-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 3| "I think he's learned his lesson" says The Concerned Immoderate Darling Collins.
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Not to be dismissive of anyone feeling the pain, because that really sucks, but like... that's all he had going for him. You lose the "well at least the stock market's good, right?" cohort of Trump supporters and you're only left with the ride-or-die assholes who just like that he's openly racist, sexist and every other strand of bigotry you can think of.
And let's be real, a good chunk (probably the overwhelming majority) of those stock market guys are diehard Trumpers who just use the stock market as the acceptable front for supporting him, but still.
If this persists it'll be interesting to see how it affects Trump's approval/GE numbers.
To be fair to Trump (and y'all know I hate being fair to Trump)... most presidents would experience a similar decline in stock market in the face of a global pandemic. It's a legitimate negative stress factor for economic down turn, regardless of who is president of US at the time and how strong the economy is.
But Trump's extra sauce of shitty communication and conference probably resulted in an extra billion dollar loss in the stocks so he has that going for him.
But Trump's extra sauce of shitty communication and conference probably resulted in an extra billion dollar loss in the stocks so he has that going for him.
Another good poll for Biden, who has been climbing fast in Virginia as Sanders has dropped over the past week. Not a huge shift delegate-wise, but demographically significant.
Well the problem is that Trump regularly makes a point of bragging about how high it is, like it's only because of him or whatever.
How often did you hear Obama personally take credit for the stock market? I remember early on in his presidency he encouraged people to start investing, but it seemed like once things stabilized he didn't talk about it much.
Data For Progress has Bernie +9 over Biden between 2/23 and 2/25
I know you've gotten dogpiled on this, but it really is an opinion and a highly unrealistic possibility. It makes it seem like you really just learned about Warren in the last year. Because otherwise you'd know she has a longstanding friendship with Bernie AND a longstanding dislike/possible loathing of Biden. And Warren wants progressive legislation passed. The idea that she'd suddenly abandon all of that and her friendship with Bernie (to the benefit of someone she doesn't like) over a spat from a month ago that happened during a primary where she's actively trying to win is ridiculous. If she does endorse Biden, I'll apologize to you. But you're basing this off her attacking a primary rival at a weak spot and ignoring her history with him before this all happened.
Well also we might be seeing such a drastic fall because Trump has been artificially inflating the economy by slashing interest rates and printing money like crazy. We've basically been using recession tactics during an economic "boom". So I think it's crashing much harder than it would under a normal president because those huge gainss were a mirage in the first place
Yeah, I saw that too. Super weird, especially because Biden literally only started gaining in the polls, Sanders dropping in Virginia in the last week at best.
Ali Zaslav @alizaslavGOP Rep Upton: "Everyone is scrambling for information" & said members are frustrated about not getting a lot of their questions answered on #coronavirus
"It needs to be all hands on deck... there's a lot of work that has to be done" to @mkraju
"It needs to be all hands on deck... there's a lot of work that has to be done" to @mkraju
10:05 AM - Feb 28, 2020
That doesn't make any sense since D4P has Bernie up.... this week!
Regarding Trump and the stock market.
First, his ballooning deficits may have played some part in the Fed's decision to keep rates lower for longer than they should, and to print more money recently which was the main reason for the surge in stocks since September. Trump has also been very vocal publicly about the Fed not doing enough to help stocks, whereas previous Presidents respected their independence. So Trump has a role to play in the bubble, which makes the resulting deflation of said bubble a bigger event.
Second, one of the things that really annoys me about the clown is the selective responsibility. When the market is going up it's day after day of taking personal credit for it. When it's crashing, he's MIA. If he wants to own it on the way up, then he owns it in weeks like this too, but of course the baby never takes responsibility for anything. The buck stops with everyone, also I'm the only one that matters. Again, previous Presidents have not tried to own the stock market like he does.
Third, his failure to inform, calm and reassure this week was a big reason the markets tanked even more. A leadership vacuum creates uncertainty and markets hate uncertainty. A better President might still have seen more drops in the stock market but it probably wouldn't have been as drastic as this.
