Support NeoGAF

[disastermouse]

Yea I don't think we can answer the two way or one way street with science in its current form (unless you isolate every variable and see somehow that meditation does something completely unexplainable). I have meditated and enjoyed it but I have not done so in a while or really ever gotten to a high level of it. But hopefully we can agree that a lot of the policies we have especially regarding criminal justice are based on a system that probably is not actually accurate of reality?

I think science has a lot to add, but is not the final word. Our criminal justice system is based on unexamined a priori assumptions that can be corrected by science, but ultimately, issues of ethics and morality require a general lifting of our intersubjective 'center of gravity'. Science is hopelessly inadequate to provide that, but it can demonstrate the need for it.

As for meditation, PM me, I have a binaural program that will basically 'meditate you' so that, with only a little bit of concentration, basic mind-states can be accessed without years of practice. You'll need headphones.

 

[ugaboga232]

....I am not saying that at all. I said the make-up of the brain does not matter.

Also, 99% of an infinite set...still leaves an infinite amount of things you cannot account for.

But yeah, I wanna go back to relaxing and reading about politics too.

Wait so then how does what you are saying ever play into the real world lol. Let's get back to this in a while.

Trump may not be as inevitable as I thought last week, Bernie probably isn't going to win but I think he's accomplished a lot and shown that in 20 years we will be ready for democratic socialism (and possibly more). Hillary should crush after NH, rubio may win if trump doesnt regain his momentum.

 

[disastermouse]

I bring it up because depression is going to overtake cardiac problems soon if it already hasnt as most debilitating illness (and thats just one of many mental illnesses). It costs us a ton of money in the economy, contributes to all the gun deaths, and is a very very real problem.

And science is basically hopeless in fixing it. Degenerating neurological health is a reflection of the problem, but our tools to fix that are at best crude, and at worst severely limiting and repressive.

 

[disastermouse]

HEY! I get paid to think about this stuff.

Thank Sidd that someone does.

 

[ugaboga232]

And science is basically hopeless in fixing it. Degenerating neurological health is a reflection of the problem, but our tools to fix that are at best crude, and at worst severely limiting and repressive.

Say what? There are some awesome new therapies coming soon (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/305916.php this is horrifically crude but imagine a far far far better version of this). Psychiatry is a real field even if its not really the best right now.

I get paid to think about the science too guys ;_;

Lets get back to politics

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Intercept actually having journalists who talk about coin flip conspiracies on Twitter because they fucking love Bernie "Saudi Arabia needs more skin in the game" Sanders is embarrassing:

https://twitter.com/lhfang

 

[disastermouse]

Say what? There are some awesome new therapies coming soon (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/305916.php this is horrifically crude but imagine a far far far better version of this). Psychiatry is a real field even if its not really the best right now.

I get paid to think about the science too guys ;_;

Lets get back to politics

Does nothing to prevent the activities that cause PTSD, nor does it correct the policies that further the incidence of PTSD.

Capitalism as currently practiced limits the ability to reduce the causes of PTSD.

I mean, think about it. We've had gun rights for a very long time, but spree shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.

Advances in surgery helped fix the results of automobile accidents, but seatbelts did far more to prevent the injuries.

 

[East Lake]

I bring it up because depression is going to overtake cardiac problems soon if it already hasnt as most debilitating illness (and thats just one of many mental illnesses). It costs us a ton of money in the economy, contributes to all the gun deaths, and is a very very real problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwwKbM_vJc&t=62m52s

 

[ugaboga232]

Does nothing to prevent the activities that cause PTSD, nor does it correct the policies that further the incidence of PTSD.

Capitalism as currently practiced limits the ability to reduce the causes of PTSD.

I mean, think about it. We've had gun rights for a very long time, but spree shootings are a relatively new phenomenon.

O yea science isn't really a political force as of yet. There are prophylatic treatments though (ketamine as a prophylaxis is being tested for that).

 

[User 463088]

I don't think it was a lot; as I said before you have to take into consideration the vocal minority. Was there subtext? In part, but if that had been said after the caucus I would be more inclined to agree. To me it's not really a conspiracy theory unless it's explaining something that's happened or happening. Saying DWS shielded Hillary by scheduling fewer debates to help her win is a conspiracy theory.

