole, projection and confirmation bias. 

A progressive prosecutor is still a prosecutor. That does not mean that either every law supported and every consequence has to be "progressive" or Harris is guilty of "rank hypocrisy."  Checking Harris' progressive credentials means looking at the total body of her work, along with her stated intentions. 

As I said, it is a narrow path to walk. As SF AG, she raised the number of drug prosecutions while starting the "Back on Track" program steering first offenders into education and jobs rather than jail time. The truancy law you linked to was an attempt to preempt crime by reducing one of its causes, which she did. (The effort to address "causes" as well as effects of crime being one progressive goal.) She also refused to prosecute "third strikes" unless they were serious felonies, and is against the death penalty--even in a case where a police officer was murdered. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The "silly" sentence establishes that 1) people voting in primaries are making selections based on something more than a "D,"

Which in a Democratic primary rightfully earns you the response of; no shit, Sherlock.

You are still addressing a premise as a conclusion. People do that when not following the argument. 

(06-22-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely.  At the most you'd see less votes for one of them due to an enthusiasm gap.  You would not see an increase in the black vote for the candidate with the "R" next to their name, which is the point.

Not all of us qualify as "Sherlocks," if some continue to grant that priorities other than a "D" are expressed in primary selection, but insist--without supporting evidence--that those priorities then suddenly play no role in the general. 

I said that Black voters do not think Dem candidates are interchangeable. Your response, to negate that point, was that in the general election they are only voting for a "D."  Now you at least acknowledge an "enthusiasm gap," which means the candidates are not interchangeable. 

Perhaps now you'll also grant that an enthusiasm gap could "at most" cost Dems a national election. Because enough people weren't just voting for a "D." Nothing to do with whether the Black vote for an "R" might increase, as it in fact did in the last election.