***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Conjecture :lol:

Ok my dude.

For years now have Bernie supporters in here been trying to say I either make up stuff about Sanders or are operating on false or incomplete info, so it is whatever to me.

You know you could look up 2016 for yourself, but here is a jumping off point, knock yourself my g....

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/primaries/polls/al/Dem

I said conjecture because even after last night's response you didn’t demonstrate how Bernie’s support has stood static and/or diminished among non-white voters.

In that sense, most of that you said—“he has not really improved on those numbers,” him “probably” increasing his support since the end of the primary, and acknowledging Sanders as having more non-white support between September 2015 and now—was conjecture. There's nothing wrong with an informed guess, but let's call it what it is and not wrap a conjecture in a declarative assessment of the supposed sameness of Bernie's support.

It's only now that you've provided a link to exit polling data. Which in state after state, as you rightly note, it was Clinton who secured the black and non-white vote. But again. I was responding to the very specific claim that Sanders' support has not expanded. You initially did not show that. And, frankly, I can't tell how, after providing the December 2019 Marist and 2016 exit polls, you can't not say unequivocally and without conjecture, that Sanders' support among black and Latino voters hasn't expanded.

At the end of the day, my position is simple. First, although polling can be a quotidian barometer of opinion, polls ultimately say more about the technocratic vision and inclinations of its interpreters. Polls say more about what it is people think polls are supposed to convey than how actually existing people decide whom to support. And I think even Bernie supporters fall into the technocratic trap of trying to show that 'see, Bernie's polling high among black and brown folks.' (This vox piece made the rounds as soon as it dropped and since. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/bernie-sanders-bro-base-polling-2020-president).

My second point is that the best way to get a sense of how people are leaning is to talk to actually existing people whether on barber shops, on the bus, etc.

Third, that the people who went to Bernie's rally in Queens Bridge park in remarkable numbers back in October and the December rally in Los Angeles was not a mirage. Surely, a generational cohort showed up en mass. But I believe--and really that's the fundamental terrain on which we're arguing; beliefs--that the base has changed, grown larger and stronger. To go back and forth about polls, then, is to highlight a clash not so much in values (on which we mostly agree) but how it is we come to know what we know and how we use that information to make political claims about what is happening around us.
 
I said conjecture because even after last night's response you didn’t demonstrate how Bernie’s support has stood static and/or diminished among non-white voters.

In that sense, most of that you said—“he has not really improved on those numbers,” him “probably” increasing his support since the end of the primary, and acknowledging Sanders as having more non-white support between September 2015 and now—was conjecture. There's nothing wrong with an informed guess, but let's call it what it is and not wrap a conjecture in a declarative assessment of the supposed sameness of Bernie's support.

It's only now that you've provided a link to exit polling data. Which in state after state, as you rightly note, it was Clinton who secured the black and non-white vote. But again. I was responding to the very specific claim that Sanders' support has not expanded. You initially did not show that. And, frankly, I can't tell how, after providing the December 2019 Marist and 2016 exit polls, you can't not say unequivocally and without conjecture, that Sanders' support among black and Latino voters hasn't expanded.

At the end of the day, my position is simple. First, although polling can be a quotidian barometer of opinion, polls ultimately say more about the technocratic vision and inclinations of its interpreters. Polls say more about what it is people think polls are supposed to convey than how actually existing people decide whom to support. And I think even Bernie supporters fall into the technocratic trap of trying to show that 'see, Bernie's polling high among black and brown folks.' (This vox piece made the rounds as soon as it dropped and since. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/bernie-sanders-bro-base-polling-2020-president).

My second point is that the best way to get a sense of how people are leaning is to talk to actually existing people whether on barber shops, on the bus, etc.

Third, that the people who went to Bernie's rally in Queens Bridge park in remarkable numbers back in October and the December rally in Los Angeles was not a mirage. Surely, a generational cohort showed up en mass. But I believe--and really that's the fundamental terrain on which we're arguing; beliefs--that the base has changed, grown larger and stronger. To go back and forth about polls, then, is to highlight a clash not so much in values (on which we mostly agree) but how it is we come to know what we know and how we use that information to make political claims about what is happening around us.
DUDE. Good grief

rexanglorum rexanglorum is the person that brought up Sanders polling. NOT ME.

I responded to his point about polling by discussing, guess what, polling.