First, his ballooning deficits may have played some part in the Fed's decision to keep rates lower for longer than they should, and to print more money recently which was the main reason for the surge in stocks since September. Trump has also been very vocal publicly about the Fed not doing enough to help stocks, whereas previous Presidents respected their independence. So Trump has a role to play in the bubble, which makes the resulting deflation of said bubble a bigger event.
Second, one of the things that really annoys me about the clown is the selective responsibility. When the market is going up it's day after day of taking personal credit for it. When it's crashing, he's MIA. If he wants to own it on the way up, then he owns it in weeks like this too, but of course the baby never takes responsibility for anything. The buck stops with everyone, also I'm the only one that matters. Again, previous Presidents have not tried to own the stock market like he does.
Third, his failure to inform, calm and reassure this week was a big reason the markets tanked even more. A leadership vacuum creates uncertainty and markets hate uncertainty. A better President might still have seen more drops in the stock market but it probably wouldn't have been as drastic as this.
Ah shoot, I actually misread my graph. It's Sanders who overtook Biden in the past week or two, not the other way around. Though both Biden and Bloomberg have since gotten good polls recently and Sanders does seem to be dipping a little. That does explain why Biden is so far up though, since he was polling 30+ at the start of February.
My dad is fairly furious about all of this since he planned to retire this year or next. He has been trying to log into Vanguard to see what's up but the site seems hammered. And he didn't even put money in that early plus he already hates Trump.
Can't even imagine what the actual white boomers are feeling right now who spend all their day counting their money and looking at these graphs/numbers.
Can't even imagine what the actual white boomers are feeling right now who spend all their day counting their money and looking at these graphs/numbers.
The audience will be vetted by Fox News. It'll be a MAGA rally.
My math might be wrong, but the DJ is now closer to its number at inauguration than its high two weeks ago.
The more vocal online leftists only recently learning more about other candidates and wildly jumping to the worst possible assumption about Sanders' primary rivals that make zero sense in historical context is hardly a new phenomenon to 2020.
Fondly remembering the "why doesn't Obama just endorse Bernie already? Everyone knows he HATES Hillary" takes from 2016 based on foggy memories of their 2008 primary fight that preceded Obama giving Hillary the most important job in his administration.
Which should also demonstrate how dumb it is to assume that Warren and Sanders having a fairly banal argument over something during a primary being this definitive, friendship-ending moment that leads to Warren turning coat for the bad guys. Biden said during one of the debates Obama winning would be a fairy tale. Hillary justified staying in the race longer than she needed to by suggesting Obama could be assassinated. These were things that really happened. Didn't stop Obama from teaming up with either of them. Warren and Sanders are adults, they'll come to an understanding and by all accounts they've already put it behind them, Warren is not secretly caping for Biden, ffs.
His decision to own the stock market stems from, well obviously the fact that he and his rich buddies are the primary benefactors, but it's also the only thing he's got going for him where like, ~95% of America would agree the stock market rising is a good thing (leaving some margin of error there for the super-leftists who oppose capitalism in general).
I see why he does it but there's also a very good reason, as you pointed out, why past presidents do not try and own the ebbs and flows of the stock market, because they have zero control over it.
Last edited:
I mean, this is the dude that once said "the buck stops with everyone" during an interview.
He's incapable of assuming responsibility for anything.
What I really long for in this thread is to stop calling candidates centrists if they are anywhere to the right of Sanders. None of the candidates with explicit policy details are centrist at this point. All of them are more left than the party was 10 years ago.
It's a way of otherizing, it's tribal, and tribalism is at the root of most of the problems with this country. Well, tribalism and its exploitation by people who use it to leverage power and money.
It's a way of otherizing, it's tribal, and tribalism is at the root of most of the problems with this country. Well, tribalism and its exploitation by people who use it to leverage power and money.
Now that is painful. It's bad enough to lose in your own state, but to for her to lose women? Even at my worst I wouldn't wish this much pain on Warren.
These numbers are putting years on my life. Even his numbers with Black people are great to say the least.The best people
This looks like one of those Alex Ross drawings of a supervillain.
You can tell how much he's loving this. lol
I hadn't noticed the actual shift. Bernie just gobbled up her support.
