PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
Melkr_ said:
This GenForwardSurvey poll plus the week's incidents are giving me a more confident feeling that Bernie is the one to beat in 2020. I dont think even Biden is in a stronger position than Bernie atm:

bernie_sanders.png


(A lot of more amazing hindsights of millennials 18-34)
Click to expand...

Seems only one race is truly obsessed with Bernie...
 
Ac30 said:
...isn't his own base slowly coming out for UHC? This is, uh, wow. Saving people from healthcare, I can't
Click to expand...
UHC as long as minorities are deliberately excluded.

AKA the New Deal.

AKA why you should immediately eyebrow-raise "liberal" people who say we need to "get back" to that era when LBJ is sitting right there.
 
Ac30 said:
...isn't his own base slowly coming out for UHC? This is, uh, wow. Saving people from healthcare, I can't. So much for his "everyone's covered for cheap!" pledge.
Click to expand...

His base wants UHC for white people. When a democrat proposes it its obviously for minorities.
 
I'm starting to think that Trump has never personally fired someone in his life. He either gets someone else to do it or suggests they resign and then hopes they follow through.
 
Jeels said:
His base wants UHC for white people. When a democrat proposes it its obviously for minorities.
Click to expand...

kirblar said:
UHC as long as minorities are deliberately excluded.

AKA the New Deal.

AKA why you should immediately eyebrow-raise "liberal" people who say we need to "get back" to that era when LBJ is sitting right there.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it's just odd he's making such a definitive statement on UHC when he promised his lily-white base something similar during the campaign. I don't see that playing so well in 2020.
 
Teggy said:
I'm starting to think that Trump has never personally fired someone in his life. He either gets someone else to do it or suggests they resign and then hopes they follow through.
Click to expand...
On the TV show they had to do a massive amount of editing to cover for his bizarre, arbitrary rationales.
 
Teggy said:
I'm starting to think that Trump has never personally fired someone in his life. He either gets someone else to do it or suggests they resign and then hopes they follow through.
Click to expand...
I'd be stunned if he has. One thing that's clear about Trump is that he's a wimp who talks big about people but can't do it to their faces.
 
I'm not sure if it's been posted here already but The Ringer has a really good article out today on the schism between 1990's Clinton-era politics and the progressive movement of modern Dems.
 
I don't think Biden would do very well. There's nothing he brings to the table that other candidates don't bring in more appealing packages, and he won't have a four year history of being able to fight Trump that sitting politicians will have, something I think the Democratic base will value. I would be highly surprised - highly - if the eventual nominee was not a Senator.
 
Aaron Strife said:
Seems more like we'll get another candidate in line with Obama than Sanders!
Click to expand...
When you add up Clinton + Obama then compare to Sanders:

B: S-26, C/O-68, difference of -42
A: S-34, C/O-61, difference of -27
L: S-44, C/O-50, difference of -6
W: S-36, C/O-37, difference of -1
Crab said:
I don't think Biden would do very well. There's nothing he brings to the table that other candidates don't bring in more appealing packages, and he won't have a four year history of being able to fight Trump that sitting politicians will have, something I think the Democratic base will value. I would be highly surprised - highly - if the eventual nominee was not a Senator.
Click to expand...
Biden missed his shot. He would have matched up far better against Trump but we really need to not be nominating another super-old person. I would have no issues w/ Biden being the VP nominee again, however.
 
whyamihere said:
why
Click to expand...

Clinton ran on being Obama 2.0
Sanders ran on being not a democrat.


It's not exactly 100% fair, but it's also not unfair to group it that way.

pigeon said:
You really need second choices for this analysis to be sound I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much why it can only be used as a tepid comparison.
But, that will be true for any analysis of poll results that don't ask the question you are trying to analyze.
 
kirblar said:
Because Obama '08 and Clinton '16 were relatively similar coalitions?

Therefore there's a good chance they'd prefer another candidate in that mold?
Click to expand...

They were similar ish but they weren't 1-1 comparisons. Clinton gained southern blacks but lost Madison/Ann Arbor white liberals from Obama, for one.