This is my opinion, but they were doing what campaigns who think they're going to lose do...come up with preemptive things that can shift the blame. Bernie was going to originally be out of Iowa a lot earlier than he was. Part of that was, I believe, his internal polling showing him down. I think Hillary's showed that as well. Obviously, there were some errors there, but still.

Let's not bring up unpledged delegates, that's a hollow victory in a democratic society. Are you mostly criticizing the media for that characterization? She definitely won, but I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about the virtual tie in regards to percentage. There's no question it was a decisive victory when you look at pledged delegates. I honestly think it has less to do with Bernie and more about how Iowa works: how you perform versus expectations matters more than if you win or lose. Rubio is a prime example of that.

Sure, I'm not a huge fan of unfledged delegates per say. However, she still has more pledged delegates than he does. So, again, a victory. I'm looking at the results from the perspective of someone who wants Bernie to win. (Even though I don't.) The numbers should be a bit....concerning, especially given the favorable nature of Iowas demographics. I mean, there is no other state, with the possible exception of Vermont, in which 43% of people are going to say they're socialist. It was white enough for him too. And, while he did well, he still lost.

I wish he had done better considering the demographics. While I think the type of political revolution he imagines is a long shot, it's still early and as the Republicans are showing attitudes can change swiftly. It may never be what he envisions but that doesn't stop it from becoming bigger than it currently is. I'd really like to see how much Hillary and Bernie spent per vote. That goes back to the narrative aspect: if Bernie spent less money per vote than Hillary, that could be taken as a moral victory. Some would say doing that well against Hillary's "political machine" is a victory into itself. I don't latch too strongly onto any perspective, but rather search for bits of truth.

My fear is he's doing what what's his face did on SNL when he played Bernie. Bernie is telling us everything is terrible and we need a revolution to fix it. However, we've seen that some of his supporters are 100% into him more than his message, as evidenced by those small in number supporters who say they won't support Hillary or want Trump.

It looks like Hillary spent $9.4 million and Bernie spent $7.4 million, at least according to https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-much-did-the-candidates-spend-per-vote-in-iowa/.

The issue I have is spinning everything into some type of victory. It's that millennial "You tried so you get a sticker" thing. Politics is about winning. Moral victories mean little. I'm definitely not shitting on what Bernie did. I am impressed that he did as well as he did, in a way. However, I still have huge questions considering nearly everything in Iowa was tailor made to suit him. It was a caucus (which benefits enthusiasm), it was an open primary (which benefits him greatly), he had the possibility of same day registration (again, benefiting the young people), it is extremely white, it is extremely liberal, it has 43% of people in the party saying they're Democratic socialists too. And, the best he could get out of that, is a moral victory. If I was a Berner, I'd be worried.

Of course, as a Hillbot, I'm worried about other things with my candidate. I just think that al ot of the posts I've seen on here, Kos and other places are just focusing on the "Oh he got so close, so that's good enough" thing. It's not good enough. Not at all.

And I love how everoyne else is talking about metaphysical concepts like the self, and we're here being all wonky in discussing political narratives.

 

[disastermouse]

O yea science isn't really a political force as of yet. There are prophylatic treatments though (ketamine as a prophylaxis is being tested for that).

How about....less war? How about a system that doesn't actively degrade people on the lower levels of achievement?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

These guys get paid to write for a living:

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani

Like....

Obama never has to my knowledge defended himself from criticism by invoking his race the way team hillary invokes gender

Love him or hate him you gotta respect Big O for that

.... Really, this was posted on his Twitter feed.

 

[ugaboga232]

How about....less war? How about a system that doesn't actively degrade people on the lower levels of achievement?

How about I agree completely but we gotta wait 20 years for like minded people to grow up.

As to Adam's post: I agree completely based on everything you just said, bernie didn't win with a decent margin so his momentum is heavily blunted, its still possible to win but its gonna take a huge swing from what we are seeing now. Doesn't mean I can't hope but Hillary is looking even more likely than before and thats ok. She better beat the republicans with all this talk of bernie being unelectable

 

[disastermouse]

This is my opinion, but they were doing what campaigns who think they're going to lose do...come up with preemptive things that can shift the blame. Bernie was going to originally be out of Iowa a lot earlier than he was. Part of that was, I believe, his internal polling showing him down. I think Hillary's showed that as well. Obviously, there were some errors there, but still.



