Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #176  
Old 05-12-2019, 10:20 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Just wanted to note something about Biden's strong position in the polls...

Anyone who, in 2016, told us that Trump winning would "bring the revolution" and energize the left and result in a left-wing victory needs to explain how Biden's commanding polling lead fits into this theory. They thought that it was going to be Bernie's turn and everyone would view the lesson as "Bernie woulda won."

Of course, they've also had several months to explain why it is that DSA/Our Revolution/Justice Democrats endorsees didn't flip a single Congressional district and the argument there seems to be basically "Sure, we didn't flip any seats but look how much media attention AOC is getting!" Which is good, but it isn't what was advertised by the heighten-the-contradictions crew.

Which isn't me arguing that those type of candidates are bad. Some of them got quite close, like JD Scholten coming closer to unseating Steve King than any previous Democrat*, but the notion that other Democrats have a losing strategy and you have a much more winning one isn't really supported by them doing about the same or only slightly better.

My view is that wins for the leftmost viable candidate are more likely to shift politics in the country to the left, rather than wins for the more right-wing candidates. Too clever by half, I know.

And now we see Republicans looking to rig the census to push reapportionment towards red states and enabling more voter suppression and the GOP-dominated Supreme Court is unlikely to do anything about gerrymandering, or explicitly rule in its favor. All of which makes the "revolution" less likely.

So instead of bringing the revolution, we're quite likely to get Biden, who has a more centrist record as a politician than the hated Hillary Clinton. Good job *roll Curb Your Enthusiasm music*

(And just to be clear: I'm only talking about people who thought that Trump winning would move the country more to the left than a Clinton win and that it would result in a clear mandate for the left-wing to control the Democratic Party, etc. People who argue that Bernie would've been a better candidate or president but still viewed a Clinton victory over Trump as better for the left are not who I'm talking about.)

*when you adjust for the national environment, King winning by 3 while Democrats won nationally by almost 9 pts means the district result was 12 pts more GOP. But in 2012, Christie Vilsack lost by 6 pts in a national environment that was Democrats winning by 1 pt, which is arguably a stronger performance. But the shift towards the GOP in Iowa makes it hard to say who was really the stronger candidate. Or perhaps the conclusion is that Steve King is a weak candidate?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-13-2019), The Man (05-13-2019)
  #177  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:36 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

For a Union Man, Joe Biden Sure Has a Lot of Big Donors Who Aren’t Fond of Labor
Quote:
Joe Biden would like to project that he is a friend of the working man. Look at the picture above, from his very first campaign event: Rolling up his sleeves and gripping the lectern to talk tough at a union hall in steel country. He’s also recently spoken at a rally in support of the Stop and Shop workers’ strike in Boston and been endorsed by the International Association of Fire Fighters.

When he’s not doing campaign rallies, though, Biden has been doing some other stuff, like holding his first fundraiser at a mansion owned by the Comcast executive who supervises lobbying operations for the giant telecom company. Comcast’s lobbying division, in turn, works with the hugely influential American Legislative Exchange Council, which writes right-wing legislation—including “right to work,” “stand your ground” and voter-ID laws—on behalf of Republican state legislators. A canned quote from the Comcast exec who hosted Biden’s fundraiser actually shows up in a press release on ALEC’s website, while the New York Times recently wrote that Comcast’s relationship with organized labor “is often strained” and said it has “largely managed to fend off efforts by groups like the Communications Workers of America to organize its employees.”
Say it ain't so, Joe.

Biden Predicts Republicans Will Start Working With Democrats After the Election, Which Is Also What He Predicted in 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Biden in 2012
“There are still some solid Republican conservatives who understand what principled compromise means and are not wrapped up in ideological purity,” said Biden, insisting he knew a dozen Republican senators and up to three dozen House members that want to work with the Democrats.

After the election is over, Biden said members will say “’Hey man I no longer have an obligation to stick with the right of the party’… I really believe you’ll see movement. Real movement.”
That was a thing.
Quote:
Said Biden on Tuesday: “I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. … You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends.” As the 2012 quote indicates, Biden has been dealing with Republican intransigence and derangement since before Trump was a major figure in the party, which one would think would indicate to him that the current president is not the sole cause of its extremism. But when bringing everyone in the country together through the sheer force of your personality is the singular theme of your campaign, I suppose you can’t let a decade or so of history get in the way.
I can't tell if this is signalling, cover, centrism, recruiting, or how he actually thinks
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-15-2019), Crumb (05-15-2019), slimshady2357 (05-15-2019), SR71 (05-15-2019), The Man (05-15-2019)
  #178  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:48 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMCM
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition


Merrick Garland.
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-15-2019), SR71 (05-15-2019), The Man (05-15-2019)
  #179  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:09 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I would push the button, but not with any enthusiasm. It would be more like starting the washing machine, just another task that can't be avoided.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:47 AM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MVCMXCIX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Joe Biden is awful. He may be the worst of all the candidates.

But if he wins (please, no :beg:) I hope everyone else pulls behind him 100% against Trump.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-15-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (05-15-2019), SR71 (05-15-2019), The Man (05-15-2019)
  #181  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:53 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMCM
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Corporate Grandpa with the nuke button sounds much nicer than Batshit Grandpa with the nuke button.
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-15-2019), SR71 (05-15-2019), The Man (05-15-2019)
  #182  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:29 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

The idea that an epiphany will cause the "fever to break" is dumb, but not so much more dumb than the idea that there will be a "political revolution" and protesters at McConnell's office or whatever will force the GOP to cooperate.