Biden ran out of money weeks ago and has been terrible at organizing in many of these ST states for months. That and Utah dems being super liberal as a reaction to the super conservative majority.
It's also a generational thing that the few people are really getting.
Why Younger Democrats Are Overwhelmingly Rejecting Biden
Do all younger Democrats have an Uncle Joe that they hate or something? Because there’s a good chance that Democrats under the age of 45 will prove crucial in p…
fivethirtyeight.com
I think the takeaway from this primary will end up being that the black vote alone is no longer critical. If you can't build good majority support with hispanics and the youth then you'll crash and burn.
Everyone has continued to put it in terms of points, so I hadn't given it much thought, but when you put it in terms of real dollars that is fucking MASSIVE. Like, alarm bells need to be going off kinda massive. I don't see how his presidency survives if this continues to get worse.
Yeah good luck with that. Anyone to Sanders' right is a Republican. This thread isn't bad about that, but Etc is another story.
I think it's fair. It looks likely to be a legitimately disruptive and destructive outbreak that even good public health mitigation plans would struggle to cope with. Couple that with a recession in an election year, and I think most incumbent presidents would be tossed out on their asses, whether they are charismatic, honest and competent, or lying dumb-ass. clownfreaks.
It's weird to think I spend so much time and pay so much attention to politics day-to-day out of an attempt to control the horrible anxiety that conservatism and Trump give me — but that at a macro level, none of those details may matter. The story of the end of the Trump presidency may well be summed up with just the name of a virus and a negative GDP figure.
(And maybe a death toll.)
90% of this framing comes from where someone stands on M4A, ignoring all the others policies.
Warren is on the left of Sanders on several issues, like gun laws and changing the filibuster. And even on M4A she has the most comprehensive and "practical" version of M4A. I belch when I hear people calling Warren a centrist/moderate.
Both Pete and Biden have fairly progressive policies as well with Buttiegeg going even further on reforming the judicial system (which again Sanders is not for). The difference among these candidates is completely a matter of framing, messaging and presentation than actual policies. Pete/Biden are about making friends across the aisle, Warren/Bernie are about taking the fight to the corruption and greed.
Geoff Bennett @GeoffRBennett
NEWS: @RepGaramendi tells @HallieJackson that at this morning's coronavirus Hill briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci told lawmakers he "was not muzzled" by the VP's office but that Fauci was told *not to do a series of planned Sunday show interviews
10:27 AM - Feb 28, 2020
NEWS: @RepGaramendi tells @HallieJackson that at this morning's coronavirus Hill briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci told lawmakers he "was not muzzled" by the VP's office but that Fauci was told *not to do a series of planned Sunday show interviews
10:27 AM - Feb 28, 2020
Jonathan Martin on Twitter
“.@timkaine - the Virginia senator and former gov who was Hillary’s running mate in 2016 - is coming out for @JoeBiden”
twitter.com
the all important loser VP endorsement!
The takeaway should be more nuanced. The black vote is not a monolith, for one, and there are stark differences between older black voters and younger ones. Like almost any other demographic.
Jonathan Martin on Twitter
“.@timkaine - the Virginia senator and former gov who was Hillary’s running mate in 2016 - is coming out for @JoeBiden”
the all important loser VP endorsement!
Noted kingmaker (checks notes) Tim Kaine
Sorry for the long post! Figured I'd make this just so people can agree/disagree with my thought process on this one.
See, the problem is that most people's opinion about the Sanders+Warren relationship stems from their skin-deep friendly attitude towards each other on the early debate stage and that report that Sanders was considering the possibility of Warren as VP+Treasury. It's not actually much to base an assumption on.
It's especially thin when you consider that Warren has been very loyal to the Democratic Party for a very long time now. She might be much more progressive than most of the party, but she's still a card carrying member. She still chose not to run in 2016 against Clinton. She still chose to not endorse Sanders against Clinton despite his opportunity. She didn't endorse Clinton, but there were several reports that Warren was on Clinton's shortlist for VP or cabinet positions. She doesn't do activist votes like Sanders -- she follows the party whip. In so many words, Warren may not love Biden, but she absolutely trusts the party and powers that be that are making him the more moderate front-runner.