Sure, I'm not a huge fan of unfledged delegates per say. However, she still has more pledged delegates than he does. So, again, a victory. I'm looking at the results from the perspective of someone who wants Bernie to win. (Even though I don't.) The numbers should be a bit....concerning, especially given the favorable nature of Iowas demographics. I mean, there is no other state, with the possible exception of Vermont, in which 43% of people are going to say they're socialist. It was white enough for him too. And, while he did well, he still lost.



My fear is he's doing what what's his face did on SNL when he played Bernie. Bernie is telling us everything is terrible and we need a revolution to fix it. However, we've seen that some of his supporters are 100% into him more than his message, as evidenced by those small in number supporters who say they won't support Hillary or want Trump.

It looks like Hillary spent $9.4 million and Bernie spent $7.4 million, at least according to https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-much-did-the-candidates-spend-per-vote-in-iowa/.

The issue I have is spinning everything into some type of victory. It's that millennial "You tried so you get a sticker" thing. Politics is about winning. Moral victories mean little. I'm definitely not shitting on what Bernie did. I am impressed that he did as well as he did, in a way. However, I still have huge questions considering nearly everything in Iowa was tailor made to suit him. It was a caucus (which benefits enthusiasm), it was an open primary (which benefits him greatly), he had the possibility of same day registration (again, benefiting the young people), it is extremely white, it is extremely liberal, it has 43% of people in the party saying they're Democratic socialists too. And, the best he could get out of that, is a moral victory. If I was a Berner, I'd be worried.

Of course, as a Hillbot, I'm worried about other things with my candidate. I just think that al ot of the posts I've seen on here, Kos and other places are just focusing on the "Oh he got so close, so that's good enough" thing. It's not good enough. Not at all.

And I love how everoyne else is talking about metaphysical concepts like the self, and we're here being all wonky in discussing political narratives.

You can't attribute the desire to not support Hillary or Trump as a cult of personality phenomenon that easily! I would support Warren just as easily as Bernie. I'd support a Socialist Alternative politician even more fervently even though I have been kicked out of SA.

It's not about Bernie! It's that Bernie is the only politician at his level who is speaking to our concerns. Hillary cannot speak convincingly to our concerns, so we won't vote for her. Trump is a huckster. Under those circumstances, who can we vote for who speaks to our concerns believably? Hillary is not a substitute, she is not adequate.

 

[saltypickles]

The issue I have is spinning everything into some type of victory. It's that millennial "You tried so you get a sticker" thing. Politics is about winning. Moral victories mean little. I'm definitely not shitting on what Bernie did. I am impressed that he did as well as he did, in a way. However, I still have huge questions considering nearly everything in Iowa was tailor made to suit him. It was a caucus (which benefits enthusiasm), it was an open primary (which benefits him greatly), he had the possibility of same day registration (again, benefiting the young people), it is extremely white, it is extremely liberal, it has 43% of people in the party saying they're Democratic socialists too. And, the best he could get out of that, is a moral victory. If I was a Berner, I'd be worried.

He's only 2 delegates behind Hillary and lost by like .1% when the DMR poll had it at 45/42 Hillary and HuffPo Pollster had it at 48/45 Hillary. Obviously it would be better if he had won but considering the primary would have been declared over if he had lost by more that 5% this is a good result. He's up 19 over Hillary in New Hampshire according to the HP Pollster; if he doesn't beat her by 20+ there then I think he should be worried.

These guys get paid to write for a living:

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani

Like....

.... Really, this was posted on his Twitter feed.

 

[A Human Becoming]

This is my opinion, but they were doing what campaigns who think they're going to lose do...come up with preemptive things that can shift the blame. Bernie was going to originally be out of Iowa a lot earlier than he was. Part of that was, I believe, his internal polling showing him down. I think Hillary's showed that as well. Obviously, there were some errors there, but still.

That's an okay perspective to me, even if I don't 100% agree with it. Bits of truth!