Also, 2016 won't be a 1 v 1 race like 08 and 16, so I don't really think what you're suggesting makes any sense.
 
Obama 08 and Clinton 16 weren't identical at all. Obama 08 lost Latino heavy states to Clinton, won union white working class states like Minnesota, Maine, Wisconsin, and Iowa and racked up numerous wins in the rural west. The only real similarity is that they both heavily won the black vote.
 
whyamihere said:
They were similar ish but they weren't 1-1 comparisons. Clinton gained southern blacks but lost Madison/Ann Arbor white liberals from Obama, for one.

Also, 2016 won't be a 1 v 1 race like 08 and 16, so I don't really think what you're suggesting makes any sense.
Click to expand...
It's a 2017 survey including two people who most assuredly will not be involved in future leadership battles.

Therefore, when I read this, I don't read "Clinton/Obama" as literally Clinton/Obama when people are picking them, but more what they represented. And they're close enough to where I'm comfortable grouping them.

This is the same schism we saw during the primaries - Sanders was splitting the white vote 50/50, losing AAs badly.
 
I've seen Latinx as a term online, it's just a gender neutral version of Latino.
Literally just that.

I personally find it incredibly difficult to use it when 30 years of Spanish dictates you use the proper forms to make sense when speaking it. It feels like taking a vowel out of a word.
 
kirblar said:
It's a 2017 survey including two people who most assuredly will not be involved in future leadership battles.

Therefore, when I read this, I don't read "Clinton/Obama" as literally Clinton/Obama when people are picking them, but more what they represented. And they're close enough to where I'm comfortable grouping them.

This is the same schism we saw during the primaries - Sanders was splitting the white vote 50/50, losing AAs badly.
Click to expand...

Or you could think of them as literally Clinton and Obama instead of figuratively as Clinton and Obama and you're grouping them together to make the point you were probably always going to make.
 
studyguy said:
I've seen Latinx as a term online, it's just a gender neutral version of Latino.
Literally just that.

I personally find it incredibly difficult to use it when 30 years of Spanish dictates you use the proper forms to make sense when speaking it. It feels like taking a vowel out of a word.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is throwing me for a loop. Never heard that used before.
 
studyguy said:
I've seen Latinx as a term online, it's just a gender neutral version of Latino.
Literally just that.

I personally find it incredibly difficult to use it when 30 years of Spanish dictates you use the proper forms to make sense when speaking it. It feels like taking a vowel out of a word.
Click to expand...
Right, I feel like it just comes from misunderstanding that latino is already gender neutral.
 
Spoiled Milk said:
Right, I feel like it just comes from misunderstanding that latino is already gender neutral.
Click to expand...

In a sense, I have no qualms with what it's supposed to represent, but just from the Spanish speaking perspective it's inserting an X randomly into a word when grammatically it breaks an entire sentence's structure.
 
studyguy said:
I've seen Latinx as a term online, it's just a gender neutral version of Latino.
Literally just that.

I personally find it incredibly difficult to use it when 30 years of Spanish dictates you use the proper forms to make sense when speaking it. It feels like taking a vowel out of a word.
Click to expand...

Just use the much easier latin@s, or latinos and latinas for a more formal term. Latinx doesnt sound well in spanish at all and sound more like a variant of latin than from latinos.
But yeah, that discussion is something that i can understand but still don't think it is so important, and you should just say whichever genre you want for mixed groups.
 
It's been in so much usage here in LA seeing you all questioning it almost feels a little quaint.

It's more for official/printed uses of the word. In conversation everyone still says "Latino"
 
2020 Dem primary is basically setting up to be The Ultimate Battle of Ultimate Destiny.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Juan Bahama get in the ring.
 
So someone asked this and I"m not sure. I've looked up this recent proposal and can't find anything on it specifically.

Do any of these single payer or medicare for all type bills ever address the need for a unification of medical records?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Fantasy Football Discussion Thread - 2017 Season
68 69 70 71 72
4K
254K
PlayALLtheGames replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
553K
Hideous Snake replied
Top Bottom