Another other important factor to consider is Warren's new superpac. This isn't just some random superpac. This is an incredibly wealthy powerhouse superpac with a clear and focused agenda. It was formed specifically at a date where it wouldn't have to reveal its donors until 60% of delegates are assigned. It's already spent 14 million dollars and is certain to spend more. 9 million on three Super Tuesday states alone.
I won't argue that the states Warren's superpac is targeting aren't important. Being viable in both Cali and Texas would mean she'd probably get more delegates than Buttigieg + Klob. And she needs to win Mass. otherwise she'll be asked to drop out. However, its strategy very clearly points to a picture of targeting Sanders-strong states and avoiding Biden-strong states. Warren is in the error range of 15% in more than half of Super Tuesday states, but her Superpac is targeting just 3. That's legit crazy, considering how wealthy the pac is. For comparison's sake, Biden's superpack (which spent almost 7 million in Iowa alone) is spending just under $700,00 across... 14 states. That's what dedicated Superpacs planning to support candidates do. So why isn't Warren's doing that?
And as much as folk have disagreed with me, I still think it's important to bring up that Warren is being forecasted to have just a 1% (.6% now) chance at the nomination period. She's already out. She's guaranteed to know this. Any candidate in her position should be pivoting to their post-dropout plan, like Buttigieg clearly is. Yet she spent the last debate attacking Sanders as much or more than other candidates (okay, Buttigieg was clearly more enthusiastic in his attacks). If Warren was planning eventual Sanders support, this past week would have been the most crucial time for her to lay off and focus instead on not just Bloomberg, but also Biden. Except she didn't attack Biden whatsoever. This is the week we should have seen who Warren was planning to support -- maybe we did.
While I do think the Warren/Sanders feud was a lot of political theater, I do think it showed that their "relationship" isn't as deep as many think. I also think it shows Warren's more involved with the strategic planning of the party to try and hurt Sanders at the polls.
Warren is an incredibly smart person. She's very well known for behind-the-scenes politicking. If Warren was going to support Sanders eventually, I have zero doubt we'd be seeing significant evidence of it, not just in the past week or two, but for months now. A perceived Warren+Sanders alliance is part of what helped launch Sanders above Biden, after all. Warren's support could, i think, easily be helping Sanders dominate on Super Tuesday. But instead she's helped hurt him (debate + super pac). In the grand scheme of things, if we're measuring this on a scale it slides toward Warren not backing Sanders -- even if there's no absolutely definitive evidence one way or another.
It's not a certainty. And I'll repeat that I'm not even saying that I'm persuaded. I just believe it's very much something folk need to consider when looking toward scenarios of a contested convention or post-Super Tuesday factions. I hope I'm wrong! I genuinely do.
I meant to type that is no longer the only critical vote. This is the sort of thing that happens when politics is split between two different parts of the forum. Typos and mixups are bound to happen. Don't pile up on me, everyone.
Sanders does have really good support among the black community, though, just not so much moderate Southern black voters, who have been in the Biden lane this whole time. I still think that you can't win a Democratic primary without at least a chunk of black support (hey Pete! hey Amy!) but I agree with you that Latinos and young people are going to be really important moving forward. That's a good thing!
I'm reminded of a female friend of mine who said she doesn't like Warren because she doesn't like aggressive women. And another who won't vote for her because of electability concerns (although I think doesn't even like her anyway; her preference is Klob).
Warren is popular enough in MA but she's not a slam dunk favorite here like Bernie in VT or Klobuchar in MN.
The thing is, how does Bernie polling poorly among older black voters portend for his chances in driving up black voter turnout in PA, MI, WI, NC, etc. come November? Can he juice turnout among Latinos and younger black voters to overcome his deficit with older black voters? Will older black voters turn out for Bernie in the general even if they don't in the primary?
Latinos are also not a monolith, and while he may be able to ride that support to wins in the primary, and it may help us flip AZ and potentially NC in the general, I can't help but feel he's totally sunk with Florida at the same time.
- Status