Sure, I'm not a huge fan of unfledged delegates per say. However, she still has more pledged delegates than he does. So, again, a victory. I'm looking at the results from the perspective of someone who wants Bernie to win. (Even though I don't.) The numbers should be a bit....concerning, especially given the favorable nature of Iowas demographics. I mean, there is no other state, with the possible exception of Vermont, in which 43% of people are going to say they're socialist. It was white enough for him too. And, while he did well, he still lost.

Having more pledged delegates is what matters. I understand your perspective and you make valid points, I just hope you realize as strong as you feel no single person gets to decide the narrative. My perspective is different even considering what you've said.

My fear is he's doing what what's his face did on SNL when he played Bernie. Bernie is telling us everything is terrible and we need a revolution to fix it. However, we've seen that some of his supporters are 100% into him more than his message, as evidenced by those small in number supporters who say they won't support Hillary or want Trump.

I wouldn't describe Bernie as saying everything is terrible, Larry David was an exaggeration. I do think he truly believes a revolution is the only way for his goals to be made. When you say more into him, do you mean the revolution part without what he wants to accomplish by it?

The issue I have is spinning everything into some type of victory. It's that millennial "You tried so you get a sticker" thing. Politics is about winning. Moral victories mean little. I'm definitely not shitting on what Bernie did. I am impressed that he did as well as he did, in a way. However, I still have huge questions considering nearly everything in Iowa was tailor made to suit him. It was a caucus (which benefits enthusiasm), it was an open primary (which benefits him greatly), he had the possibility of same day registration (again, benefiting the young people), it is extremely white, it is extremely liberal, it has 43% of people in the party saying they're Democratic socialists too. And, the best he could get out of that, is a moral victory. If I was a Berner, I'd be worried.

I find that connection odd as this narrative factor has been around before millennials were born:

It was Jimmy Carter who invented the significance of the Iowa caucuses. In 1975, the Georgia governor had a one percent name recognition outside his state. But instead of bowing to New Hampshire’s similarly arbitrary first-primary-in-the-nation status, Carter practically lived in Iowa, sleeping on supporters’ couches, carrying his own garment bag and engineering a showing good enough to get him national attention. Even though he came in second in the 1976 caucuses, behind Uncommitted, he still beat nationally known Democrats like senators Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, Mo Udall and Scoop Jackson, which won him a media narrative (“Jimmy who?” won Iowa!) and a launch pad to win New Hampshire a month later.

From then on, the media took it as a given that Iowa mattered. In 1983-84, I was deputy campaign manager to Walter Mondale, who had been Carter’s vice president, in Mondale’s own bid for the presidency. Winning Iowa was a lynchpin of our plan; I think I spent more time in Iowa than any other state. It paid off, or so we thought: In an eight-candidate field, Mondale nearly won an absolute majority: 48.89 percent.

But what none of us in the campaign anticipated was the media’s need for a suspenseful narrative. “Frontrunner’s Iowa win seals Mondale’s inevitability” was the most boring story anyone could write about the caucuses; who would bother paying attention to the race after that? And so, to my naïve astonishment, the big story out of Iowa was about the candidate whom Mondale crushed almost 3-to-1: Colorado senator Gary Hart. Hart’s weak second-place finish was enough for him to steal the Iowa caucuses narrative. A month later, Hart beat Mondale in the New Hampshire primary. It wasn’t until the California primary, in June, that Mondale finally scraped together enough delegates to get the nomination.

I think all your concerns are valid and I share some of them, but you're not considering what he didn't have going for him, such as name recognition, money, the party behind him or the experience running a primary. Which of these matters most can be debated, but they all hold some weight.

 

[User 463088]

You can't attribute the desire to not support Hillary or Trump as a cult of personality phenomenon that easily! I would support Warren just as easily as Bernie. I'd support a Socialist Alternative politician even more fervently even though I have been kicked out of SA.

It's not about Bernie! It's that Bernie is the only politician at his level who is speaking to our concerns. Hillary cannot speak convincingly to our concerns, so we won't vote for her. Trump is a huckster. Under those circumstances, who can we vote for who speaks to our concerns believably? Hillary is not a substitute, she is not adequate.

This is not a read, but I'm not directing this at you. I'm directing this at the 99.9999% of Bernie supporters who are not Marxist. Again, you're compromising in your support of Bernie. I believe that if the primary plays out and Hillary wins, most Bernie supporters will back her because they agree on like 99% of the problems and like 90% of the ways to solve them.

And, you have to admit, there is a cult of personality around Bernie. Not all of his supporters are part of it, most, I'd argue, are entirely in it because they believe that things like getting rid of Citizens United, attaining universal healthcare, reigning in college costs, protecting LGBT rights, protecting women's rights and increasing the minimum wage are important. If Bernie loses, the logical step is to find the person who has both the best platform for your goals and has the best chance of winning.

He's only 2 delegates behind Hillary and lost by like .1% when the DMR poll had it at 45/42 Hillary and HuffPo Pollster had it at 48/45 Hillary. Obviously it would be better if he had won but considering the primary would have been declared over if he had lost by more that 5% this is a good result. He's up 19 over Hillary in New Hampshire according to the HP Pollster; if he doesn't beat her by 20+ there then I think he should be worried.
]

Again, caucus are notoriously hard to poll. However, doing better than his poll numbers and still not winning is nothing more than a hollow victory.

The reason the primary would have been over had he lost by more is that he has very, very few places to make up delegates. This should have been his 3rd best state, demographically. He comes out with fewer delegates than Hillary. According to Cook's numbers, Bernie needed 31 delegates out of Iowa. He got 21. Where is he making up those 10 delegates? What state is he going to be able to run up the numbers enough to take 10 from Hillary? Let's not even ignore the fact that the chance of Bernie getting 24 delegates out of SC is nearly impossible.

He needs to go into Super Tuesday with a pledged Delegate lead, because he's already at a massive disadvantage among SuperDelegates.

 

[WaffleTaco]

He's only 2 delegates behind Hillary and lost by like .1% when the DMR poll had it at 45/42 Hillary and HuffPo Pollster had it at 48/45 Hillary. Obviously it would be better if he had won but considering the primary would have been declared over if he had lost by more that 5% this is a good result. He's up 19 over Hillary in New Hampshire according to the HP Pollster; if he doesn't beat her by 20+ there then I think he should be worried.

He's actually 356 delegates behind Hillary due to super-delegates. He has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

I agree although I'm more bearing on Trump now. The best case scenario in NH is:
1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Kasich
4. Rubio

Rubio being bumped down is imperative.

I really love how Christie has been calling him Bubble Boy, especially with these recent accusations. It's quite telling though, Rubio always seems like a kid giving a book report or a student council presentation. Kasich has taken an "oath" that he won't go negative after his SuperPac pulled his new ad, but hopefully Christie and Right to Rise's candidate just conflagrate the fuck outta him.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

He's only 2 delegates behind Hillary and lost by like .1% when the DMR poll had it at 45/42 Hillary and HuffPo Pollster had it at 48/45 Hillary. Obviously it would be better if he had won but considering the primary would have been declared over if he had lost by more that 5% this is a good result. He's up 19 over Hillary in New Hampshire according to the HP Pollster; if he doesn't beat her by 20+ there then I think he should be worried.

If there was a way to bet on this on PredictIt, I'd put a lot of money into it. IMO there's absolutely no chance that he beats her by 20. The polls almost definitely will tighten by then and let's not forget that Clinton is used to come from behind victories in NH. That's not to say that she'll win, because I have pretty much no hope for that. But I'm pretty sure she's fighting for as many delegates as possible over there.

 

[User 463088]

That's an okay perspective to me, even if I don't 100% agree with it. Bits of truth!

Having more pledged delegates is what matters. I understand your perspective and you make valid points, I just hope you realize as strong as you feel no single person gets to decide the narrative. My perspective is different even considering what you've said.

And I respect your perspective as well, definitely. The good news for Bernie is that the media will support his perspective more. They want a horse race, and by george, they'll do whatever it takes to give it to us.

I wouldn't describe Bernie as saying everything is terrible, Larry David was an exaggeration. I do think he truly believes a revolution is the only way for his goals to be made. When you say more into him, do you mean the revolution part without what he wants to accomplish by it?

I think Bernie is telling us that everything is just terrible, but that's just my opinion. For example, when we got the climate change agreement, his response gave the impression that it wasn't good enough. Again, opinions are like assholes....

I think there is a group of people out there who are more into Bernie the concept than they are into his policy positions. I think these people are small in number, but I don't think they really care about progressive causes. Bernie is the shiny new toy, so they're going to Feel the Bern because they have nothing better to do. These are the people who claim we'll march on the Supreme Court and all that other jazz.

I think all your concerns are valid and I share some of them, but you're not considering what he didn't have going for him, such as name recognition, money, the party behind him or the experience running a primary. Which of these matters most can be debated, but they all hold some weight.

I am impressed by what he did, definitely. He should be proud of the race he ran. But, at the same time, I think that it's important to still acknowledge the issues. A lot of times when people point out the flaws in Bernie the Candidate/Campaign, they're explained away. At a certain point, I think it's important to figure out how to fix the problems, not just hope they disappear.

 

[RastaMentality]

Rubio getting 4th would throw the media into a tailspin. I need it.

 

[ugaboga232]

Rubio getting 4th would throw the media into a tailspin. I need it.

Isn't that really what we all want? The media frenzy?

 

[disastermouse]

This is not a read, but I'm not directing this at you. I'm directing this at the 99.9999% of Bernie supporters who are not Marxist. Again, you're compromising in your support of Bernie. I believe that if the primary plays out and Hillary wins, most Bernie supporters will back her because they agree on like 99% of the problems and like 90% of the ways to solve them.

And, you have to admit, there is a cult of personality around Bernie. Not all of his supporters are part of it, most, I'd argue, are entirely in it because they believe that things like getting rid of Citizens United, attaining universal healthcare, reigning in college costs, protecting LGBT rights, protecting women's rights and increasing the minimum wage are important. If Bernie loses, the logical step is to find the person who has both the best platform for your goals and has the best chance of winning. .

Bernie doesn't really have a personality. He's not Obama. It's not about Bernie as a person, it's about the fact that he's hitting on the correct message and it resonates and to the extent that it COULD be about Bernie, it's about the fact that he reads as genuine and Hillary doesn't.

And if Hillary wins, 50% of what you said will never even be tried. She'll turn again on TPP, she'll tout identity politics and small wins for persecuted minorities and change nothing about the economic system as it currently stands.

 

[ugaboga232]

Bernie doesn't really have a personality. He's not Obama. It's not about Bernie as a person, it's about the fact that he's hitting on the correct message and it resonates and to the extent that it COULD be about Bernie, it's about the fact that he reads as genuine and Hillary doesn't.

And if Hillary wins, 50% of what you said will never even be tried. She'll turn again on TPP, she'll tout identity politics and small wins for persecuted minorities and change nothing about the economic system as it currently stands.

I smell an avatar bet (for 5 years from now).

 

[disastermouse]

I smell an avatar bet (for 5 years from now).

You think that Hillary won't turn coat on TPP? Dude, really?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Trump is a huckster.

god damn it

 

[ugaboga232]

You think that Hillary won't turn coat on TPP? Dude, really?

No i kinda agree with you but I was just trying to interject humorously in a rather dire political conversation on whether the optimistic view of hillary is right or the pessimistic view.

I fall closer to the pessimistic but I really haven't heavily researched hillary's past to get a good sense of what drives her.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If Mitch McConnell stops being moronic he'll allow a vote before the general election that would make it moot. But he probably won't. Because it's preferable to obstruct Obama than to make a deal that you want anyway.

 

[DataStream]

You can't attribute the desire to not support Hillary or Trump as a cult of personality phenomenon that easily! I would support Warren just as easily as Bernie. I'd support a Socialist Alternative politician even more fervently even though I have been kicked out of SA.

It's not about Bernie! It's that Bernie is the only politician at his level who is speaking to our concerns. Hillary cannot speak convincingly to our concerns, so we won't vote for her. Trump is a huckster. Under those circumstances, who can we vote for who speaks to our concerns believably? Hillary is not a substitute, she is not adequate.

You can fully believe that and also recognize that more progressive ideas coming from someone who does speak to your concerns will at some level rely on the makeup of the supreme court.

 

[disastermouse]

You can fully believe that and also recognize that more progressive ideas coming from someone who does speak to your concerns will at some level rely on the makeup of the supreme court.

That's not really enough and it's an argument that can always be made. They keep getting older, after all.

That's just a shitty excuse to vote for a milquetoast triangulator like Hillary.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think on social issues Hillary would be fine. Other than troubling views on LGBT rights (which until a decade or so ago ~90% of American politicians shared anyway) she's always been pretty consistent in that regard.

Curbing Wall Street or actively opposing TPP? Yeah I don't really see it.

However as far as broader fiscal issues go she'd be an ardent defender of Obamacare and try to push through student loan reform and universal pre-K, an increase in the minimum wage, immigration reform and equal pay laws. If she got all that through I wouldn't be terribly disappointed.

 

[disastermouse]

I think on social issues Hillary would be fine. Other than troubling views on LGBT rights (which until a decade or so ago ~90% of American politicians shared anyway) she's always been pretty consistent in that regard.

Curbing Wall Street or actively opposing TPP? Yeah I don't really see it.

However as far as broader fiscal issues go she'd be an ardent defender of Obamacare and try to push through student loan reform and universal pre-K, an increase in the minimum wage, immigration reform and equal pay laws. If she got all that through I wouldn't be terribly disappointed.

Why are you so easily pacified?

 

[Maledict]

You folks seen the exit polls for the caucuss' by the way? Seems like the DMR poll was correct, and actually Hillary led the popular vote by about 4% over Sanders.

After all that worry about him winning the popular vote but geography losing him delegates almost seems like the opposite happened...

 

[shinra-bansho]

Before you get jumped on, I'll just point out that that's not what an exit poll can tell you. So no one else needs to.

It's just demographic breakdowns extrapolated from polling a sample of people as they enter/exit polling stations.

 

[Maledict]

Possibly confusion between the UK and USA then, as our exit polls for elections tend to be extremely accurate. Depressingly so as it turns out last year.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why are you so easily pacified?

Because preserving Obamacare, raising the minimum wage and allowing me to renegotiate/consolidate my student loans are all things that would help me like, immediately?

Granted, Bernie's proposals in regards to those would help me more. I am caucusing for him after all!

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm starting to understand some of the critics of PPP. They were way too favorable towards Clinton in Iowa now that we look back at it. How often do they tease overnight samples like they did with Trump? Seems kind of counter intuitive to what polling a multi-day average is all about.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm starting to understand some of the critics of PPP. They were way too favorable towards Clinton in Iowa now that we look back at it. How often do they tease overnight samples like they did with Trump? Seems kind of counter intuitive to what polling a multi-day average is all about.

I feel like they've done it before. I don't think their behavior on Twitter should reflect as much their ability to do polling, but yes if you're looking at their professionalism it can be a little annoying.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Possibly confusion between the UK and USA then, as our exit polls for elections tend to be extremely accurate. Depressingly so as it turns out last year.

Exit Polls for a caucus are crap shoots. It's more like a general idea, but with caucuses it's probably hard for them to know exactly what the breakdown is with people coming and going all over the place.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

I'm starting to understand some of the critics of PPP. They were way too favorable towards Clinton in Iowa now that we look back at it. How often do they tease overnight samples like they did with Trump? Seems kind of counter intuitive to what polling a multi-day average is all about.

I think it is pretty disingenuous for them to tease these negative samples for Trump after one day. I have a lot of issues with national polling and their methodologies, especially PPP.
I don't want to see people fall for Rubio, he wears the stink of hesitation like a perfume.

 

[Jack Remington]

I agree although I'm more bearing on Trump now. The best case scenario in NH is:
1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Kasich
4. Rubio

Rubio being bumped down is imperative.

Best case is actually

Trump
Cruz
Kasich
Bush
Rubio

But I don't see Bush pulling out 4th place.

 

[Diablos]

That the Dems have so many of their hopes pinned on the Republicans electing a shit candidate is pretty strong evidence of why Hillary was not a good choice of candidate. I understand that she has high favorables within the Democratic party, itself, but it's astonishing that nobody with power predicted that maybe somebody smeared for decades and with a shit-ton of political baggage would not be the best general election candidate, and that they'd be better off spending 8 years grooming and building up the national political profile of a young moderate. There should have been an O'Malley-tier guy with Edwards level of polish ready to go by now, but everybody seems to have capitulated to the narrative of the inevitable Hillary.

There's a reason why so many of us either started out supporting Obama or switched to Obama back in 2008.

