2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kentonio said:
He wants Republican voters to listen as well as Democrats. They won’t buy the peace angle but they do care about injured vets getting fecked over.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Furthermore he’s correct.

Republicans with no family members with PTSD or no legs or some shit won’t care or they’ll just convince themselves the empty GOP rhetoric about soldiers is actually meaningful. Those who see the effects first hand might actually be swayed
 
The Firestarter said:
Don't go into these fecking wars in the first place, well cared veterans or not. That's what he should be saying.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't have a choice in war, but his point is correct. Maybe people like @Eboue can make an argument that it could very well mean go to war and take care of the veterans but that' still better than the current calamity IMO
 
Current four people considered to have a realistic chance of winning the next election are a 73 year old man, a 76 year old man, a 70 year old woman and a 78 year old man.

The most powerful country in the world picks its leader on which of their grandparents they miss the most.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Current four people considered to have a realistic chance of winning the next election are a 73 year old man, a 76 year old man, a 70 year old woman and a 78 year old man.

The most powerful country in the world bases its leader on which of their grandparents they miss the most.
Click to expand...
In my case, the next president would be a corpse.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'd forgotten about Coybyn's weird manhole cover thing.
Click to expand...
EEcqL7sXoAA6wvM.jpg:large
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


Great summary of why Biden is unelectable - guy is really just as scum as Trump. Two sides of the same shite coin.

"Biden is correct that the surge began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s, but a closer look at his role reveals that is was Biden who was among the principal and earliest movers of the policy agenda that would become the war on drugs and mass incarceration"

"Biden, meanwhile, was criticizing Carter for not fighting the war on drugs forcefully enough. “I’m trying to alarm the policymakers,” he told the Washington Post months before the 1980 election. "

"Although mass imprisonment is and was primarily driven by states, at the federal level Biden shaped the punitive political culture of the 1980s and 1990s by re-enlivening a policy agenda that was briefly in decline at the end of the 1970s."

"Biden disapproved of Reagan’s plan to scale back funding for crime fighting, complaining in October 1981 about inadequate money to combat drug trafficking. The Coast Guard “just doesn’t have as many boats as the bad guys,” he said. “The boats just aren’t as good."

"In 1989, Biden criticized President George Bush’s anti-drug efforts as “not tough enough, bold enough or imaginative enough. The president says he wants to wage a war on drugs, but if that’s true, what we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not a limited war, fought on the cheap.”
 
Last edited:
His is carrying 42% support among black Dems. I am scratching my head.
 
Once again, after NH - total junk, worthless data from statewise polling. Seriously wtf is going on.
Both from California:



u6woxfjig6n31.jpg
 
berbatrick said:
Once again, after NH - total junk, worthless data from statewise polling. Seriously wtf is going on.
Both from California:
Click to expand...

Contemporary early polling is simply incapable of providing a meaningful and accurate "snapshot" because there is no actual moment to take a snapshot of. By nature this type of thing is too diachronic. Like in quantum physics, the act of measuring itself irrevocably changes the result of the measurement.

It's simply not feasible to try to compensate for both single digit response rates and this "likely voter" premise with no way to verify or falsify the reliability of the proprietary formula.

The only logical thing to do is take the most broad general conclusions and thats it: Warren, Biden and Sanders are the Top Three by a significant margin. That's really the only conclusion any rational person can draw.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Contemporary early polling is simply incapable of providing a meaningful and accurate "snapshot" because there is no actual moment to take a snapshot of. By nature this type of thing is too diachronic. Like in quantum physics, the act of measuring itself irrevocably changes the result of the measurement.

It's simply not feasible to try to compensate for both single digit response rates and this "likely voter" premise with no way to verify or falsify the reliability of the proprietary formula.

The only logical thing to do is take the most broad general conclusions and thats it: Warren, Biden and Sanders are the Top Three by a significant margin. That's really the only conclusion any rational person can draw.
Click to expand...

We need to uncuck the polls.
 
Drifter said:
Bernie Sanders just lost an important progressive endorsement to Elizabeth Warren
Click to expand...

It's amazing that a party with almost zero power still has a superdelegate system to keep Bernie out.
https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/the-math-of-the-working-families-party-endorsement-7768729b7da6

The WFP endorsement process works by tallying up party member votes and party leader votes. The member votes are given 50 percent of the vote weight while the leader votes are given the other 50 percent of the vote weight. To win the endorsement, you have to get the majority of the weighted vote.

The WFP revealed that Warren received 60.9 percent of the weighted vote on the first ballot. Naturally one might wonder: how much of this vote came from the members and how much of it came from leaders?

But when Dave Weigel asked them about this, National Director Maurice Mitchell told him that the WFP will not be releasing separate vote totals, explaining that “for there to be one true vote, and to maintain the nature of secret ballot, all of that went into the back end.” This of course is an obvious lie. They released the membership vote in 2015 when Sanders won 87 percent of it. They also put out a press release this time that said 80 percent of their members listed Warren and Sanders as their top choices for president. So they clearly have separate access to the member tally.

[...]

If you believe, as is obvious, that the reason WFP won’t release a membership vote total this time is because Warren did not win the membership vote, then this means Warren got anywhere from 22 to 40 percent of the member vote. This further means that 82 to 100 percent of the WFP leadership voted for Warren. This is the stark split they don’t want to reveal but are nevertheless very incompetent at hiding.
Click to expand...
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Contemporary early polling is simply incapable of providing a meaningful and accurate "snapshot" because there is no actual moment to take a snapshot of. By nature this type of thing is too diachronic. Like in quantum physics, the act of measuring itself irrevocably changes the result of the measurement.

It's simply not feasible to try to compensate for both single digit response rates and this "likely voter" premise with no way to verify or falsify the reliability of the proprietary formula.

The only logical thing to do is take the most broad general conclusions and thats it: Warren, Biden and Sanders are the Top Three by a significant margin. That's really the only conclusion any rational person can draw.
Click to expand...

Schrodinger's poll?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.