Then you jumped in and wanted evidence to back up my claim I made about polling. So I provided you polls.

So spare me this lecture about talking to real people, because you are just moving the damn goal post now. I have spent too much of my own time and money, with my boots on the ground, to entertain this.

I didn't notice your post, so I am responding now. Would you prefer I just ignore you in the future since my response timeline is not satisfactory to you?

Let me know.
 
“Disingenuous” doesn’t even begin to describe dwalk’s approach to discourse in this thread. Really, to even refer to what he does as “engaging in discourse” is to stretch that term beyond its reasonable limits.

I seriously have no idea why some of y’all continue to engage him but I’m not mad since the sheer persistence and consistency of his buffoonery actually has me :lol:
 
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford

How would you rank the remaining Dem candidates?
My personal rankings of the top 10.
1. Warren
2. Booker
.
. *GAP in quality*
.
3.Bernie
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.Yang
5. Steyer
6. Klouchar
7. Pete
.
.
8. Biden
.
.
.
.
.
9. Bloomberg
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10000000000000000000. Tom Dalaney
10000000000000000001. Tulsi Gabbard

But in reality it is a two horse race between Biden and Bernie. So in that match up, Bernie is the clear choice. However, I am concerned that Biden finna run away with this thing.

But I am committed to voting for Warren in the caucus.
 
It's going to be fascinating the lasting effects of this Agent Orange presidency. It's impossible to expect future Presidents to revert back to the normal standard.

Trump has shined the light on so many loopholes that weren't really exploited because of an unspoken level of decorum Presidents usually had

Does the exploitation continue or do you see future Presidents reverting back to a moderate level of restraint?
 
Australian Wildfires Prove Denying Climate Change Won't Save You From It

Climate scientist Michael Mann is in Australia, where the bushfire crisis is unfolding in real time. He says voters there need to look for 'climate hawks' who can counteract the climate-denying policies of politicians like current prime minister Scott Morrison.

 
“Disingenuous” doesn’t even begin to describe dwalk’s approach to discourse in this thread. Really, to even refer to what he does as “engaging in discourse” is to stretch that term beyond its reasonable limits.

I seriously have no idea why some of y’all continue to engage him but I’m not mad since the sheer persistence and consistency of his buffoonery actually has me :lol:

Remarkable stance on my posts while ignoring the ever-engaging-in-discourse COAL GANG.

Give me a break.

Reality is a lot of people are dug in on one view and it doesn’t change. Any small showing of support of something else brings out the usual suspects.
 
Does the exploitation continue or do you see future Presidents reverting back to a moderate level of restraint?

If it's a R president and R's control the Senate, better believe it will continue

I don't think a Dem president would have nearly as much leeway with voters, so probably not
 
I have no idea. It appears you watch Fox News way more than I do. You tell me.

I watch actual news.. and since I’m not American or republican, I ain’t paying for state news

but since those guys salary comes from your tax money, you should probably consider actually listening to what they got to say.. and not treat it like sports and call em like you got 1 option and gotta support the squad:


the other side
 
DUDE. Good grief

rexanglorum rexanglorum is the person that brought up Sanders polling. NOT ME.

I responded to his point about polling by discussing, guess what, polling.

Then you jumped in and wanted evidence to back up my claim I made about polling. So I provided you polls.

So spare me this lecture about talking to real people, because you are just moving the damn goal post now. I have spent too much of my own time and money, with my boots on the ground, to entertain this.

I didn't notice your post, so I am responding now. Would you prefer I just ignore you in the future since my response timeline is not satisfactory to you?

Let me know.

Come on, bro. Im not challenging your commitment to grassroots organizing, nor your response time. The conversation moves quickly and I’ve tried to be as accountable as I can to you and others who I’ve engaged. We’re busy people and the fact that you’ve actively shaped so many conversations on NT is commendable.

I’m not sure why you’ve interpreted what I posted as a lecture. If anything I was trying to highlight different epistemological assumptions that are often unstated yet underly our (i.e. me, you, and others) analysis. I was trying to underscore that there’s much more at stake than the poll numbers themselves. And there’s a distinct but similar politics involved when others dismiss polls and point to some other criteria as the basis for making claims about electability, who’s base is stronger, who has momentum and who doesn’t. This wasn’t a lecture. It was an attempt to think out loud and to move the dialogue forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom