Election 2016
Re: Election 2016
Thats kinda not true, you would need both chambers of the state governments and while they have a close number in one chamber, they dont in both, also they would need a super majority in the national congress.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
Pretty good series of tweets here (20 long).
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
Daily Beast: Most of you are somewhat familiar with Steve Bannon at this point, that he's racist as fuck, etc. but you may not be aware that he's a self-described Leninist Accelerationist
Re: Election 2016
But remember, kids: It's Obama who's the scary gay communist who wants to destroy America, because he hates having a stable and developed nation to live in. What the fuck?
And call me crazy, but I'm somehow reminded of how a lot of people in the Birther camp were also calling to Amend for Arnold when California elected Schwarzenegger.
And call me crazy, but I'm somehow reminded of how a lot of people in the Birther camp were also calling to Amend for Arnold when California elected Schwarzenegger.
: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
I, uh, er, um.... uh... hoo boy
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
"Shoulda run Bernie" will be a story which will ring for a long time one I'm not sure is correct at all - it might've been possible, or it might've been much much worse and we could be talking about "Should run Hillary."
In any case, Newsweek is attempting to put that story to bed.
Now, I'm not actually certain that any of that is insurmountable - because Trump actually weathered far worse criticism by virtue of pretending it just didn't matter. Brassing it out is a thing and was a thing long before Trump ever showed up.
Whether Bernie could have brassed it out, staying on message and turning the table back on Trump is a good question to ask though. Bernie was pretty good about his message, but in the one big example we did see, he had some trouble responding to BLM and his record there (I don't think his response was all bad or a failure, but it wasn't a ringing success either).
As far as the individual criticisms go, the rape thing is questionable, but the Sandinista thing and unemployed-until-30 are far more fatal (assuming the latter wasn't just because "I was in school"). I figure it doesn't really matter though, because the Republicans would have just started throwing everything and ran with whatever was sticking best, so all they needed was one of the four or five to carp on the way they did EMAILS EMAILS.
In any case, Newsweek is attempting to put that story to bed.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Now, I'm not actually certain that any of that is insurmountable - because Trump actually weathered far worse criticism by virtue of pretending it just didn't matter. Brassing it out is a thing and was a thing long before Trump ever showed up.
Whether Bernie could have brassed it out, staying on message and turning the table back on Trump is a good question to ask though. Bernie was pretty good about his message, but in the one big example we did see, he had some trouble responding to BLM and his record there (I don't think his response was all bad or a failure, but it wasn't a ringing success either).
As far as the individual criticisms go, the rape thing is questionable, but the Sandinista thing and unemployed-until-30 are far more fatal (assuming the latter wasn't just because "I was in school"). I figure it doesn't really matter though, because the Republicans would have just started throwing everything and ran with whatever was sticking best, so all they needed was one of the four or five to carp on the way they did EMAILS EMAILS.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
More Bannon.
Hoo boy.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
QZ: New Balance, long opposed to the TPP, has been embraced by white supremacists as "the official shoes of white people"
Interesting to see how they dance. So far they've celebrated Trump, but fairly unambiguously rejected racism.
Lord, this is only going to get more ridiculous.
Interesting to see how they dance. So far they've celebrated Trump, but fairly unambiguously rejected racism.
Lord, this is only going to get more ridiculous.
Re: Election 2016
Mongrel wrote:So far they've celebrated Trump, but fairly unambiguously rejected racism.
That sounds like fairly unambiguously embracing racism to me.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
Well, it was specifically as a reference to the TPP.
Which, don't get me wrong, was still incredibly stupid.
Which, don't get me wrong, was still incredibly stupid.
Re: Election 2016
"So the four riders are Death, Famine, War, and Pestilence?"
"No, no, I said Trump, Pence, Bannon, and Gingri --"
"Oh, right, Conquest, not Pestilence. My bad." *scribbles*
"Are you even fucking liste -- Uh yeah could you put in there that I didn't actually turn that woman to salt, in retrospect that was kind of a dick move"
"No, no, I said Trump, Pence, Bannon, and Gingri --"
"Oh, right, Conquest, not Pestilence. My bad." *scribbles*
"Are you even fucking liste -- Uh yeah could you put in there that I didn't actually turn that woman to salt, in retrospect that was kind of a dick move"
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
Er, yikes.
This is one of those cases where you really hope it's bad scientists massaging data to make a political statement.
But uh, infant mortality stats are somewhat unambiguous and well-documented, IIRC?
Re: Election 2016
Obama isn't killing anyone's kids, mongrel.
Re: Election 2016
Could you remind me again that great saying about correlation and causation?
- Brantly B.
- Woah Dangsaurus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm
Re: Election 2016
You're reading it upside down, although I agree that this is probably a spurious correlation, even if you can rationalize it.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Election 2016
Yeah the democrats have lower mortality on this chart, not higher.
I think people will make hay over this, so I am pretty interested in seeing what stats nerd do in terms of tearing apart the numbers, looking at other causes.
But this isn't just one data point being correlated, it's clearly multiple over a sustained period, and also you see that the lag in rate changes dating from administration changes means this isn't like a light switch being flipped on an off. It's right to consider what other factors might change in lockstep with presidential administrations that could serve as an alternate cause, but uh, I'm not really sure what those might be.
I think people will make hay over this, so I am pretty interested in seeing what stats nerd do in terms of tearing apart the numbers, looking at other causes.
But this isn't just one data point being correlated, it's clearly multiple over a sustained period, and also you see that the lag in rate changes dating from administration changes means this isn't like a light switch being flipped on an off. It's right to consider what other factors might change in lockstep with presidential administrations that could serve as an alternate cause, but uh, I'm not really sure what those might be.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests