Democrat 2020

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Looks like Biden might be flagging, as I anticipated Warren is dropping back but it looks like she and Sanders are still cannibalising each others' votes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looks like Biden might be flagging, as I anticipated Warren is dropping back but it looks like she and Sanders are still cannibalising each others' votes.

Scan back over several weeks and it is pretty much flat among the four leaders. Only one to pick up is late-entrant Bloomberg and 5.6% will clearly make this a vanity campaign if he cannot tart building stronger support soon. At this point, the Dems need IA and NH just to get some real votes from real democrats and not a festival of endless polling.

[Montmorency]

Looks like Biden might be flagging, as I anticipated Warren is dropping back but it looks like she and Sanders are still cannibalising each others' votes.

Where do you get that? Warren's fall in the polling averages is a single number that can be tracked over months - that's correct - but Biden is doing as well as he's ever been in the same averages and despite common presumption Warren and Sanders have never really overlapped in their bases.

Warren built her rise off (assuming a schema of very liberal, liberal, and conservative Democrats) liberal and conservative Democrats, in the first place the mass of undecideds but then cannibalizing Harris, O'Rourke, and to a limited extent Biden, Buttigieg, and others. Her fall has been due to the flight of these less-liberal backers to Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Biden.

Sure, Sanders has arguably risen to 20 points from his floor of 15 by grabbing a couple's worth of Warren backers, but Warren's rise only limited his ceiling rather than actively draining his base (and Warren certainly didn't lose the near-12 points off her peak to Sanders). Meanwhile, the mix of second-choice polling is fluid but does not suggest a clear majority of either Sanders or Warren backers would flow to the other if one dropped out. Sure, Sanders could increase his ceiling of Warren dropped, but so would Biden. It's unclear how much that would help (or harm) on net. Which is in fact related to the reason why it would be preferable for most candidates, ones like Klobuchar and maybe Bloomberg, not to drop out before the early primaries; it's hard to predict yet but doing so may well turn out detrimental to both Sanders and Warren on net.

Here's a useful analysis.

For reference, in the Quinnipiac polls at her height (late September-late October), where she was pulling up to ~29% on four Quinn polls, she had the support of ~46% of all "very liberals", ~34% of "somewhat liberals", and 20% of "moderates/conservatives." Sanders: 14% overall, 22-16-10
Biden: 24% overall, 10-15.5-32

contrast to the two December Quinn polls.

Warren: 16% overall, 34-17-9
Sanders: 16.5% overall, 27-14.5-16
Biden: 29.5% overall, 14.5-27.5-36


So at least a quarter of her very liberal supporters departed, on net largely not even to Sanders, but fully half of the rest as well.

[Kurando]

To me it makes more sense to follow the vegas odds than the political polls. Politics is muddled, but money is just money. The people making the betting odds know exactly what they are doing, and they have no agenda other than to be as accurate as possible.

Odds after debate have not been posted yet. Recent odds have Saunders and Biden neck & neck for the nomination with everyone else a distant second.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To me it makes more sense to follow the vegas odds than the political polls. Politics is muddled, but money is just money. The people making the betting odds know exactly what they are doing, and they have no agenda other than to be as accurate as possible.

Odds after debate have not been posted yet. Recent odds have Saunders and Biden neck & neck for the nomination with everyone else a distant second.

Maybe...but Vegas had it wrong last time. Trump did not become the odds favorite until the wee hours of 9 November during the counting -- he was on the longer side prior to then.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe...but Vegas had it wrong last time. Trump did not become the odds favorite until the wee hours of 9 November during the counting -- he was on the longer side prior to then.

To be fair Trump both won and lost, something of a peculiar result to predict.

[Kurando]

Maybe...but Vegas had it wrong last time. Trump did not become the until the wee hours of 9 November during the counting -- he was on the longer side prior to then.

For better or worse 2020 won't be nearly as hard to predict. Curious to see who gets the democratic nomination though; as irrelevant as it seems to be.

[Greyblades]

I kept getting told by democrats on discord: the polls werent that innacurate as a whole, the public perception of them was majorly skewed due to the ones favourable to hillary being pushed nigh exclusively by most of the major media companies.

Cant imagine gamblers are completely immune to being swayed by warped optics.

[Montmorency]

Like PVC said, Clinton won by three million votes - something polling tracked well - but lost in the Electoral College, something national polling generally doesn't take into account.

Only way a layman can fill this lacuna is to identify the same ~6 swing states across elections and watch those state-level polls on account of the other states 'not mattering.' Then subtract the Democratic penalty for electoral suppression. There's Florida, North Carolina, and maybe one of the southwestern states, but usually people like to focus on the Midwestern states as a block because of their salience in popular consciousness. Here are examples of positive and negative stories of electoral conditions there for Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/u...ege-edge-.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...wing-jobs.html

[Montmorency]

I kept getting told by democrats on discord: the polls werent that innacurate as a whole, the public perception of them was majorly skewed due to the ones favourable to hillary being pushed nigh exclusively by most of the major media companies.

Cant imagine gamblers are completely immune to being swayed by warped optics.

So, Discord is for politics now? Basically a return to the instant-messaging chatrooms of yore?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I kept getting told by democrats on discord: the polls werent that innacurate as a whole, the public perception of them was majorly skewed due to the ones favourable to hillary being pushed nigh exclusively by most of the major media companies.

Cant imagine gamblers are completely immune to being swayed by warped optics.

I was pretty much certain Trump would win and Hilary would lose.

It's a bit odd, but the last decade or so the Left on both sides of the Atlantic has had an over-inflated expectation of it's electoral chances. Ironically, those on the Right have been telling the Left to pick better candidates for a while, only to be told we've got it wrong.

"Don't pick Hilary, don't pick Corbyn"

So - don't pick Warren, trust me.

[Montmorency]

I was pretty much certain Trump would win and Hilary would lose.

It's a bit odd, but the last decade or so the Left on both sides of the Atlantic has had an over-inflated expectation of it's electoral chances. Ironically, those on the Right have been telling the Left to pick better candidates for a while, only to be told we've got it wrong.

"Don't pick Hilary, don't pick Corbyn"

So - don't pick Warren, trust me.

There's no reason to expect the Right has an idea of what good Left candidates look like, let alone an interest in their success. So no thanks, I don't trust you. Especially when you're putting Corbyn and Clinton in the same electoral category.

[Greyblades]

So, Discord is for politics now? Basically a return to the instant-messaging chatrooms of yore?

Dunno, all I know is between 2015 and 2017 the paradox discord caught lightning in a bottle with a decent politics channel, a real good spread of political opinions all kept civil even in the trump election by good moderation and common interest in the games.

Then the good mods retired or stopped caring and the leftovers started making rule changes and started looking for excuses to ban people with views they didnt like.

So yeah, typical life cycle of internet community from cool to echo chamber.

[Montmorency]

Just an off-hand comment on the aggregators that so far Bloomberg's presence seems to be disrupting Buttigieg and maybe even Biden, but not Sanders and Warren. Excellent.

Soon enough we'll need to have the delegate math conversation in order to make the coming months legible to everyone.

[edyzmedieval]

Bloomberg just pledged his support to whoever wins the Democratic primary - this means tens of millions of free political advertising, which could come seriously in handy for the Dem nominee once the November date gets closer.

[Greyblades]

Well damn, now I want to see bernie win the primaries only to see bloomberg's face when the party comes calling for him to fulfill that promise. Considering the fortune he's allready spent on his own vanity run; its going to be a thing of beauty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Warren and Sanders have started tearing into each other, apparently Sanders told Warren he didn't believe a woman could beat Trump (possibly true given American demographics and voting blocs) and Warren's campaign leaked this, Sanders calls this "lies" it, Warren doubles down and it culminates with a hot mic moment where Warren confronts Sanders for calling her a liar on national TV.

Separately - Sanders was looking at whether Warren could be VP and Treasury Secretary:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/...ury-secretary/

[Montmorency]

For the record, I first raised the Bloomberg news a week ago.

Warren and Sanders have started tearing into each other, apparently Sanders told Warren he didn't believe a woman could beat Trump (possibly true given American demographics and voting blocs) and Warren's campaign leaked this, Sanders calls this "lies" it, Warren doubles down and it culminates with a hot mic moment where Warren confronts Sanders for calling her a liar on national TV.

Separately - Sanders was looking at whether Warren could be VP and Treasury Secretary:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/...ury-secretary/

I would recommend supporters not get suckered by hostile media narratives. I appreciate the Intercept article's evenhanded economy though.

As for vice presidents, internal party/regional politics and simple biology make it impossible for two New England leftist geriatrics to form a presidential ticket, regardless of who (if either) of the two comes out on top. It's a nice fantasy but always a naive one. Can you imagine testing, for the first time, the House Speaker's constitutional succession for POTUS?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's a wonderful piece of equivocation on the topic which tries to absolve both, but tries to absolve Warren more, essentially because she's a woman.

https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-truth/

It also posits a relationship between the "majority" and the "other" where the majority is the only one who suffers from faulty memory - which creates an environment where said majority essentially has no defence against slander.

Pretty much sums up the hell that is modern Leftist morality.

[Montmorency]

Here's a wonderful piece of equivocation on the topic which tries to absolve both, but tries to absolve Warren more, essentially because she's a woman.

https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-truth/

It also posits a relationship between the "majority" and the "other" where the majority is the only one who suffers from faulty memory - which creates an environment where said majority essentially has no defence against slander.

Pretty much sums up the hell that is modern Leftist morality.

I read the link. It makes the very basic and familiar case that people can be hurt by things other people say without much deliberation. Your reaction to marginalized groups noticing microaggressions: 'This is hell.'

You don't see the problem here?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's a wonderful piece of equivocation on the topic which tries to absolve both, but tries to absolve Warren more, essentially because she's a woman.

https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-truth/

I had thought Sanders made that comment not to dismiss Warren, but as a rather negative assessment of the voters in those areas considered crucial to a Trump repeat.

It also posits a relationship between the "majority" and the "other" where the majority is the only one who suffers from faulty memory - which creates an environment where said majority essentially has no defence against slander.

Pretty much sums up the hell that is modern Leftist morality.

It is basic critical theory regarding power elites. Power elites are presumed to actively or more commonly through unspoken/unacknowledged assumption speak and assert value stances that serve to maintain their elite status. In its ideal form, the elite enacts buy-in to these assumed values on the part of the disadvantaged who then 'police themselves' through concertive control and perpetuate the extent power structure for the elites.

It has been asserted by critical scholars, for example, that inculcating American culture with beliefs in the idea that wealth is possible for anyone with hard work (the Horatio Alger concept) is a primary tool in convincing the mass of voters who do not have, and almost certainly never will have, any real wealth that they should oppose efforts to take wealth away from those who have it lest they themselves lose out should they ever acquire it.

[Montmorency]

I had thought Sanders made that comment not to dismiss Warren, but as a rather negative assessment of the voters in those areas considered crucial to a Trump repeat.

It is basic critical theory regarding power elites. Power elites are presumed to actively or more commonly through unspoken/unacknowledged assumption speak and assert value stances that serve to maintain their elite status. In its ideal form, the elite enacts buy-in to these assumed values on the part of the disadvantaged who then 'police themselves' through concertive control and perpetuate the extent power structure for the elites.

It has been asserted by critical scholars, for example, that inculcating American culture with beliefs in the idea that wealth is possible for anyone with hard work (the Horatio Alger concept) is a primary tool in convincing the mass of voters who do not have, and almost certainly never will have, any real wealth that they should oppose efforts to take wealth away from those who have it lest they themselves lose out should they ever acquire it.

