RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:00 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7883
Location: miles from nowhere

from that article:

The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after President Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%. (**)

"Still, almost three-quarters of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the threat of terrorism in the country, and nearly three out of five also approve of his handling of the country's affairs," said Susan Pinkus, who directed The Times poll.

Traditionally, support is low before a president declares war, but increases after troops are in the field.

"If he actually does go to war, I suspect people will swing behind him as they did in the Gulf War," said John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University(*). "But right now, there isn't all that much enthusiasm for the war."

[snip][end]

(**) Huh. 70%, in Jan 2002. Before "weakening" to 58% in Dec. But we both have noticed the shift in March of 2003.
(*) Oddly enough, back in 2002, another person named Mueller seems to have been quite right about what would happen in 2003.

Final point: we agree that Americans are not hawkish or militaristic by nature and that the Bush admin lied. I wasn't indicating those things are in dispute.

Actually, I think that they are militaristic by nature or maybe they are willing to be militaristic. Bacevich's works have me pretty well convinced that grabbing for guns goes over pretty well. Of course since the history health of the state is not war but rather coercion maybe the American people are more easily pushed in the direction of war. Could it have to do with exceptionalism? I think it definitely does.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Last edited by bird on Thu May 17, 2018 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 9:52 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807

from that article:

The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after President Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%. (**)

"Still, almost three-quarters of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the threat of terrorism in the country, and nearly three out of five also approve of his handling of the country's affairs," said Susan Pinkus, who directed The Times poll.

Traditionally, support is low before a president declares war, but increases after troops are in the field.

"If he actually does go to war, I suspect people will swing behind him as they did in the Gulf War," said John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University(*). "But right now, there isn't all that much enthusiasm for the war."

[snip][end]

(**) Huh. 70%, in Jan 2002. Before "weakening" to 58% in Dec. But we both have noticed the shift in March of 2003.
(*) Oddly enough, back in 2002, another person named Mueller seems to have been quite right about what would happen in 2003.

Final point: we agree that Americans are not hawkish or militaristic by nature and that the Bush admin lied. I wasn't indicating those things are in dispute.

This is the crux of the argument. Americans according to the polls you provide showed that Americans' support was at the beginning high, then fell after a few years. Therefore you must think the war was popular. (This has nothing to do with some crazy notion that I thought you supported the war.) The point, I think you understand, is that Americans were hard to convince and wasn't gung-ho. Months before the war, they thought there was insufficient evidence and depending upon conditions, such as UN approval, would support the war.

True after the die was cast, they stood as told as loyal patriots.

If you read the time line on Mother Jones, you will be amazed.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 9:59 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807
Actually, I think that they are militaristic by nature or maybe they are willing to be militaristic. Bacevich's works have me pretty well convinced that grabbing for guns goes over pretty well. Of course since the history of the state is not war but rather coercion maybe the American people are more easily pushed in the direction of war. Could it have to do with exceptionalism? I think it definitely does.

Exceptionalism is a tactic that is used. Everybody likes to be called special.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:16 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11174
Location: Sunny South Florida
This is the crux of the argument. Americans according to the polls you provide showed that Americans' support was at the beginning high, then fell after a few years. Therefore you must think the war was popular.


Gotta define our terms, as I keep saying, but my main point is its popularity fell over time, and as I said, the main reason I keep bringing it up is our current POTUS seems to, as always, lie, about being "ahead of the curve" in opposition to the Iraq War, when he wasn't. Whatever you want to call it, 73% in March of 2003 said Bush made the right decision. I'm not disputing many of them were deceived.

I think the March 2003 numbers reflect a tendency to rally behind our leaders in wartime, right or wrong (I'm not saying I support that tendency, it just is what it is), and that yes, the Bush admin used lies about Iraq and WMDs/connections to bin Ladin to sell their bogus war for Iraq's oil. All I will say, for the critics of people like Clinton or Kerry who supported the IWR, is the resolution said that Bush would allow the inspectors to complete their inspections before ordering in troops. He lied about that, as well. He ordered them out in March, and began the invasion.

You have no dispute from me over the Bush admin's deceptions. The poll numbers are what they are. The facts and claims that Bush lied about are what they are, as well.

I'm not saying those poll numbers weren't influenced by propaganda and deception.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:03 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7883
Location: miles from nowhere
Exceptionalism is a tactic that is used. Everybody likes to be called special.