I seem to remember a lot people here being very upset with Hillary for how she campaigned and what she said about Obama during what was very heated primary to say the least. I was one of them! People were essentially writing her off.

It's extremely sad that the Democratic party was unable to groom anyone else viable for the Presidency. It's like they sat back thinking Hillary was inevitable while they also continued to get battered in the midterms. It was like a double whammy of not giving a shit and awful campaigning, ensuring that they would not be able to produce a real alternative to Hillary other than some overhyped 74 year old "socialist". And here we are.

You're so right; if the best we're hoping for is a Trump win then we have completely failed. Waterboy should not be perceived as such a huge threat. It's just sad. The GOP is dominating the news.

This again reminds me of how disappointed I am in Joe Biden. He has to know how bad this looks. I think he could have won the nomination; there's a lot of collective anxiety about Clinton -- not only how electable she is generally speaking, but baggage catching up to her. I really wish he would have run.

 

[Clefargle]

No, it wouldn't, because it doesn't show an exclusive one way relationship. For instance, what determines the desire to conduct the test that shows this relationship? If it's just chemicals, what makes it valid? It obliterates its own meaning in the performance of the experiment.

That is, driving the internal state from an elegant external set of tools disregards the drive to conduct the test or the tools that do this. From whence do they come? And if it's just 'frisky dust', it obliterates the drive to determine the truth as some sort of higher organizing principle, as it too is but 'frisky dust'. Did you decide to do the test or did the chemicals, in some way that science cannot determine and probably never will, decide to do the test? If 'frisky dust' decided to do the test, then there was no decision and all 'proof' is rendered meaningless.

And all of this falls prey to the myth of the given, the myth that the perceptions and their extensions simply describe a pre-existing world with increasingly exact detail.

God you speak so authoritatively about something which you "know" nothing about. How do you know what "higher truths" exist or don't and what is or is not "made meaningless" by frisky dust? You don't, there is no reason why the world including human brains can't be naturalistic and still produce logic. You're just claiming that and not backing it up.

Back to politics!

 

[Black Republican]

Damn, they coming for Rubio at the jugular.

With trump back in the debate this Saturday, its gonna be crazy this weekend

Rubio will probably get it from all sides like Cruz did last week

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's a reason why so many of us either started out supporting Obama or switched to Obama back in 2008.

I seem to remember a lot people here being very upset with Hillary for how she campaigned and what she said about Obama during what was very heated primary to say the least. I was one of them! People were essentially writing her off.

It's extremely sad that the Democratic party was unable to groom anyone else viable for the Presidency. It's like they sat back thinking Hillary was inevitable while they also continued to get battered in the midterms. It was like a double whammy of not giving a shit and awful campaigning, ensuring that they would not be able to produce a real alternative to Hillary other than some overhyped 74 year old "socialist". And here we are.

You're so right; if the best we're hoping for is a Trump win then we have completely failed. Waterboy should not be perceived as such a huge threat. It's just sad. The GOP is dominating the news.

This again reminds me of how disappointed I am in Joe Biden. He has to know how bad this looks. I think he could have won the nomination; there's a lot of collective anxiety about Clinton -- not only how electable she is generally speaking, but baggage catching up to her. I really wish he would have run.

Weren't you saying the same things about Obama and how weak he was leading up to 2012 though?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Need to win more governor's mansions.

Also, it's so weird seeing 73 year old Diamond Joe, twice failed already, accused plagiarist, fifth in Iowa, articulate and clean foot-in-mouth Biden hailed as some sort of masterful candidate.

I mean sure, 7 years as a sitting VP has helped, but his trial balloon was a complete dud in the end.

The only reason this is a two-horse race is because once everyone either suspected, thought, or knew Clinton was running most anyone who would have been plausible took one look and said "Nope." Including a sitting VP.

 

[CCS]

Rubio could be in trouble if this gets any traction. It's going to be difficult for him to deal with two separate lines of attack relating to open borders

 

[Y2Kev]

Need many new NH polls and need them now. Come on Donald.

 

[CCS]

Is anyone else really fucking creeped out by how some of the people in the Iowa thread are talking about black people/minorities in general as if they're some sort of weird unintelligent hivemind that all just follow whatever celebrities say? Really fucking weird.