In Biden's case, I think appeals to bipartisanship could just be cynical pandering. Fact is that there are still plenty of voters who believe/want to believe that the GOP isn't what it is. Obama claimed there is no red America or blue America, and he could bring the country together in 2008, and that was wrong, but he did, after all, win that election. Obama and Biden may have predicted that the "fever [would] break" in 2012, and that prediction was obviously completely wrong, but they did, after all, win that election, too. So it's not obvious that it's a losing message. It could well be a winning message again.

He could campaign on that message and then after a month or two of making a show of trying, claim that it's obvious he was wrong and he's going to go forward without their cooperation. FDR campaigned on a balanced budget in 1932 then turned around and gave us the New Deal with deficit spending. Likewise, I don't expect Bernie Sanders to necessarily really believe his own bullshit about a "political revolution" forcing the GOP to do anything. The structural factors that make them able to behave the way they do won't go away even if Sanders wins a decisive victory (7-8 pt popular vote margin, say). They will know that their gerrymandering, voter suppression and Senate advantages will reassert themselves in the 2022 midterms, as they did in 2010. Sanders could also adopt a different approach early on, of making structural reforms, even feeding some bullshit about this being "the political revolution" or that the revolution needs these changes.

The only thing that will break the GOP's fever is changes that reduce their structural advantage, which leads to repeated losses until they change their strategy. That means eliminating the filibuster, adding new states to reduce their Senate advantage, and passing a new and expansive voting rights bill to put an end to gerrymandering and voter suppression, etc. After we've expanded our Senate majority and put a stop to GOP gerrymandering in the House, we'll have a more even playing field, and can then pursue other changes that help.

Supporting unionization rights would be good, for example, in both providing material benefits to workers AND in building Democratic power. Also important would be doing what you can (while respecting free speech) to break the power of right-wing and corporate media.

Neither political revolutions nor epiphanies will deliver a sane and responsible Republican Party, only breaking their sources of minoritarian power will. Now, I happen to prefer candidates like Elizabeth Warren that I am quite sure understand what needs to be done, but I don't assume that Biden or Sanders definitely don't.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-15-2019), slimshady2357 (05-15-2019), Sock Puppet (05-15-2019), SR71 (05-16-2019), The Man (05-16-2019)
  #183  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:21 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by slimshady2357 View Post
Joe Biden is awful. He may be the worst of all the candidates.

But if he wins (please, no :beg:) I hope everyone else pulls behind him 100% against Trump.

The guy is so full of shit it's incredible. Let's see how long he can keep feeding off the Obama nostalgia and his huge fake ass smile when the debates start.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:30 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

DeBlasio now. All this just to circle back round and heave unca joe back up on the pick me! pick me! wagon? Weird.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (05-23-2019)
  #185  
Old 05-23-2019, 02:52 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Pretty much the only message Uncle Grope and No Change seems to have is that he's not Donald Trump.

Hmm, what's that?

Joe Biden once said a fence was needed to stop 'tons' of drugs from Mexico - CNNPolitics

Quote:
Joe Biden once spoke about jailing employers who hire "illegals," said sanctuary cities shouldn't be allowed to violate federal law, and argued a fence was needed stop "tons" of drugs coming into the country from "corrupt Mexico."
A couple of weeks ago he actually claimed that he had the "most progressive record" of anyone running for President. God that guy is full of shit. Go away.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (05-24-2019), Crumb (05-23-2019), The Man (05-23-2019)
  #186  
Old 05-26-2019, 09:14 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I hate this headline and think elect-ability to be used as if there was an objective measure of such waaaaay too often. That said Ted Rall makes an argument similar to my own: middle of the road candidates poll well but fail to attract voters at the election, and attempting to shame or scare voters to your cause has limited returns; Rall additionally argues running another centrist will come at a very real cost to the Dem party.
Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
Quote:
As one of the few pundits who correctly called the 2016 election for Donald Trump, it would be wise to rest on my laurels rather than risk another prediction, one that might turn out wrong.

But how would that be fun? Let the 2020 political prognostications begin!

The arithmetic of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries is repeating itself on the Democratic side in 2020: a big field of candidates, one of whom commands a plurality by virtue of name recognition—which implies higher “electability”—while his 20-or-so opponents divvy up the rest of the single-digit electoral scraps.

The Trump 2016 dynamic will probably play out the same way when Democratic delegates are counted at the 2020 convention. But the outcome in November 2020 is likely to be the opposite: Trump gets reelected.
Rall's setting is hard cynic; if you ever want to read a very dark autobiographical graphic novel his My War With Brian about going to junior-high school in Ohio is insane.
Quote:
I tend to discount “blue no matter who” and “anyone but Trump” chatter from centrist Democrats who argue that this president is such a threat to everything good and decent about the world that everyone must set their personal preferences aside in order to vote the bastard out. Besides, many of the people who urge unity have no credibility. They voted for Hillary but if Bernie had been the nominee they would not have turned out for him. Progressives weren’t born yesterday. Tired of 40 years of marginalization, they turned a deaf ear to the Clintonites’ self-serving unity pleas, boycotted the general election and denied Hillary her “inevitable” win.

And here’s the thing: they don’t feel bad about it.