Agreed. However it is American mythology that this country is exceptional.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:12 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7883
Location: miles from nowhere

Gotta define our terms, as I keep saying, but my main point is its popularity fell over time, and as I said, the main reason I keep bringing it up is our current POTUS seems to, as always, lie, about being "ahead of the curve" in opposition to the Iraq War, when he wasn't. Whatever you want to call it, 73% in March of 2003 said Bush made the right decision. I'm not disputing many of them were deceived.

I think the March 2003 numbers reflect a tendency to rally behind our leaders in wartime, right or wrong (I'm not saying I support that tendency, it just is what it is), and that yes, the Bush admin used lies about Iraq and WMDs/connections to bin Ladin to sell their bogus war for Iraq's oil. All I will say, for the critics of people like Clinton or Kerry who supported the IWR, is the resolution said that Bush would allow the inspectors to complete their inspections before ordering in troops. He lied about that, as well. He ordered them out in March, and began the invasion.

You have no dispute from me over the Bush admin's deceptions. The poll numbers are what they are. The facts and claims that Bush lied about are what they are, as well.

I'm not saying those poll numbers weren't influenced by propaganda and deception.

Support for ground wars are fickle things ever since Korea and then Vietnam. Even Roosevelt knew that a long ground war in Europe was not going to be easily sold. So he didn't. He let the Soviets bleed. From which we end up with the exceptionalism myth that "we defeated the Nazis".

We, as a people, are all too ready to be willingly coerced into somebody somewhere presenting an existential threat when far too often it is untrue.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807
Shifting polls are shifty. -- What are people to think given information they are handed by their own government? Given we shouldn't believe our own government, we then rely on the free press. Oh dear. Like the NYT selling the Iraq war, should we believe them. Ok, some prefer FOX News. Ok, so we say we shouldn't trust nuthin, then what are we to believe, Whatever we want? It has been found that in gray areas, people are pressured by party lines. Ok. Again, if you don't want to do that you are really in left field.

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 3e2168ebba


Torture and Public Opinion: The Partisan Dimension

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 37439161_2

Quote:
Using a new survey dataset on torture collected during the 2008 and 2010 elections, combined with a comprehensive archive of public opinion on torture that we have assembled, we show, first, that a majority of Americans were opposed to government use of torture, even when asked about an imminent terrorist attack, until just before the 2008 election. Since then, the public has shown a slim majority in favor of torture. Second, we show that Americans’ approval of torture is a socially mediated response. That is, respondents, when evaluating whether or not the use of torture is justified, look to what they perceive others to believe, in helping them determine their response. This is true across all ideological groups. Third, we argue that increasing support for torture in the United States is almost entirely among Republican survey respondents. Independents also shifted from anti-torture to pro-torture sentiments though they show a much smaller increase in support for torture over the 2000s. The sentiments of Democratic respondents did not change; the majority of Democrats then and now remain opposed to torture.


No, Americans aren't 'fine with torture.' They strongly reject it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... edirect=on


Letter to President Obama re: CIA torture

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/16/let ... ia-torture

Quote:
On June 16th, 2016, Human Rights Watch sent this letter to President Barack Obama urging him to take action before the end of the presidential term to account for the grave abuses committed as part of the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation program.

Related Content

Download letter
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

I write on behalf of Human Rights Watch to urge you to take action before the end of your term in office to further accountability for the grave abuses committed as part of the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program. Documents that the CIA recently released about the program in response to Freedom of Information Act requests[1] disclose new information that underscores the brutality and illegality of the program. Failure to take concrete action to address these crimes will leave a stain on your legacy, undermine respect for the rule of law, encourage a future president to use abusive interrogation techniques again, and weaken the effectiveness of the United States in advocating against torture globally.



You say, that it will come out alright, with a little critical thinking. I hope you understand. If you have a mind of your own, you also have to be self-critical and not trust yourself.

Polls and statistics are manipulated, and also people are told by experts what to think. Will people ever get it right? Eventually.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16630
Shifting polls are shifty.

...

You say, that it will come out alright, with a little critical thinking. I hope you understand. If you have a mind of your own, you also have to be self-critical and not trust yourself.

Polls and statistics are manipulated, and also people are told by experts what to think. Will people ever get it right? Eventually.


