|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 8, 2024 20:47:59 GMT -7
I have a question: If all this polling that we can see in front of our eyes is saying that Biden is going lose to trump, all the other candidates are intentionally ignored, and Biden is forced upon us, then he loses to Trump. Who's fault is this going to be when we're f'd? Dude do you not think the mainstream media would absolutely LOVE and go nuts over a "progressive upstart taking on the establishment?" They would be shitting on themselves for anyone even remotely viable... But unfortunately she is not that person. She's just not. The mainstream media want drama. The MSM wants a horse race. The MSM wants ratings. The MSM understands that in presidential elections the drama and horse race before the general election is all on the side of the party not in power so that's where they focus. The MSM can't create a horse race against an incumbent running for reelection if there's only a few lame horses that are only limping and that can't create their own excitement. The MSM would rather repeat the same few stories all day about Trump and those who are running against him where they can count on higher ratings than devote a half hour talking about a challenger barely anyone is interested in and that doesn't have a chance at beating the incumbent president. The MSM focuses on the Taylor Swifts and Beyonces, not on the Twiddles or Tier 7 jambands. But I understand how to some it's preferable to blame the MSM for the failures of their preferred candidate to not break through to become viable. Had Williamson been able to build a Bernie level of support the MSM would cover the resulting horse race. The MSM is looking forward to '28 because like '16 there'll be two simultaneous horse races going on without an incumbent running. The MSM is mainstream because they reflect the mainstream of America; their preferences and where they're at. The MSM doesn't push progressive views or candidates because America is not a progressive country and votes in less than a handful of progressive candidates on a national level. Expecting the MSM to give time to all of the progressive candidates who can't get out of the polling basement and have no chance at success is like expecting a Death Metal festival to book String Cheese and other similar acts equally popular in the death metal community to get more $ for the advertising time they sell to boost ticket sales. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 8, 2024 20:52:10 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by higs on Jan 8, 2024 20:52:10 GMT -7
Do we believe that Biden is calling the shots in regards to the actions the dnc is taking? I don't believe he is. The dnc seems to believe that Biden is their best shot. Historical precedent does not bode well for either party when an incumbent president faces a substantial challenger in the primary. They lose. The whole game of politics is exhausting and it's turning many voters away. I'm not sure there's a conspiracy. It's just a big game and we've always been the pawns.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 8, 2024 21:01:28 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 8, 2024 21:01:28 GMT -7
Every night on NBC News there's a story about Biden losing young voters, Biden losing Black voters... You don't think they'd LOVE to do stories about "meanwhile So and So is drawing thousands to her rallies!" just like they did for Bernie?? They had to cover him. But not her. She doesn't have the chutzpah, gravitas, charisma (legislative accomplishments?) or whatever it is necessary to move the needle. She just doesn't. There's no conspiracy. There doesn't need to be. Whether or not you or they think she has the chutzpah, do you honestly not think that she deserves some coverage or a few interviews? That's not a lot ask and these channels are on 24 hours a day. Please tell me that you see the bias afoot Actually, it is a lot to ask a company who makes their money based on ratings based advertising sales considering people will change the channel and might not bother changing back once the think the interview might be over. The next night when the channel interviews some other candidate without any kind of demonstrable following they change the channel again. The third night they interview yet another interview with a candidate with no real support to give them some coverage the viewer finds a new favorite station since their old favorite kept airing interviews with candidates who they either have no interest in, or where they know the candidate has no chance of winning. You're asking a major festival to book a Tier 7 band on the main stage when there's only enough open slots for Tiers 1 and 2 not because because the Tier 7 band has built up a following and proven they can draw a crowd which increases ticket sales, but only because you think they deserve some exposure. It ain't bias against Williamson or your favorite Tier 7 band. It's a business decision. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 8, 2024 21:05:44 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 8, 2024 21:05:44 GMT -7
I just don't have the energy to look up an assortment of political projection polls from the past year. I want to have an informed conversation but not have a part time job
I would like nothing more than for Joe Biden to impress me. I have nothing against him personally, just disappointed in his performance and political positions on some things. Joe needs some big wins that resonate with lots of people to turn this thing around and I just don't think he has it in him.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinghellphish on Jan 8, 2024 21:08:10 GMT -7
Well they better get him some fuckin addys or something!!
