U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

she's playing identity politics

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1146455147725361153

Quote

They're still talking about the shoes because Trumpism is an identity politics obsessed with turning trivialities into oppression. It's like the most exaggerated parody of left-wing oversensitivity, but from people with actual power

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1146455147725361153

 

Is this a "but Trump is worse"? Let's not condemn Harris in the least because Trump is worse?

There are 25 candidates. Almost all are better than Trump in most respects...but as a pack...not so much.

I still have some faith in the average Democrat...when the candidates (almost) all run lemming like off the far left cliff...hopefully they vote for one still at the top of it. 

Edited July 4, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some of it is, without a doubt, and for good reason (she's playing identity politics)...and some of it is no doubt for bad reason (straight up racism)

I like to think the former vastly exceeds the latter...

Well so does everyone else. Politics is pandering to a large degree. Pandering to a the majority is sometimes not recognized as such.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

If you open the door to let your opinion out, you'll be letting in a whole lot of other's opinions; some not so nice.

That is fair, though I would say it depends on what level the criticisms are. E.g. if her politics against African Americans are worthy of criticism (I am not really certain about her record) it could be leveraged legitimately. If the criticism is aimed to demonstrate that she is somehow not American (can you imagine- a Canadian even...?) that reeks of something else.

4 hours ago, koti said:

In my opinion it is utopia and a complete surreality to expect to legislate to achieve a goal of creating an even playground for everyone.

So you think it would be fair to implement and maintain policies that negatively affect certain people? Or divert funds away from them for political gain? You see, it is not about that certain folks are overtly racist and implement anti-black strategies that we need to worry about. It is about having biased views that can influence policies in perhaps unintended but really harrowing ways. I have met plenty of well-meaning and empathic folks but even they can have misinformed views. 

For example growing up in the 80s I have met quite a few folks who one would consider progressive, but were under the assumption that blacks only turn to criminality because they cannot help it, after all it is their higher testosterone level. They did not think that black folks were bad persons, they just could not help it.

So they would support something like stricter policing and re-education to counteract their unfavourable biological background. None of the steps involved were borne of malice but just by thinking that the bad outcomes (folks in Europe had a certain opinion about "black ghettos" back then) require addressing in an ultimately fatal way. A similar though was behind the residential schools in Canada and many colonial and colonial-style policies. Only recent research has helped showing a clearer picture of what these policies and thought processes lead to. While public discussion especially in North America, and now also slowly in Europe (though much slower in certain areas) have shifted away from that thinking, you will find it still quite prevalent especially in older folks. 

Much of the discussion in the US right now is about rectifying these things instead of ignoring them further. But note that Europe has a similar issue, albeit with quite different flavours. Immigrants were seen as failures and underclass, which initially included many Europeans which are not feasibly or desirably integrated into society. Of course the issue is here different, as African Americans have been part of the society (and literally built it with their hands) since the country was formed.

But going back to the same playing field: I have worked with some health-related data and one pervasive issue with US data sets is that even when accounting for economic status almost every time African American appear as outlier (in a negative way). This is scary as it indicates a serious public health problem. Even with the ongoing opioid and suicide epidemic, which affects especially white men, their dip is still minor compared to the enormous gap within the African American community. 

Infant death, child birth death, chronic disease, preventable complications are all higher. However, targeted health initiatives specifically for these communities have started to decrease this gap (again, while still accounting for economic differences). An untargeted poverty approach as conducted in the past would most likely had little effect.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is this a "but Trump is worse"? Let's not condemn Harris in the least because Trump is worse?

No. It’s a “the people yelling most loudly about identity politics tend to be the ones relying most heavily upon it to further their agendas”

How dare those Dems yank everyone so extremely left 

Quote

the GOP today is very far right relative to the rest of the world, while the Democrats are center left.

“The Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Western Europe and Canada, according to an analysis of their election manifestos. It is more extreme than Britain’s Independence Party and France’s National Rally (formerly the National Front), which some consider far-right populist parties. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is positioned closer to mainstream liberal parties.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. It’s a “the people yelling most loudly about identity politics tend to be the ones relying most heavily upon it to further their agendas”

How dare those Dems yank everyone so extremely left 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

To pre-empt comment regarding the internationality of the data, there is also the US public policy mood indicator.

Quote

The annual estimate for 2018 is the most liberal ever recorded in the 68 year history of Mood, just slightly higher than the previous high point of 1961. It represents  the expected leftward movement in thermostatic reaction to the Presidency of Donald Trump. The biennial estimate shows the same leftward movement, but the 2018 level is not as left as the early 1960s estimates. It should not be taken, however, as only a personal reaction to Trump because its defining items are the issues of American politics of earlier generations, the New Deal and Great Society agenda. And the estimates do not include Trump’s signature issues of immigration restriction and trade protectionism.

That being said, at the voting booth, party affiliation often trumps personal convictions.

[MigL]

Absolutely true INow.
But the French and Brits of Western Europe, and Canada, are not voting in your election.
For better or for worse, American society has shifted to the right, so that the median of the American population can still be said to be centered between the two Parties; Irrespective of where the median is in other countries.

While some of the Democratic contender positions seem perfectly sensible to us Canadians  ( yes, even JC ), and our British friends on the forum, to the typical American, they are far out in left field; and that typical American IS going to be casting a vote.

[iNow]

Just now, MigL said:

American society has shifted to the right,

Look again at the data. “Society” has not shifted rightward. Republicans have, despite an overall societal push leftward. 

[MigL]

Asking people how they feel about issues, and how they vote are two different things.

The data I'm looking at shows that less than 3 yrs ago, of 138 million Americans who voted, approximately 67.5 million voted conservative and 70.5 million voted democrat. That's pretty damn close to even.

Are you implying that the rest of the eligible voters ( roughly 42 % would have voted overwhelmingly Democrat ?
And if that is the case, then it is their fault that they couldn't be bothered to get out to vote, and we have to deal with a dysfunctional President ?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

if that is the case, then it is their fault that they couldn't be bothered to get out to vote

Precisely. Dems win when more people vote. Republicans win when they restrict and minimize votes

https://www.gq.com/story/mcconnell-voter-turnout-bad

Quote

Republicans have long had an election problem. The more people vote, the worse they tend to get beaten. So the solution, since at least the 1970s, has been pretty cut and dry: Figure out who's likely to vote against them, and prevent them from voting. It may be a more circuitous approach than falsifying votes or straight up hacking an election, but it gives them an air of democratic legitimacy, even though they're actively fighting against the foundations of democracy.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Wow. Look at those Republicans, 4 or 5 times further from the median than the Dems...in whatever metric that was chosen...

...looks like the Dems leaders can certainly move everybody further left...what a great time to be a Democrat strategist!

Try not to trample Bernie in the rush...

 

[MigL]

Read the link that you were kind enough to provide, CharonY…
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html
and without an explanation, that graphic is quite misleading.

The data actually presented compares the Republican party to other Conservative parties of Europe and Canada.
So, of course, the Republican party places to the right of THAT group.
On the other side of the 'median', the Democratic party is compared to European Liberal parties.
And, of course, it falls on the right of THAT group.

I say 'median' because it is not really a median between Democrats and Republicans, but just shows where they fall in their groups.
The data could have been presented as two separate graphics, each in their own group,  and is not representative of where the American population feels the parties fall in the Political spectrum.

Then there is the metric for placement...
Not policies, but the number of right wing or left wing trigger words used in describing their policies.
I wonder who gets to decide if a word like "nationalism' is a right wing word ?
And for that matter, isn't every government populist by definition ?Governments are elected as representatives of the people, not to dictate agendas that the people don't want. So when did 'populist' become a right wing word ?

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

Read the link that you were kind enough to provide, CharonY…

It was my link. I did read it, and also:

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

The data actually presented compares the Republican party to other Conservative parties of Europe and Canada.
So, of course, the Republican party places to the right of THAT group.

This too was already pre-empted:

 

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

To pre-empt comment regarding the internationality of the data, there is also the US public policy mood indicator.

 

[dimreepr]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not policies, but the number of right wing or left wing trigger words used in describing their policies.
I wonder who gets to decide if a word like "nationalism' is a right wing word ?
And for that matter, isn't every government populist by definition ?Governments are elected as representatives of the people, not to dictate agendas that the people don't want. So when did 'populist' become a right wing word ?

 

[MigL]

I don't understand the significance of the J Goebbels quote, Dimreepr.
I may be trying to kickstart this discussion again by presenting alternate viewpoints, but going straight to J Goebbels is a little much.

If I posted a quote from M Gandhi expressing a nationalistic wish for Indian independence, would you classify that as 'right wing' ?

My apologies INow, I was in a hurry when I attributed the link to CharonY.

Edited July 5, 2019 by MigL

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't understand the significance of the J Goebbels quote, Dimreepr.
I may be trying to kickstart this discussion again by presenting alternate viewpoints, but going straight to J Goebbels is a little much.

Just a little relevant to your post, no significance other than the chilling nature of the quote, and the potential parallels.

Edited July 6, 2019 by dimreepr

[koti]

On 7/5/2019 at 12:51 AM, CharonY said:

So you think it would be fair to implement and maintain policies that negatively affect certain people? Or divert funds away from them for political gain? You see, it is not about that certain folks are overtly racist and implement anti-black strategies that we need to worry about. It is about having biased views that can influence policies in perhaps unintended but really harrowing ways. I have met plenty of well-meaning and empathic folks but even they can have misinformed views. 