^this is coming from the same guy who not even a month ago was *insistent* that "polls" said Bernie would have beaten Trump.

:problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:47 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12033

^this is coming from the same guy who not even a month ago was *insistent* that "polls" said Bernie would have beaten Trump.

:problem:

:rw) :rw)

Yikes. What to do. I wonder, do you think our votes will be counted? Will the bros show up and do the right thing or will they purposely sabotage the D party to make a point and be the whiny assholes they are?

_________________
Nothing I say to you cons will matter. You could see tape of Rump shooting 5 yr old children at some fantasy ranch in the Bahamas, and you would not drop your support for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16630
:rw) :rw)

Yikes. What to do. I wonder, do you think our votes will be counted? Will the bros show up and do the right thing or will they purposely sabotage the D party to make a point and be the whiny assholes they are?


Lol when it comes to Bernieville and conservatives of any stripe, my theme song these days is from Future and Nicki. Just three words does it.

"F' them hoes..."

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


:lol:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:51 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807

^this is coming from the same guy who not even a month ago was *insistent* that "polls" said Bernie would have beaten Trump.

:problem:

First thing you have said on this thread that makes any sense. The polls did say Bernie could have beaten Trump more easily than Hillary. It's a fact. Of course, I also said (which you conveniently forgot to mention) that we will never know if Bernie would have actually won.

Another fact: The polls also said the public opinion during most of the Iraq war was favorable.

And another poll which shows torture is acceptable, but, there is evidence, which I have sighted, that show the polls shouldn't be weighed too heavily.

If people want to look at polls, they can. Maybe they will learn something, maybe they won't. They don't automatically prove something. For instance, Hillary was suppose to have won according to the polls.

I think you like music. Listen to Playing In The Band, by The Grateful Dead, a lesson on thinking for yourself. It is one of my favorites.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 11:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16630
First thing you have said on this thread that makes any sense. The polls did say Bernie could have beaten Trump more easily than Hillary. It's a fact.


Because you say so?

Quote:
Of course, I also said (which you conveniently forgot to mention) that we will never know if Bernie would have actually won.


Sure, after being challenged to produce all these supposed polls.

You could not produce. So you backtracked.

Quote:
Another fact: The polls also said the public opinion during most of the Iraq war was favorable.

And another poll which shows torture is acceptable, but, there is evidence, which I have sighted, that show the polls shouldn't be weighed too heavily.

If people want to look at polls, they can. Maybe they will learn something, maybe they won't. They don't automatically prove something. For instance, Hillary was suppose to have won according to the polls.

I think you like music. Listen to Playing In The Band, by The Grateful Dead, a lesson on thinking for yourself. It is one of my favorites.


You could use some lessons in thinking for yourself outside of music from 1969-1971. But we know you're purposefully not capable.

You're not a good person to talk about regarding polls. Your ideas about polls are all over the map, and it shows.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807

Because you say so?



Sure, after being challenged to produce all these supposed polls.

You could not produce. So you backtracked.



You could use some lessons in thinking for yourself outside of music from 1969-1971. But we know you're purposefully not capable.

You're not a good person to talk about regarding polls. Your ideas about polls are all over the map, and it shows.

You are not a good person to talk to regarding facts. I produce them and you still deny them.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16630
You are not a good person to talk to regarding facts. I produce them and you still deny them.


Don't confuse your personal, deluded assertions with facts, man.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:38 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12033

Don't confuse your personal, deluded assertions with facts, man.

No poll anywhere ever said anything remotely close to what that person asserts.

This conversation is funny. :rw)

And yet YOU are the one called on about facts?

I will say one thing about that, though. Many said the GOP and Russia would have attacked Bernie over his socialism, but Bernie works for Putin so no they wouldnt have.

_________________
Nothing I say to you cons will matter. You could see tape of Rump shooting 5 yr old children at some fantasy ranch in the Bahamas, and you would not drop your support for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 2:42 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11174
Location: Sunny South Florida
For instance, Hillary was suppose to have won according to the polls.


She did, by 3 million popular votes, and in fact, as 538 noted, won the national popular vote by just about what margin national polls one or two days before the election were showing.

(A lot of people stopped looking at polls after about 7-10 days before the election and thus didn't see 'tightening' trends.)

Unfortunately, no one polls the electoral college, and there often weren't state polls in those key Rust Belt states, right before the election.

P.S. I trust experts, like the experts who say climate change is real, that supply side economics are bogus, and that torture is ineffective (aside from being unethical). Also that Iraq did not have WMD prior to the Iraq War and that Hussein and bin Ladin were enemies. Distrusting expertise, without discrimination, is a silly stance to hold.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 3:08 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7883
Location: miles from nowhere
I am still astounded and disgusted that 60+ million voters voted for Mr. Tangerine Man.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 15463
Agreed. However it is American mythology that this country is exceptional.


We are most certainly exceptional. We have exceptionally fucked ourselves.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 5:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 15463
I am still astounded and disgusted that 60+ million voters voted for Mr. Tangerine Man.


Yep. And also that 60% of white Americans who voted...voted for Trump. I officially have no use for the majority of my race.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807

She did, by 3 million popular votes, and in fact, as 538 noted, won the national popular vote by just about what margin national polls one or two days before the election were showing.

(A lot of people stopped looking at polls after about 7-10 days before the election and thus didn't see 'tightening' trends.)

Unfortunately, no one polls the electoral college, and there often weren't state polls in those key Rust Belt states, right before the election.

P.S. I trust experts, like the experts who say climate change is real, that supply side economics are bogus, and that torture is ineffective (aside from being unethical). Also that Iraq did not have WMD prior to the Iraq War and that Hussein and bin Ladin were enemies. Distrusting expertise, without discrimination, is a silly stance to hold.

Well, let's get back to what I am saying. I was asked to show a poll just one poll, just one poll, that said Bernie was better to beat Clinton. I guess Real Clear Politics is not real clear for a lot of people. Here it is again.

http://www.thestate.com/news/databases/ ... 96342.html

No poll said Bernie was better? The above is a fact, there is a poll, so there.

I don't say I trust polls, but if polling is the method to choose a nominee, then Bernie should have been the choice.

Getting back to what you are saying about there isn't polling of the electoral college, I think that is astounding.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:19 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11174
Location: Sunny South Florida
http://www.thestate.com/news/databases/ ... 96342.html

No poll said Bernie was better? The above is a fact, there is a poll, so there.


Those polls that showed Bernie beating Trump were done six months before the actual election. Before Trump was the nominee, before Bernie wasn't, before less was known about either candidate. You know what I keep pointing out about hypotheticals ... the problem with hypotheticals is they have to take place in a counter-factual universe. :D People were being asked about a hypothetical matchup. One place where polls CAN be wildly wrong is when people are presented with hypothetical scenarios, like that one.

The further polls are out from the actual election, the less accurate they are. BTW, polls in 1980 in the early summer showed Carter beating Reagan by 20 points. We know what happened in November.

All I will say is we cannot know what kind of negative campaigning the Republican party would have done against Sanders IF he had been the nominee, or what effect it would have had. I suspect there would have been a lot of bullshit used against him, but evidence shows - alas - bullshit works. You'd be reading about Bernie doing spirit cooking in some pizza basement. Untrue, but it would also work.

Bernie has an amazing popularity rating and I'm not saying it's not deserved ... it was probably his best electoral asset, he didn't have Clinton's unpopularity. But they would chip away at it.

Quote:
Getting back to what you are saying about there isn't polling of the electoral college, I think that is astounding.


Again, the weird problem with a national poll, even the one you cited above, is it doesn't always predict how a candidate will do in certain states vs. the national average. And states are the ones that award electoral votes. So also, with the poll you just cited, it doesn't tell us what states Bernie would win, or lose ... just how he would do, on average, nationally.

Unfortunately, national popular preference isn't what awards electoral college votes. State preference does.

Those polls never investigated how Bernie would do in the electoral college as a whole. It is entirely possible, BTW, even if you were right, he could have won the national popular vote as well, and lost the electoral college. By losing critical states - maybe not even the same as Clinton, but other ones.

This is a good analysis in the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:28 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807
I am still astounded and disgusted that 60+ million voters voted for Mr. Tangerine Man.

Stinking politics. It is filthy and corrupt. People are disgusted about the whole process. The question is: Which evil will you serve, pick from two.

What people are missing is the fact voters rarely vote across party line. IOW, Republicans are going to vote for Republicans because they are not Democrats. I heard more than one people say they were voting for Trump, reason one, "Hillary is the crookedest politician in the world", reason two, that they hate politicians and Trump was a businessman.