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinghellphish on Jan 8, 2024 21:09:43 GMT -7
Not the Meth ones those will make this worse.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 8, 2024 21:11:52 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 8, 2024 21:11:52 GMT -7
Do we believe that Biden is calling the shots in regards to the actions the dnc is taking? I don't believe he is. The dnc seems to believe that Biden is their best shot. Historical precedent does not bode well for either party when an incumbent president faces a substantial challenger in the primary. They lose. The whole game of politics is exhausting and it's turning many voters away. I'm not sure there's a conspiracy. It's just a big game and we've always been the pawns. I assume the white house has made the plan clear to the dnc but don't have direct evidence of that, it just follows and seems obvious. If Biden has a problem with the current shenanigans, he could speak up about it. If he likes it, he'll say nothing. Let's see how it plays out |
|
|
|
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 8, 2024 21:26:16 GMT -7
Do we believe that Biden is calling the shots in regards to the actions the dnc is taking? I don't believe he is. The dnc seems to believe that Biden is their best shot. Historical precedent does not bode well for either party when an incumbent president faces a substantial challenger in the primary. They lose. The whole game of politics is exhausting and it's turning many voters away. I'm not sure there's a conspiracy. It's just a big game and we've always been the pawns. I don't think Biden is calling those shots. He doesn't need to. The DNC, like the RNC, has to foot the bill for the costs to run state party primaries/caucuses. One thing Trump said about the '20 election cycle that made sense was that if he was gonna be the inevitable winner than it made more sense to allocate that money toward campaigning against the Dems than it did holding primaries so candidates like Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, Mark Sanford, and Rocky De La Fuente can hold a popularity contest where they're in part going to try to knock down the inevitable nominee. In the '20 election cycle it wouldn't have made any sense for the GOP to replace incumbent Trump with any of those four simply because polls at a certain point in time showed Trump losing to Biden, and it made more strategic sense to spend that money on Trump than it would have spending on those four candidates. Same logic holds true for Biden this year since nobody else was close to having Bernie numbers which would've warranted holding primaries in every state until someone racked up enough delegates. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 8, 2024 22:15:49 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 8, 2024 22:15:49 GMT -7
I just don't have the energy to look up an assortment of political projection polls from the past year. I want to have an informed conversation but not have a part time job I would like nothing more than for Joe Biden to impress me. I have nothing against him personally, just disappointed in his performance and political positions on some things. Joe needs some big wins that resonate with lots of people to turn this thing around and I just don't think he has it in him. In politics, past year polls are as good as past year's milk. Where DeSantis polled a year ago against Trump is not relevant today. Where Williamson polled a year ago is equally irrelevant today. Are you saying at one time, sometime last year, Williamson WAS polling double digits all over the place? (I can't speak to that because I won't spend part-time job hours looking up no longer relevant polling info to confirm whether something no longer relevant was once true). Or are you saying that right now and polls that go back no more than a few weeks or a month that Williamson IS polling double digits all over the place? If it's the latter you do realize that her popularity is decreasing compared to when she was in double digits. If it's the former it shouldn't be hard or time consuming at all to show polls that reflect her double digit standing. How hard is it to post links to a polling aggregate website that would validate your claims when you say you're following it fairly closely? Following closely apparently isn't a part-time job and yet you were able to find these polls so it sounds like it didn't take you long to find them and it would probably take even less time for you to find them again. Pages you've been to show up with a different color on a Google search. Type Williamson in your history search and it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to find the info that will convince me and anyone else skeptical. The links I posted took me however many seconds to find as a typical Google search needs - first page and within the first five results. I spent a minute or two skimming the information. I'm not even asking you to go through and post a summary like I did which took 5-10 minutes. Just post links to these polls you claim show Williamson polling double digits all over the place. If you came across them recently then they'll be at the top of a search. If they're old you're trying to sell old polling data as being currently relevant when it's now worthless as a contemporary indicator of her support. I've already checked the reliable polling aggregators, posted their links, and summarized their results showing that Williamson is not even close to polling double digits all over the place. I gave it an honest search because I'd be happy to see someone other than Biden as the candidate (esp. if they're progressive) if I thought they had sufficient support that could carry over and beat Trump as well. Did you take however many seconds it would to click on the links to polling aggregate webpages I listed that go right to the most recent polls and show the numbers I summarized in my post that show Williamson is not polling double digits all over the place and is instead currently averaging around 5 or 6%? The info is all there. Few seconds to connect, a minute to skim the page and see the numbers you're suggesting just aren't there. How hard and time consuming is that if you're interested in her candidacy and level of support, concerned, "following closely," and trying to sell people that Williamson has double digit support and has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden? You sound genuinely concerned about Trump beating Biden and that Williamson would be the stronger candidate, so wouldn't you want to make sure that your statements are accurate before blindly doubling down on them using old and currently irrelevant info instead of just putting out mis/dis/wrong information? Are you more interesting in knowing her true level of support or would you rather believe something the numbers don't back up because Biden's candidacy makes you feel uneasy? I don't want to be all confrontational, rude, or cause offense because we're all jamfam and we're both progressives who'd like to see progressive candidates in office, but to be consistent and not hypocritical or use a double standard, if it were a MAGA person making claims where my quick research using reliable sources shows the claim to be untrue I'd ask them to put up the links that prove their claims instead of telling me to do my own research or just trust them because they "follow this closely." If they couldn't put up by posting links I'd suggest they shut up re: their claims not based on facts. |