If anything the schism in the Democratic Party between the progressive majority (72%) and corporatist centrist voters has widened and hardened over the past three years. Both sides are intransigent: Hillary’s voters accuse Bernie’s boycotters of handing the White House to Trump; Bernie’s supporters point to polls that consistently showed he, not Clinton, could have beat Trump.

Progressives are still angry that the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination last time. News that they’re doing the same thing now has enraged them.

That includes progressives who plan to vote for one of the other progressives or progressives-come-lately. By any measure, Joe Biden is not progressive. He’s number one in the polls but far behind the aggregate total of his progressive opponents. (I omit zero-policy candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg and centrists like Amy Klobuchar from my back-of-the-envelope calculations even though their support includes some progressives.) The party is ramming Biden the corporatist down the throats of Democratic primary voters using classic divide-and-conquer.

It will work. The Democrats will emerge from this nomination fight even more divided than the last cycle. Like the Mad Queen at the conclusion of “Game of Thrones,” Biden will inherit the ruins of a party he destroyed.
It doesn't get sunnier from there; Biden loses against Trump in Rall's estimations.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-26-2019), Crumb (05-27-2019), SR71 (05-27-2019)
  #187  
Old 05-26-2019, 11:36 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

First I'll note that Ted Rall endorsed Jill Stein, so his concern for beating Trump is... well, perhaps not nearly as high as some other people. Saying that there's a risk of alienating progressives while actively working to alienate progressives from the Democratic Party is an odd way of talking. Just come out with it and say that you think Clinton would be worse than Trump or likewise with Biden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Rall
As one of the few pundits who correctly called the 2016 election for Donald Trump, it would be wise to rest on my laurels rather than risk another prediction, one that might turn out wrong.
Yeah, but keep in mind he also thought the Democrats wouldn't win the House unless they adopted his policy preferences and strategies, and ran his style of leftist campaign... And then they did win the House, and not one single candidate endorsed by Our Revolution/Justice Democrats/etc. flipped a Republican seat. It would be more interesting when someone who doesn't perennially predict Democratic failure predicted Trump would win. (See also: Michael Moore touting his Trump prediction... after also predicting Romney would win. Wow, 50% accuracy!) Unless he has an extensive record of accurate forecasts... this just isn't worth very much.
Quote:
The arithmetic of the 2016 Republican presidential primaries is repeating itself on the Democratic side in 2020: a big field of candidates, one of whom commands a plurality by virtue of name recognition—which implies higher “electability”—while his 20-or-so opponents divvy up the rest of the single-digit electoral scraps.
I don't see the connection between "name recognition" and "electability" he's proposing here. Bernie Sanders has nearly as high name recognition as Joe Biden but is substantially behind Biden in the primary horse race polls, and Trump's polling was initially abysmal - not in the lead, and with very poor favorability, in contrast to Biden having been in a fairly comfortable lead for months before he announced and having the highest favorability among both Democrats and the general public. Even after Trump took the lead in the polls, his favorability lagged far behind where Biden is. Trump has never achieved positive favorability at any point among the general public, whereas Joe Biden is polling with about +9 favorability - higher than any other Democratic candidate, as I mentioned (Sanders is, by contrast, at about -1 in the RCP average, and Warren is at -4).

I strongly prefer Elizabeth Warren to Joe Biden, but Biden's polling position is not at all like Trump's was in May/June 2015. Trump's favorability average in June 2015 was -39 (he's currently at -12) and he was polling in 8th place for the GOP nomination. The main thing he has in common is... high name recognition. But like I said, so does Bernie Sanders, and you wouldn't say this makes Sanders like Trump. This is a silly thing to use to insist commonality.
Quote:
The Trump 2016 dynamic will probably play out the same way when Democratic delegates are counted at the 2020 convention.
The rules of the Democratic primary and delegate allocation are substantially different from the Republican primary, so the dynamic may also be substantially different.
Quote:
I tend to discount “blue no matter who” and “anyone but Trump” chatter from centrist Democrats who argue that this president is such a threat to everything good and decent about the world that everyone must set their personal preferences aside in order to vote the bastard out. Besides, many of the people who urge unity have no credibility. They voted for Hillary but if Bernie had been the nominee they would not have turned out for him. Progressives weren’t born yesterday.
I certainly don't fall in that camp - I'll even vote for Tulsi fucking Gabbard over Trump. But I usually see the opposite claim, given that it's pretty essential to the claim that it's certain that "BERNIEWOODAWUN". The idea that Hillary voters would've defected from Bernie in perhaps even larger numbers suggests that Bernie would've lost, actually.
Quote:
Tired of 40 years of marginalization, they turned a deaf ear to the Clintonites’ self-serving unity pleas, boycotted the general election and denied Hillary her “inevitable” win.

And here’s the thing: they don’t feel bad about it.
And why the fuck is that? Is it because it's great for the lefty political revolution that Republicans have the SCOTUS putting stays on rulings overturning GOP gerrymandered maps (even if Clinton were unable to fill Scalia's seat, a deadlock would mean those lower court rulings would go into effect in the meantime). Is it great for the lefty political revolution that the SCOTUS is upholding voter suppression and allowing the Trump administration to rig the census so that immigrant-heavy states like California may end up with fewer seats in Congress? Is it great that the GOP SCOTUS is undermining unions? Will it be great for the lefty political revolution if Sanders is nominated when the Trump DOJ, now filled with corrupt Trump loyalists, decides to reopen the investigation into Jane Sanders dealings with Burlington College? (Oh, lol, you assumed only Crooked Hillary could be fucked over by the FBI, didn't you?)

I don't understand what the theory is here of why it's not something to feel bad about that you didn't try harder to stop Trump. Is the idea that this is going to lead to a leftist victory? Given that this entire post is about how Biden is winning and that's bad, that plan doesn't seem to be panning out very fucking well, does it? But even ignoring that, the theory that somehow you shouldn't feel bad about not voting to stop Trump, given that Trump is putting kids in cages or banning Muslims from entering, setting the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade, rolling back LGBT rights, giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations and letting Puerto Rico rot because it will all lead to something greater (too bad for those people who die or are fucked over in the meantime, though)... never seems to grapple with how letting the GOP take control means that the GOP will rig the political process. And that leftist candidates will not be immune to the effects of this just because they're more pure and selfless or something.
Quote:
If anything the schism in the Democratic Party between the progressive majority (72%) and corporatist centrist voters has widened and hardened over the past three years.
The polls do not support Rall's definition of "progressive" being 72% of Democratic voters. Self-described liberals (the polls do not tend to use "progressive" for ideological identity questions) are about half of the party. Problem is that even many of those voters support Biden, which probably means that Rall doesn't consider them to actually be progressive.
Quote:
Both sides are intransigent: Hillary’s voters accuse Bernie’s boycotters of handing the White House to Trump; Bernie’s supporters point to polls that consistently showed he, not Clinton, could have beat Trump.
Problem with the latter argument is that it should now lead you to view Biden as the superior choice given that he consistently polls better than Sanders against Trump.
Quote:
Progressives are still angry that the Democratic establishment cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination last time. News that they’re doing the same thing now has enraged them.
Citation abso-fucking-lutely needed. The cries of unfair and rigging are already starting despite changing the rules with input from Bernie Sanders people, the DNC staff being different, significantly decreasing the role of superdelegates, etc.? On what fucking basis?
Quote:
The party is ramming Biden the corporatist down the throats of Democratic primary voters using classic divide-and-conquer.
What is the basis for the claim that "the party" is doing this?

Given that Trump has had fairly negative favorability and job approval ratings since the first couple weeks of his presidency, isn't the more likely explanation that, you know, he appears to be vulnerable and is attracting a large field as a result? Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are ancient old fogeys and thus are incapable of clearing the field, and the establishment hasn't coalesced around Biden to the extent that they did with Clinton. Schumer reportedly has been attempting to recruit some of these 2020 candidates/potential candidates (like O'Rourke and Abrams) to run for Senate. How exactly are they supposed to force them to do that instead of running for president?

The problem is, of course, that for them to be able to coerce them into running for Senate instead of president... the Democratic Party apparatus would need to be stronger, not weaker, which is precisely the sort of thing people like Ted Rall would oppose!

Also substantially undermining this theory of things are that Biden has a commanding lead even in one-on-one matchups with other Democrats. I think it's far more likely that Bernie Sanders is the one with the low ceiling and who benefits the most from a divided field. Polling suggests that there are more anti-Sanders Democrats compared to other progressive candidates (like Warren). It just doesn't happen that a divided field is enough to get him the win while Biden is in the race, at least not at the moment.

But maybe even that's not right. The other thing is that this conceives of things as having a clear "progressive" lane and "centrist" (or whatever) lane. But the top second choice among Bernie Sanders supporters is... you guessed it! Joe Biden, not Elizabeth Warren as you'd expect if their choices were purely about progressive vs. centrist ideology. But despite assuming that Biden support is all centrists... Biden supporters' top second choice is Bernie Sanders! How Rall would explain these patterns, I don't know, but these things don't suggest he's basing his views on considering empirical evidence rather than just assuming the key to winning is to agree with his policy preferences.

What should be happening is that Rall should be seeing Biden's rosy position in the polls and reconsidering whether voting for Jill Stein was a good idea, whether the notion that Clinton's loss would make a Bernie Sanders nomination in 2020 a cakewalk or whatever supposed good he thought would come of it, was maybe just... wrong? Instead he's doubling down on it. Does he somehow think that the left-wing will end up more powerful after four more years of Trump? And if so... what has he seen that makes him think that? Particularly given how they will be gerrymandering maps and attacking voting rights, unions and the like the whole time.

Last edited by erimir; 05-27-2019 at 02:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-27-2019), mickthinks (05-27-2019), slimshady2357 (05-27-2019), SR71 (05-27-2019), The Lone Ranger (05-27-2019), The Man (05-27-2019)
  #188  
Old 05-27-2019, 10:50 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I'd also say that aside from having a history of accurate election forecasts, I'd be most impressed if some leftist who hates the Democratic Party and especially the Clintons didn't simply predict that Trump would win, but predicted that Trump would win while Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote by millions of votes.

Because one rather gets the impression that most of them thought she would lose the popular vote. They do not tend to argue that Hillary Clinton is actually well-liked enough that the American people would prefer her (but that the Electoral College would not). In any normal and rational election system, she would've won. But I highly doubt most of these folks would've predicted a Clinton victory even if we did use the popular vote.