People hate politicians, for some good reasons, and don't trust any of them.

What we need, of course, is a more democratic electoral process, which means on electoral college, no gerrymandering, and end voter intimidation and discrimination.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 9:48 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 3807

Those polls that showed Bernie beating Trump were done six months before the actual election. Before Trump was the nominee, before Bernie wasn't, before less was known about either candidate. You know what I keep pointing out about hypotheticals ... the problem with hypotheticals is they have to take place in a counter-factual universe. :D People were being asked about a hypothetical matchup. One place where polls CAN be wildly wrong is when people are presented with hypothetical scenarios, like that one.

The further polls are out from the actual election, the less accurate they are. BTW, polls in 1980 in the early summer showed Carter beating Reagan by 20 points. We know what happened in November.

All I will say is we cannot know what kind of negative campaigning the Republican party would have done against Sanders IF he had been the nominee, or what effect it would have had. I suspect there would have been a lot of bullshit used against him, but evidence shows - alas - bullshit works. You'd be reading about Bernie doing spirit cooking in some pizza basement. Untrue, but it would also work.

Bernie has an amazing popularity rating and I'm not saying it's not deserved ... it was probably his best electoral asset, he didn't have Clinton's unpopularity. But they would chip away at it.



Again, the weird problem with a national poll, even the one you cited above, is it doesn't always predict how a candidate will do in certain states vs. the national average. And states are the ones that award electoral votes. So also, with the poll you just cited, it doesn't tell us what states Bernie would win, or lose ... just how he would do, on average, nationally.

Unfortunately, national popular preference isn't what awards electoral college votes. State preference does.

Those polls never investigated how Bernie would do in the electoral college as a whole. It is entirely possible, BTW, even if you were right, he could have won the national popular vote as well, and lost the electoral college. By losing critical states - maybe not even the same as Clinton, but other ones.

This is a good analysis in the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

I will read that analysis later.

Your first point has been alluded to before, but we are talking about near the end of the national primaries. This poll was when voters were looking at the nominees to decide. I don't think they are irrelevant, Even though they are not definitive, these indications are solid evidence to consider for the Democratic party leaders.

I never said this was proof, but it was eye opening evidence for sure.

Some of the previous analyses that I have read concluded, Bernie would have done better than Clinton in some vital states. And as I said, we will never know.

_________________
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_8wdvTjq8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:05 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11174
Location: Sunny South Florida
The problem with hypotheticals, as I keep saying.

For example, Michael Bloomberg said he would enter the race as third party if it was Sanders vs. Trump. Now I am not a Bloomberg fan by any means, didn't even really like that crazy soda ban he tried in NYC, despite my favoring its intent.

If that had happened - well, this much we can predict, Bloomberg almost certainly would have lost (third parties ALWAYS fail in plurality voting), but he also might have siphoned off enough votes from Sanders for Trump to win even if Sanders had a slight lead.

Yeah. You're right, we'll never know, because we also can't know what else might have shifted and changed if the general election matchup ended up being that.

Hypotheticals suck.

BTW, I like all your ideas for a more democratic electoral process, but #1, eliminating the electoral college ... like I keep saying, two possible roads.

1) Constitutional amendment. That will be tough.
2) National Popular Vote Compact: get states to join. (It means they agree to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.)

It's gotta be one or the other, and both won't be easy.

Gerrymandering ... unless SCOTUS does something, this will also be a state by state battle, where we have to hope, like Ohio, they start doing away with it in their states.

I agree with fighting voter caging and suppression ... like I pointed out to Motor, it's in the Democratic platform. (But not in the Republicans'.) Restoring Section 5 of VRA ... well, that's SCOTUS, again.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16630

We are most certainly exceptional. We have exceptionally fucked ourselves.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

When you think of "American Exceptionalism" in the critical sense, there's a lot about us that is "exceptional". I do think there is something "exceptional" about the US when it comes to religion but that's only because we've got so many of the world's religions under one roof that have to at least play at getting along. And it ends up being the conservative Protestant Christians, the ones who claim to have founded this joint, who don't play so well with others. :problem:

I don't think we have an exceptional proportion of whackodoodles or bigots or haters. But some days, I really wonder. And now since the 1960s they have all congealed together in the Republican Party. :evil:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bird, Libertas, lucytalk, ProfessorX, rainwater and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group