For example growing up in the 80s I have met quite a few folks who one would consider progressive, but were under the assumption that blacks only turn to criminality because they cannot help it, after all it is their higher testosterone level. They did not think that black folks were bad persons, they just could not help it.

So they would support something like stricter policing and re-education to counteract their unfavourable biological background. None of the steps involved were borne of malice but just by thinking that the bad outcomes (folks in Europe had a certain opinion about "black ghettos" back then) require addressing in an ultimately fatal way. A similar though was behind the residential schools in Canada and many colonial and colonial-style policies. Only recent research has helped showing a clearer picture of what these policies and thought processes lead to. While public discussion especially in North America, and now also slowly in Europe (though much slower in certain areas) have shifted away from that thinking, you will find it still quite prevalent especially in older folks. 

Much of the discussion in the US right now is about rectifying these things instead of ignoring them further. But note that Europe has a similar issue, albeit with quite different flavours. Immigrants were seen as failures and underclass, which initially included many Europeans which are not feasibly or desirably integrated into society. Of course the issue is here different, as African Americans have been part of the society (and literally built it with their hands) since the country was formed.

But going back to the same playing field: I have worked with some health-related data and one pervasive issue with US data sets is that even when accounting for economic status almost every time African American appear as outlier (in a negative way). This is scary as it indicates a serious public health problem. Even with the ongoing opioid and suicide epidemic, which affects especially white men, their dip is still minor compared to the enormous gap within the African American community. 

Infant death, child birth death, chronic disease, preventable complications are all higher. However, targeted health initiatives specifically for these communities have started to decrease this gap (again, while still accounting for economic differences). An untargeted poverty approach as conducted in the past would most likely had little effect.

I appologize for a late reply. I'm having a midnight spaghetti right now on a Saturday night while enrolling my 3 year old for native Chinese lessons for 3 year olds. I feel this thread is not my fight and not my place to express my views - I appologize for wasting your time. 

[iNow]

Eric Swalwell from California is the first to dropout of the race.

Unfortunately, billionaire Tom Steyer (who's been funding millions in TV ads to impeach Trump) is apparently considering jumping in, because... you know... we need more billionaires and more options in a field of two dozen 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Eric Swalwell from California is the first to dropout of the race.

Unfortunately, billionaire Tom Steyer (who's been funding millions in TV ads to impeach Trump) is apparently considering jumping in, because... you know... we need more billionaires and more options in a field of two dozen 

as you suspected:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/index.html

[iNow]

This clown car needs to have the brakes put on. Ugh... I suspect voters would be grateful if MORE people dropped out and focused on running for other offices like Senate, House, and state roles... "Hey, you gave that prez thing a shot... but how about you focus in other battles where we still need your help?!?"

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I suspect voters would be grateful if MORE people dropped out and focused on running for other offices like Senate, House, and state roles...

I have to say, having a single party in charge of practically everything (which always made me uneasy) has broken up the log jams at the state level in Colorado. Like the US House, dems in CO have been passing bills on infrastructure, healthcare, environment, and many other issues while the Republicans (just like in DC) complain they aren't getting anything done (after spending years stalling on these very issues). 

But I actually hope Hickenlooper gets smacked down for his lack of progressive agenda. He's on about jobs being more important to the average person than social concerns. I think he's just promoting a different set of big businesses over voter representation.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This clown car needs to have the brakes put on. Ugh... I suspect voters would be grateful if MORE people dropped out and focused on running for other offices like Senate, House, and state roles... "Hey, you gave that prez thing a shot... but how about you focus in other battles where we still need your help?!?"

The trouble is the instalment of Trump as president has lowered the bar to the extent that anybody thinks they can do it

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The trouble is the instalment of Trump as president has lowered the bar to the extent that anybody thinks they can do it

I think they're also watching his wealth potential swell to match his head. The next presidency will either plug the ethics loopholes in the job or exploit them even more now that Trump has stretched them out like a petite angora sweater.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/9/2019 at 1:43 PM, Phi for All said:

I think they're also watching his wealth potential swell to match his head. The next presidency will either plug the ethics loopholes in the job or exploit them even more now that Trump has stretched them out like a petite angora sweater.

Thanks for the Yang "plug"...https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/

Looking forward to the debates. Warren again in the easier debate, so as the candidate with seemingly one of the better chances of winning (if not best chance) she will be likely walked again to first base. (she still might swing for the fence on a couple intentional walk pitches, just to not be outdone by Bernie, who will be swinging wildly on every pitch)

Again debate night#2 looks like it has more potential. I don't expect Yang to hit any home runs...but time for him to get on base.

If not...he has already (just today) qualified for the next two rounds...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Again debate night#2 looks like it has more potential. I don't expect Yang to hit any home runs...but time for him to get on base.

Hopefully this time he finds his balls and actually swings for a pitch or two. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Hopefully this time he finds his balls and actually swings for a pitch or two. 

He might try a bunt...