Relatedly, you would think by the way she is described as the worst candidate EVAR that she lost by a landslide, not that she actually won the popular vote. There doesn't seem to be much way to justify this view. One metric you could use is her margin of loss... in which case she compares quite favorably to Dukakis, Mondale, Carter (1980), McGovern, Humphrey, and with mixed results compared to Kerry and Gore (who had smaller Electoral College losses, but worse popular vote margins) and Carter (1976, similar popular vote margin but obviously he won the election). Of nominees since LBJ, she's only significantly worse compared to Obama and Bill Clinton.

Ah, but you might say, some of those nominees were up against incumbent Republicans, and there were economic conditions, and they were running after two terms of Democrats, yada yada. But if you want to use the fundamentals, Hillary Clinton outperformed most fundamentals models which would've predicted a narrow Republican victory. So using fundamentals doesn't work there so well either.

So beyond that, you'd have to get into personal favorability ratings (yet Trump tended to have worse ones, and it would be odd to argue that Democrats need to have not merely better, but much better favorability than Republicans in order to be good. Also, it needs to deal with the fact that favorability ratings for most politicians have had a downward slope in our polarized political environment. Having negative favorability doesn't make her uniquely terrible... it makes her pretty normal. See the chart of favorability ratings in this 538 post. Clinton's favorability rating in April/May of 2015 ranged between -1 and +1. Which is coincidentally... about where Bernie Sanders is now. Only Joe Biden and maybe Pete Buttigieg have favorability that's significantly positive. Even in late October, just before the Comey letter, Clinton was at -7 (compared to Trump's -27!), which is low compared to most of the Democrats running, but only two to three points worse than most.

It ought to lead to some introspection about your theories if you think Hillary Clinton was uniquely terrible but Bernie Sanders is uniquely appealing to find that the general public doesn't have a significantly more positive view of him at the same point in the election cycle.

But, ok, she's uniquely terrible, but not based on her election margins, not based on blowing a uniquely favorable environment, not based on her personal polling numbers... instead it's based on what? Election strategy? Subjective arguments that she was worse than John Kerry or Dukakis? Arguments that rely on assuming that Trump was so uniquely terrible that beating him should be a cakewalk, because racism and sexism and xenophobia don't actually hold any power in US politics? (But don't get carried away - beating Trump in 2016 should've been a cakewalk, but also he's very likely to win unless you nominate Bernie Sanders and please ignore the polling data that suggests that Joe Biden does better.) Maybe some of those arguments have validity. Clinton ignoring Wisconsin was a mistake, given what they knew at the time. In hindsight, it actually was less relevant, as she also needed to win Pennsylvania, which she campaigned in extensively and still lost. But it's possible had she not ignored Wisconsin and had won it, Feingold could've been elected to the Senate. Or maybe that it would've reduced complacency among Democrats. But at this point you've mostly given up on empirical data and your arguments are a lot less compelling, and it's much harder to make the case that she was uniquely terrible (particularly if you're not making a comprehensive review of past campaigns' strategies so you can argue that her mistakes were egregious!).

But there aren't many of these types out there arguing before the election "Hillary Clinton is just ok, but still vulnerable, probably more popular than Trump, but she's weak in the Electoral College, and an October surprise or the like will put Trump in striking distance!" It's all hyperbolic "She is the WOOOORST! Trump is gonna win!" But the former would be much more impressive as a prediction if you don't have a larger body of accurate forecasts to point to.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (05-28-2019), Kyuss Apollo (05-28-2019), slimshady2357 (05-28-2019), The Man (05-27-2019)
  #189  
Old 05-28-2019, 01:45 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I'd also say <snip>
I only post very occasionally now, so here goes my latest broadside:

In addition to being a serial liar who has repeatedly lied about my posts (saying that I predicted Trump would do this and that, when I predicted no such thing), you are an inveterate blowhard. Above, I have taken the liberty of quoting the truncated version of your most recent palaver. You’re welcome.

The reason Hillary Clinton lost is because she was a shitty candidate. I know it’s impossible even now for you and TheMan to grasp this central point. It’s why you blame James Comey, the New York Times, the media in general (enemies of the people, anyone? Wonder who coined that? Your secret hero, maybe?) and anyone except Hillary.

Comparing Hillary’s performance to that of past Democratic candidates is otiose. They were all shitty candidates — Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, the lot of ‘em. Even Bill Clinton was shitty, but had the good fortune to run against two Republicans who were even shittier than he was.

Why were they shitty? Because at some point, probably in the 1980s but with roots earlier than that, the Democratic Party sold out its New Deal and Fair Deal roots in favor of corporate cash. What were those roots? Here, let’s let the Fair Dealer Harry Truman explain:

Quote:
“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”
He said that in October 1948, one month before he lost the presidential election to Republican Thomas E. Dewey. … Oh, wait!

What does the above from Truman sound like? Why, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

It sure doesn’t sound like Bill or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden!

I’d say the Democratic Party decline actually began under sainted JFK, painted by naifs as a liberal martyr. In fact Kennedy’s New Frontier prefigured the New Democrats of Bill Clinton. Kennedy and his corrupt old dad were foes of FDR; Jack and Bobby were pals with Joe McCarthy, and JFK — really! — was an admirer of Nixon, whom he told intimates in 1960 he’d vote for if he himself did not get the Democratic nomination.

When history intervened and Kennedy got shot we got the third installment of the New Deal and the Fair Deal with LBJ’s Great Society. That was great — except there were two problems. One was civil rights legislation, which drove all the racists who had always voted for Democrats into the Republican Party after Nixon dreamed up his southern strategy. Admittedly there was not much liberals could do about that, except to try to fashion a revised progressive coalition. The second, even bigger, problem was that LBJ was a corrupt liar, and he gave us the Vietnam War — though in fact, he was deeply ambivalent about getting involved in Vietnam. Why’d he do it? Well, JFK holdovers Rusk and McNamara persuaded him to do it!

After Nixon and later Reagan the Democrats decided they needed to become Republican Lite in order to win elections, and they remain so to this day. Biden is just more Obama more both Clintons more Kerry more Gore more Dukakis more Mondale more Carter blecch!

If Bernie gets nominated, will he win? Maybe not! Who knows? The American public has been so brainwashed for some five decades by Fox News and other right-wing propagandists that it’s impossible to say how they will vote. I will say, however, that it is almost impossible for me to imagine Bernie losing any state Hillary won, and easily possible to imagine him reclaiming the Rust Belt. Biden might do the same thing if nominated, true enough.

But reclaim it to what end? Another corporatist Republican Lite presidency that ends in the usual victory of Republicans afterward? Thanks, I’ll take my chances on Bernie. My own personal preference, as I have stated, is for the blue states and the red states to divorce and make at least two separate countries, but regrettably that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. I wouldn’t bet on it never happening, though.

OK, make your nasty and dishonest response but I won’t read it. I check in only about once a month or so to see if this place has recovered from its horrid decline. Alas, it has not. I’ll check in again in another month or two! :wave:

PS: I talked about Trump adhering to the old doctrine of not going abroad in search of dragons to slay, but did not predict he would avoid foreign wars. Funnily, however, so far he has avoided foreign wars, and the latest news today is that he wants no war with Iran, contra Bolton and the other war-mongering idiots in both parties.

I’d also point out that his trade war with China is not that different from what Sanders was advocating, and that China is a notorious trade cheat. And despite his initial bellicose rhetoric toward North Korea, it’s obvious he wants no war with that country and he doesn’t care if they get nuclear-tipped missiles. I don’t care, either! It’s insane to imagine that North Korea would attack us or South Korea, for that matter.

I also agree with Trump about scaling back our military entanglements with South Korea and also about getting completely the hell out of both Syria and Afghanistan. I wish he would follow through on that, and think it remains possible that he will. He already said he was pulling out of Syria, and then the warmongers walked him back. Do it, already!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-29-2019), chunksmediocrites (05-28-2019)
  #190  
Old 05-28-2019, 03:43 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is online now
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXLVII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
In addition to being a serial liar who has repeatedly lied about my posts (saying that I predicted Trump would do this and that, when I predicted no such thing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I will add that I think Trump, if elected, will do nothing to impede gay or transgender rights and will not appoint Scalias to the Supreme Court. All his rhetoric suggesting he will do such stuff is malarky to gull the rubes he knows he must court to win the nomination of the Dumb Party.
I understand you find it very upsetting to have these words quoted back to you, but you did say them. Backtrack and dissemble and add hedges how you like about how it wasn't a claim of certainty or whatever. It was idiotic even if you were only saying these things were 50-50. It still turns out that you were the rube who was gulled by his malarkey.
Quote:
you are an inveterate blowhard.

Quote:
Comparing Hillary’s performance to that of past Democratic candidates is otiose. They were all shitty candidates — Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, the lot of ‘em. Even Bill Clinton was shitty, but had the good fortune to run against two Republicans who were even shittier than he was.
But Reagan, pappy Bush and Dubya were less shitty? These are relative terms. If you want to make clear that all you mean when you say "shitty" is "not significantly better than most Democrats", your claims will come off as weak to most people. Which is why you types never word it that way.

(Also, you left out Humphrey, who also did worse than Clinton. Perhaps you don't think he was shitty. Yet he did worse than Clinton. :shrug:)

After this part you're just ranting about what you don't like about Biden, which doesn't have much to do with anything I said, as I was not making the case that Joe Biden is the best candidate.

I have reasons that I would prefer Warren to Biden, which overlap a bit with the reasons you're giving. I think Warren is more likely to make the structural reforms we need to break the minoritarian power of the GOP, which is the only thing that will force them to return to sanity.

That is, however, not equivalent to the question of whether Clinton was a shitty candidate or whether Biden or Sanders or others are more electable, nor whether it was a good idea for leftists to boycott Clinton nor whether it would be a good idea for the left to do the same for Biden.
Quote:
PS: I talked about Trump adhering to the old doctrine of not going abroad in search of dragons to slay, but did not predict he would avoid foreign wars. Funnily, however, so far he has avoided foreign wars, and the latest news today is that he wants no war with Iran, contra Bolton and the other war-mongering idiots in both parties.
Well it's bad that he appointed a warmonger but good he isn't listening to everything the warmonger says. On the other hand, his people reportedly asked for Venezuela invasion plans. And even if he hasn't started any new wars, he has escalated our involvement in many places around the world and under his administration, civilian casualties have increased significantly. So hey, he's not as bad as Bush since he hasn't started a new clusterfuck... yet. Not much to crow about though.

I'm not nearly so sanguine about it as you are, because Trump has previously expressed that he thinks starting a war is a way to help a president's reelection.