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jan 8, 2024 23:25:21 GMT -7
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." - Noam Chomsky
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 9, 2024 5:56:16 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 9, 2024 5:56:16 GMT -7
I just don't have the energy to look up an assortment of political projection polls from the past year. I want to have an informed conversation but not have a part time job I would like nothing more than for Joe Biden to impress me. I have nothing against him personally, just disappointed in his performance and political positions on some things. Joe needs some big wins that resonate with lots of people to turn this thing around and I just don't think he has it in him. In politics, past year polls are as good as past year's milk. Where DeSantis polled a year ago against Trump is not relevant today. Where Williamson polled a year ago is equally irrelevant today. Are you saying at one time, sometime last year, Williamson WAS polling double digits all over the place? (I can't speak to that because I won't spend part-time job hours looking up no longer relevant polling info to confirm whether something no longer relevant was once true). Or are you saying that right now and polls that go back no more than a few weeks or a month that Williamson IS polling double digits all over the place? If it's the latter you do realize that her popularity is decreasing compared to when she was in double digits. If it's the former it shouldn't be hard or time consuming at all to show polls that reflect her double digit standing. How hard is it to post links to a polling aggregate website that would validate your claims when you say you're following it fairly closely? Following closely apparently isn't a part-time job and yet you were able to find these polls so it sounds like it didn't take you long to find them and it would probably take even less time for you to find them again. Pages you've been to show up with a different color on a Google search. Type Williamson in your history search and it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to find the info that will convince me and anyone else skeptical. The links I posted took me however many seconds to find as a typical Google search needs - first page and within the first five results. I spent a minute or two skimming the information. I'm not even asking you to go through and post a summary like I did which took 5-10 minutes. Just post links to these polls you claim show Williamson polling double digits all over the place. If you came across them recently then they'll be at the top of a search. If they're old you're trying to sell old polling data as being currently relevant when it's now worthless as a contemporary indicator of her support. I've already checked the reliable polling aggregators, posted their links, and summarized their results showing that Williamson is not even close to polling double digits all over the place. I gave it an honest search because I'd be happy to see someone other than Biden as the candidate (esp. if they're progressive) if I thought they had sufficient support that could carry over and beat Trump as well. Did you take however many seconds it would to click on the links to polling aggregate webpages I listed that go right to the most recent polls and show the numbers I summarized in my post that show Williamson is not polling double digits all over the place and is instead currently averaging around 5 or 6%? The info is all there. Few seconds to connect, a minute to skim the page and see the numbers you're suggesting just aren't there. How hard and time consuming is that if you're interested in her candidacy and level of support, concerned, "following closely," and trying to sell people that Williamson has double digit support and has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden? You sound genuinely concerned about Trump beating Biden and that Williamson would be the stronger candidate, so wouldn't you want to make sure that your statements are accurate before blindly doubling down on them using old and currently irrelevant info instead of just putting out mis/dis/wrong information? Are you more interesting in knowing her true level of support or would you rather believe something the numbers don't back up because Biden's candidacy makes you feel uneasy? I don't want to be all confrontational, rude, or cause offense because we're all jamfam and we're both progressives who'd like to see progressive candidates in office, but to be consistent and not hypocritical or use a double standard, if it were a MAGA person making claims where my quick research using reliable sources shows the claim to be untrue I'd ask them to put up the links that prove their claims instead of telling me to do my own research or just trust them because they "follow this closely." If they couldn't put up by posting links I'd suggest they shut up re: their claims not based on facts. tldr Google it yourself Idk where you get the time to post these novels anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by hokiejoe on Jan 9, 2024 6:17:41 GMT -7
What wins specifically do you need to see from Joe Biden? He is wildly progressive compared to any other President we have ever seen. He's got some pretty big wins under his belt. What do you want? You want him smoking joints in the oval office? I also don't really understand how you're seemingly dismissing that tons of people, like my parents, who happily voted for Joe to avoid Trump, may have to think twice about voting for a super progressive candidate. Yes, the DNC is always going to run to the center to capture as many people as possible. On drug band message boards people like Bernie and Liz, who I voted for in the last primaries, are wildly popular. They aren't so popular out there in the wild.