The piece was more about unintended impacts of endemic attitudes in communication, not elite relationships or semiotics. For example, telling a black person at a brand-name outlet that they might be more comfortable shopping at a thrift store - and the way the meaning of that may differ between speaker and listener.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I had thought Sanders made that comment not to dismiss Warren, but as a rather negative assessment of the voters in those areas considered crucial to a Trump repeat.

It is basic critical theory regarding power elites. Power elites are presumed to actively or more commonly through unspoken/unacknowledged assumption speak and assert value stances that serve to maintain their elite status. In its ideal form, the elite enacts buy-in to these assumed values on the part of the disadvantaged who then 'police themselves' through concertive control and perpetuate the extent power structure for the elites.

It has been asserted by critical scholars, for example, that inculcating American culture with beliefs in the idea that wealth is possible for anyone with hard work (the Horatio Alger concept) is a primary tool in convincing the mass of voters who do not have, and almost certainly never will have, any real wealth that they should oppose efforts to take wealth away from those who have it lest they themselves lose out should they ever acquire it.

The problem here is the issue of memory and culpability. Warren is to be believed because her affective performance - the way she expresses her feelings - appears authentic. Sanders is not to be held responsible because - as a member of the elite - he is unaware of the harm he causes. Warren's memory is deemed reliable because of her non-elite status in this context (despite her elite status in almost every other) whereas Sanders' memory must be faulty because he is a member of the elite. There is a fundamental problem here - which is that a social advantage is inextricably linked with a moral fault, which is lack of empathy. According to this paradigm the perceived minority victim is always justified in their sense of victim-hood whilst the perceived perpetrator is always guilty of speaking out of turn. Even worse, the perpetrator is deemed to be inherently defective, incapable of meaningful self-awareness of growth.

This view of human relations is morally and socially corrosive, and it is damaging Western society. In point of fact there are a number of explanations of this scuffle. I strongly suspect that Bernie recalls saying something like what Warren has accused him of but is unwilling to admit it out of a combination of embarrassment and a realisation he wouldn't be offered the opportunity to explain himself - especially on the Left. So he lies. Meanwhile, Warren has probably inflated what Bernie said to rather larger proportions than he originally intended, possibly even expanded beyond what he actually said, her outrage buttressed by encouragement from those she shared the story with. It's even possible that Bernie's recent rise in the polls fed Warren's feeling of being slighted, which is why this came out now.

They're not both innocent, they're both guilty because they're both intelligent adults with the capacity for self-reflection.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem here is the issue of memory and culpability. Warren is to be believed because her affective performance - the way she expresses her feelings - appears authentic. Sanders is not to be held responsible because - as a member of the elite - he is unaware of the harm he causes. Warren's memory is deemed reliable because of her non-elite status in this context (despite her elite status in almost every other) whereas Sanders' memory must be faulty because he is a member of the elite. There is a fundamental problem here - which is that a social advantage is inextricably linked with a moral fault, which is lack of empathy. According to this paradigm the perceived minority victim is always justified in their sense of victim-hood whilst the perceived perpetrator is always guilty of speaking out of turn. Even worse, the perpetrator is deemed to be inherently defective, incapable of meaningful self-awareness of growth.

Modern media with its emphasis on video and the sense of "closeness"established by a physical viewing distance that mimics interpersonal or intimate distance in proxemics terms, has long been known to favor the effective use of affective appeal over logical appeal. Pathos trumps logos on TV.

I'd extend on your point by noting that the disadvantaged minority is not simply justified in claiming victim-hood, but it is presumed that they alone can determine the validity of that status. The power elite in the socially dominant position is, indeed, presumed to be out of touch at best, though some assert choice on the part of the elite to assert/reinforce their dominant status.