Quote:
I’d also point out that his trade war with China is not that different from what Sanders was advocating
This... is probably not something you should want to say. Has this really been working out so great for America that you should want to associate Sanders with it?
Quote:
And despite his initial bellicose rhetoric toward North Korea, it’s obvious he wants no war with that country and he doesn’t care if they get nuclear-tipped missiles. I don’t care, either! It’s insane to imagine that North Korea would attack us or South Korea, for that matter.
My worry is that he is a malignant narcissist and he may view N Korea obviously not respecting him and defying his threats as a reason to attack, because otherwise he looks "weak". But it's nice that you have no worries about it, nor are you concerned about nuclear proliferation :rolleyes:
Quote:
I also agree with Trump about scaling back our military entanglements with South Korea and also about getting completely the hell out of both Syria and Afghanistan. I wish he would follow through on that, and think it remains possible that he will. He already said he was pulling out of Syria, and then the warmongers walked him back. Do it, already!
lol hoping for Trump to do good things.

Also, if only there were some way he could choose whether he had warmongers in his administration, but I guess it has nothing to do with his preferences.

It's a bit telling that about all you saw fit to respond with was to rant about how shitty the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are (and dishonestly claim I find her blameless even though I pointed out potential upsides of not ignoring Wisconsin) and to bring up your endorsement of Walker Bragman's "A Liberal Case for Trump" unprompted, because you idiotically think that this makes you look good. What is your response to the fact that Bernie Sanders is polling no better in personal favorability than Hillary was at this point? :crickets: The fact that Joe Biden is polling better than Sanders by a larger margin than Sanders is outpolling other Democrats? :crickets: To the fact that Bernie Sanders isn't doing better than he is despite his very high name recognition? :crickets: Do you have an opinion on whether the large field is somehow a conspiracy to rig the primaries against Bernie? :crickets: And as always, your response to how it is shortsighted to think that giving power to the GOP could benefit the left despite the fact that they'll use their power to rig the game? :crickets: :crickets: :crickets:

Nah, the only thing worth saying is Hillary is shit and Biden is shit. What a valuable contribution. Actually engaging with evidence... :crickets:

Last edited by erimir; 05-28-2019 at 04:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
slimshady2357 (05-28-2019), The Man (05-28-2019)
  #191  
Old 05-28-2019, 07:06 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMCM
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Stumbled across, for your amusement:


Dp6-eleW4AAtJqY.jpg
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (05-28-2019), erimir (05-28-2019), The Man (05-28-2019)
  #192  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:03 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Joe Biden's team figured out that Biden's impressive lead based on Obama feelies and name recognition can only be lost by Joe Biden campaigning, talking out loud and interacting with voters, and so are doing their level best to convince Biden to enter cryostasis until Iowa.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (06-04-2019), But (06-04-2019), Crumb (06-04-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-04-2019), slimshady2357 (06-04-2019), The Man (06-04-2019)
  #193  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:55 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMDCCXIII
Images: 8
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I just gave a small amount of money to Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren's campaigns. These are the two people who I'm most interested in seeing become President.

The only top person I don't want is Bden. I mean I'll vote for him if he's the candidate, but it won’t be with any enthusiasm.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (06-04-2019), Crumb (06-04-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-04-2019), slimshady2357 (06-04-2019), SR71 (06-04-2019), The Man (06-04-2019)
  #194  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:44 PM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Ditto. This is simplistic, but I see Harris as the most appealing to the widest swath of potential voters. Trumpers won't even vote for Biden. They won't vote for any Democrat. That leaves roughly 60% of votes up for grabs. True democrats will vote for a broken mop if that's our candidate. We need someone to get minorities and young to the polls. Harris is likely to appeal to minorities because she is minority, and possibly young, simply because she is youngish. Warren's appeal to minorities remains to be seen, but her policies should appeal to younger voters, if they're paying any attention. Oh yes, and obviously, women candidates may be favored by women in general, since it still hasn't been their turn yet. Ever.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-04-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-04-2019), The Man (06-04-2019)
  #195  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:02 PM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVDCCCX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

FWIW, Warren had pretty strong numbers with Black voters (especially Black women) last I checked. That seems important. I wouldn't understate her chances at this point. She's making a lot of proposals to reduce racial disparities, and minority voters seem to be picking up on that.

I agree on Harris and Warren. Harris seems the strongest candidate - I think she has the sharpest political instincts and would be the best foil for Dump. Warren has the strongest policies and is probably the smartest and most knowledgeable person running for the presidency. Also, it's canonical in The Simpsons that Lisa Simpson becomes president after Dump, which seems relevant to Warren's candidacy for some reason. Can't imagine why.

Neither should be VP though. Both can do far more good in the Senate. If we take them out for anything but the presidency, it should be for something actually important, like Secretary of the Treasury (Warren) or Attorney General (Harris).
__________________
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.



“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

Fool’s Gold · last.fm · soundcloud · Marathon Chronicles
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-04-2019), specious_reasons (06-05-2019), SR71 (06-05-2019)
  #196  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:49 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Joe Biden's team figured out that Biden's impressive lead based on Obama feelies and name recognition can only be lost by Joe Biden campaigning, talking out loud and interacting with voters, and so are doing their level best to convince Biden to enter cryostasis until Iowa.