|
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Jan 9, 2024 6:37:21 GMT -7
I was just reading this morning that historically, when an incumbent president faces a serious challenge in the primary, they lose the general. Like every time. So if you give historical data at least the same predictive value as you do the polls, you're basically asking for another Trump term.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 9, 2024 7:15:42 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 9, 2024 7:15:42 GMT -7
What wins specifically do you need to see from Joe Biden? He is wildly progressive compared to any other President we have ever seen. He's got some pretty big wins under his belt. What do you want? You want him smoking joints in the oval office? I also don't really understand how you're seemingly dismissing that tons of people, like my parents, who happily voted for Joe to avoid Trump, may have to think twice about voting for a super progressive candidate. Yes, the DNC is always going to run to the center to capture as many people as possible. On drug band message boards people like Bernie and Liz, who I voted for in the last primaries, are wildly popular. They aren't so popular out there in the wild. When people are asked issue by issue it turns out that the Americans are extremely progressive. Who and how they vote is a different story. Joe Biden could pick any of many issues to do something about that would move the meter. If you want me to suggest some I'll throw out a few: 1. a public option for healthcare. 2. Raise the minimum wage. 3. Decriminalize weed. 4. Make some serious headway with voting rights That's off the top of my head and any of those would excite people. Now I'm convinced that Biden doesn't want any of those things which is why I expect nothing. He is Joe Manchin with a different last name. |
|
|
|
Post by hokiejoe on Jan 9, 2024 7:24:24 GMT -7
And you believe that Joe Biden has the numbers in Congress to get these initiatives passed into law?
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 9, 2024 7:34:16 GMT -7
via mobile
higs and bear like this
Post by bussit on Jan 9, 2024 7:34:16 GMT -7
I was just reading this morning that historically, when an incumbent president faces a serious challenge in the primary, they lose the general. Like every time. So if you give historical data at least the same predictive value as you do the polls, you're basically asking for another Trump term. Maybe that's so but it's not a good enough reason to subvert democracy for the better good or whatever. This is a democracy and we deserve a battle of ideas. Only one person can run as the dem candidate, why not let the voters decide who runs? America? That's how you find out who has the best chance to win I hate trump's guts, I hope that's clear |
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Jan 9, 2024 7:36:37 GMT -7
And you believe that Joe Biden has the numbers in Congress to get these initiatives passed into law? 1. He could handle some of that through executive order 2. I don't care if things pass or not at this point. Just show me you're willing to fight for something and let's get the conversation going |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 9, 2024 7:38:01 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by higs on Jan 9, 2024 7:38:01 GMT -7
I was just reading this morning that historically, when an incumbent president faces a serious challenge in the primary, they lose the general. Like every time. So if you give historical data at least the same predictive value as you do the polls, you're basically asking for another Trump term. I read an editorial that said the same. April 23 New Republic. That was what I was referring to in my previous post. I don't think I worded it well. |
|
|
|
Post by higs on Jan 9, 2024 7:39:35 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Jan 9, 2024 7:59:50 GMT -7
The dnc is trying to make sure the democrats win the election. It's not a conspiracy to subvert democracy. The current primary system has only been around since 1972.
|
|