I would disagree, in part with your implication that the "majority" representative (I am labeling that power elite) is irredeemable. Redemption is possible by rejecting one's own success/privilege/accomplishment as undeserved and granting same to the victimized while supporting efforts to force other "majority" members to do likewise.

For example: I should support reparations to US persons of African descent whose ancestors had been held in suffrage against their will. I should do so because slaves generated roughly a third of all economic growth and development between 1775 and 1865 but did not, themselves, get to keep the wealth etc. that had been generated by their labor. This is presumed to be the morally correct response irregardless of the fact that none of my ancestors in this country personally owned slaves, that none of my ancestors were in this country during the first few decades of this period of time, or that my ancestors faced discrimination etc. as immigrants. I am white, I have benefited from being a part of the majority with its privilege and opportunity, and so I am indebted and to not accede to paying off that debt would be immoral.

This view of human relations is morally and socially corrosive...

Actually, those who are proponents of the "minority victims" as you label them would likely assert that theirs is the more moral stance as a means to redress past wrongs, eliminate favorable treatment based on elite/majority status, and to treat all equally. "Social corrosion" is actively being sought as those advancing the cause of the "victims" here view the current socio-economic structuration of things to be patently unfair and inherently unequal and immoral. They want the whole thing altered, and altered substantially.

[Montmorency]

The problem here is the issue of memory and culpability. Warren is to be believed because her affective performance - the way she expresses her feelings - appears authentic. Sanders is not to be held responsible because - as a member of the elite - he is unaware of the harm he causes. Warren's memory is deemed reliable because of her non-elite status in this context (despite her elite status in almost every other) whereas Sanders' memory must be faulty because he is a member of the elite. There is a fundamental problem here - which is that a social advantage is inextricably linked with a moral fault, which is lack of empathy. According to this paradigm the perceived minority victim is always justified in their sense of victim-hood whilst the perceived perpetrator is always guilty of speaking out of turn. Even worse, the perpetrator is deemed to be inherently defective, incapable of meaningful self-awareness of growth.

This view of human relations is morally and socially corrosive, and it is damaging Western society. In point of fact there are a number of explanations of this scuffle. I strongly suspect that Bernie recalls saying something like what Warren has accused him of but is unwilling to admit it out of a combination of embarrassment and a realisation he wouldn't be offered the opportunity to explain himself - especially on the Left. So he lies. Meanwhile, Warren has probably inflated what Bernie said to rather larger proportions than he originally intended, possibly even expanded beyond what he actually said, her outrage buttressed by encouragement from those she shared the story with. It's even possible that Bernie's recent rise in the polls fed Warren's feeling of being slighted, which is why this came out now.

They're not both innocent, they're both guilty because they're both intelligent adults with the capacity for self-reflection.

The second paragraph is a reasonable assessment, but the first has almost everything plain wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Modern media with its emphasis on video and the sense of "closeness"established by a physical viewing distance that mimics interpersonal or intimate distance in proxemics terms, has long been known to favor the effective use of affective appeal over logical appeal. Pathos trumps logos on TV.

I'd extend on your point by noting that the disadvantaged minority is not simply justified in claiming victim-hood, but it is presumed that they alone can determine the validity of that status. The power elite in the socially dominant position is, indeed, presumed to be out of touch at best, though some assert choice on the part of the elite to assert/reinforce their dominant status.

I would disagree, in part with your implication that the "majority" representative (I am labeling that power elite) is irredeemable. Redemption is possible by rejecting one's own success/privilege/accomplishment as undeserved and granting same to the victimized while supporting efforts to force other "majority" members to do likewise.

For example: I should support reparations to US persons of African descent whose ancestors had been held in suffrage against their will. I should do so because slaves generated roughly a third of all economic growth and development between 1775 and 1865 but did not, themselves, get to keep the wealth etc. that had been generated by their labor. This is presumed to be the morally correct response irregardless of the fact that none of my ancestors in this country personally owned slaves, that none of my ancestors were in this country during the first few decades of this period of time, or that my ancestors faced discrimination etc. as immigrants. I am white, I have benefited from being a part of the majority with its privilege and opportunity, and so I am indebted and to not accede to paying off that debt would be immoral.