Hillary caught some flak for not campaigning in some rust belt states. But when you're in the situation that the more you open your piehole, the more people hate you, the more your numbers go down, that's a good strategy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (06-05-2019), SR71 (06-05-2019), The Man (06-05-2019)
  #197  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:34 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCXX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition


:snicker:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (06-06-2019)
  #198  
Old 06-06-2019, 02:50 AM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVDCCCX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition



Can someone please locate Mjolnir and arrange a way to place it in Elizabeth Warren's possession? Thank you in advance.

(Could've put this in the Marvel thread as well, obviously.)
__________________
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.



“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

Fool’s Gold · last.fm · soundcloud · Marathon Chronicles
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (06-06-2019), Kamilah Hauptmann (06-06-2019), slimshady2357 (06-07-2019), specious_reasons (06-06-2019)
  #199  
Old 06-06-2019, 03:14 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMDCCXIII
Images: 8
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I'm impressed they said it in unison. I don't even think it was planned.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kamilah Hauptmann (06-06-2019), The Man (06-06-2019)
  #200  
Old 06-06-2019, 07:46 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCIII
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

So this
Bernie Sanders calls out Walmart executives during their annual meeting
Quote:
“Walmart workers are sick and tired of being paid starvation wages while the Walton family, the wealthiest family in America, is worth over $170 billion,” Sanders told a group of Walmart workers during a rally Wednesday in Arkansas. “It is time for Walmart to pay all of its workers a living wage, give them a seat at the table, and allow part-time employees to work full-time jobs.”

While Walmart raised minimum pay to $11 an hour last year, it still lags behind competitors like Target and Amazon, both of which recently announced that they will pay at least $15 an hour. So far, Walmart has resisted pressure to do the same.

Walmart employees have been trying for years to get the company to listen to them at their annual shareholder meeting in Arkansas. They’ve introduced proposal after proposal, asking for higher pay and better working conditions. All have been voted down.

This year is the first time they will introduce a plan to give workers a seat on the company’s board — something no public US company has done, and no employee has yet proposed during a shareholder meeting.

“At a time of deepening racial and economic divide and insecurity, hourly associates can guide a more fair, inclusive and equitable corporate ecosystem that bridges differences,” the proposal reads.

The plan was filed by Walmart employee Cat Davis, who is also a leader for workers’ rights organization United for Respect. The proposal points out that Walmart’s lowest-paid workers are overwhelmingly female, black, and Latinx and that their low wages keep them living in poverty.
That's Bernie Sanders using his political power to amplify organizing and worker power. Here's how I know that it has a real use- not by itself, but with a message that has broad, actual, on the ground support, and in coalition with workers, putting political pressure on corporations locally.

Business Insider from Oct 2018:
Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 following pressure from Bernie Sanders
Quote:
Amazon has announced plans to raise the company's minimum wage in the US to $15, following sustained pressure from Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders.

In a statement released Tuesday, Amazon said the salary increase, to more than double the federal minimum wage of $7.25, would take effect on November 1.

Amazon said the change would affect more than 250,000 full- and part-time employees plus more than 100,000 seasonal staff members who work for Amazon over the holiday season.
More than a quarter million people were assisted- not alone, but with massive, real, broad support- by Sanders and Warren joining in that fight. We keep talking about progressives vs. centrists, identity politics, wine moms and "Bernie Bros"- the more than quarter-million people who work at Amazon who got a pay raise to feed their families aren't particularly any one of those demographics.... other than workers. Which most likely is the same grouping you're in as well.


Bloomberg from Oct 2018:
Bernie Sanders Asks McDonald's to Boost Wages to $15 an Hour
Food service and tech are both seeing big gains in unionization bids in the last few years. Much of this is due to continued work and effort on the ground, to raise the wage to $15 and to demand better, and to actually organize. To do that you need a broad and deep coalition of people- workers- with a common goal.

CNN Money from July 2018:
Disneyland agrees to pay its workers $15 an hour
Quote:
Minimum wage employees at Disneyland made $11 an hour. The deal immediately raises their pay 20% to $13.25 an hour. The $15 starting rate will go into effect on January 1, 2019. It will go up to $15.45 in June of 2020.

Disney said an employee making $11 today would earn an additional $8,000 a year.

The deal puts Disney on track to reach California's mandatory $15 an hour minimum wage three years before it goes into effect. It covers union workers in Disneyland jobs like attractions, store operations, custodial, costume, and transportation and parking.

"This agreement sets a new bar with minimum wages that are among the highest in the country," Disneyland president Josh D'Amaro said in a statement.

Disneyland has 30,000 workers, but the majority of hourly workers are represented by unions. Disney said wages for other hourly workers will be negotiated separately.

The labor fight got a public boost from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who pressured Disney to raise wages for workers in California and Disney World in Orlando, Florida. Sanders traveled to Anaheim last month and spoke at a rally that hundreds of Disneyland workers attended.

"The wages and benefits for its workers are atrocious," Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed criticizing the company and its CEO Bob Iger.
This is why I support Sanders' candidacy. Because by addressing class inequality and by relentlessly, consistently, unabashedly fighting for workers' rights, you fight for people who are next to you here in the working class. Which is the huge majority of people of all backgrounds, ages, ethnicities, orientations, and abilities. I support it because it has a sustained, unwavering, and growing coalition of working class people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (06-06-2019), Crumb (06-06-2019), mickthinks (06-07-2019), slimshady2357 (06-07-2019), specious_reasons (06-06-2019), SR71 (06-06-2019), The Lone Ranger (06-06-2019), The Man (06-06-2019)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.42988 seconds with 14 queries