Have you considered how very much like Catholic Guilt White Guilt has become? The reality is you can't really escape, you can apolagise and try to mitigate your "sin" but you'll never actually be "clean" of it, will you? No matter what you do you'll still die a white male, with all that entails.

Over Christmas a Filipino fiend asked me if I had White Guilt - I said no.

As an aside, it's also worth pointing out that White Guilt is very middle class, it's almost like Middle Class Guilt, except you get to beat the white working class with it.

Actually, those who are proponents of the "minority victims" as you label them would likely assert that theirs is the more moral stance as a means to redress past wrongs, eliminate favorable treatment based on elite/majority status, and to treat all equally. "Social corrosion" is actively being sought as those advancing the cause of the "victims" here view the current socio-economic structuration of things to be patently unfair and inherently unequal and immoral. They want the whole thing altered, and altered substantially.

Social upheaval is not to be desired, this is "by any means" morality which isn't at all moral.

[Montmorency]

Have you considered how very much like Catholic Guilt White Guilt has become? The reality is you can't really escape, you can apolagise and try to mitigate your "sin" but you'll never actually be "clean" of it, will you? No matter what you do you'll still die a white male, with all that entails.

That's really just nonsense. Empathetic behavior - which includes the possibility of making and owning to missteps - has nothing to do with guilt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's really just nonsense. Empathetic behavior - which includes the possibility of making and owning to missteps - has nothing to do with guilt.

I don't believe that was his point. I suspect he would agree with you (as do I) that personal behavior which attempts to empathize with an 'other' and which personally acknowledges the possibility of missteps and owning up to same and seeking means of redress would be and is a good thing.

I believe his point was to express frustration on the "trap" of guilt that was counted against you despite having no active choice or behavior that generated that guilt. He and I are "white." So, in the eyes of quite a few folks, he and I are inherently guilty of the "sins" of privilege and advantage that the concatenations of history begat. I further believe that he, as I, believe that we should be judged on our behavior and utterances and that it is as patently silly to guilt-trip me (us) for being "white" as it would be to presume inferiority for someone who is "black" or "brown" or "yellow."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't believe that was his point. I suspect he would agree with you (as do I) that personal behavior which attempts to empathize with an 'other' and which personally acknowledges the possibility of missteps and owning up to same and seeking means of redress would be and is a good thing.

I believe his point was to express frustration on the "trap" of guilt that was counted against you despite having no active choice or behavior that generated that guilt. He and I are "white." So, in the eyes of quite a few folks, he and I are inherently guilty of the "sins" of privilege and advantage that the concatenations of history begat. I further believe that he, as I, believe that we should be judged on our behavior and utterances and that it is as patently silly to guilt-trip me (us) for being "white" as it would be to presume inferiority for someone who is "black" or "brown" or "yellow."

I would take the point further - I was born white because my parents are white - in and of itself my "whiteness" is inconsequential to my character, as is my maleness. It is an inescapable fact that in a majority-white country I benefit from being part of the majority, but I reject any suggestion this is a "privilege" because that suggests I was given something I don't deserve. To extend this and suggest my whiteness" makes me inherently less empathetic, less able to understand prejudice and suffering isn't really any different from suggesting, for example, that "Negros" are physiologically incapable of being fighter pilots.

What makes this doubly disturbing is that if you look carefully you can see it's the white elite really pressing this agenda - which is my point about it being a stick to beat the white working class with.

[Crandar]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/21/p...ary/index.html

People have been telling how Hillary's campaign supported Donald in the primaries as a weaker alternative than Ted and his Crusaders, but I am starting to wonder if the opposite is also true. Every time she opens her mouth, one, mainstream democratic flower gets withered.