Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2019 11:38 pm
Cheating in the 2020 Election

https://gritpost.com/recent-poll-biden-confuses-distorts-support-bernie/

Older respondents were over-represented, and younger voters were under-represented in a recent CNN/SSRS poll gauging support among the 2020 Democratic field of presidential candidates.

In the poll released April 30, Biden is shown with an impressive 24-point edge over Sanders, with 39% of voters saying they supported him, compared to just 15% for the Vermont senator. However, a Grit Post analysis of the results found that the poll largely excluded voters under the age of 50 in coming to that conclusion.

Also, the poll didn’t give respondents the option to offer their approval or disapproval of Sen. Sanders, even though the poll did ask respondents to give their approval or disapproval of lesser-known candidates like Reps. Seth Moulton (D-Massachusetts), Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), and Eric Swalwell (D-California), and even Miramar, Florida mayor Wayne Messam.

“We’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people – or if you have never heard of them. How about Joe Biden?” the poll asked. “How about Pete Buttigieg? … How about Kirsten Gillibrand? … How about Tim Ryan? … How about Eric Swalwell? … How about Seth Moulton?”

The phrase “How about Bernie Sanders?” does not appear in the poll.

In the overall breakdown of how the CNN/SSRS poll arrived at the conclusion that Biden had 39% support to Sanders’ 15%, the age breakdown of respondents shows that the only data available was for ages 50 to 65+. The columns for ages 18-34 and 35-49 all read “N/A,” meaning there weren’t at least 125 people who were part of those age groups participating in the poll to provide an adequate enough representation of the greater U.S. population.

poll
Age breakdown of respondents in a CNN/SSRS poll released April 30, 2019 (Photo: CNN/SSRS)

Confusingly, age breakdowns were included in the “how about” questions, but since respondents were not asked about Sanders in the “how about” section, his support amongst the 18-34 and 35-49 age demographics in that part of the survey was not revealed. In 2016, Sanders’ base was overwhelmingly made up of millennials and Gen-Xers. According to The Economist, Sanders won 70% of voters under 30 in the 2016 Democratic primaries and caucuses, and that number was even higher in some states. Despite losing the Pennsylvania primary, Sanders won 83% of voters under 30.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 12:19 am
@oralloy,

https://able2know.org/topic/468987-363#post-6832902
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 06:30 am
@snood,
Thanks. I wish Warren or Harris would go up more in the polls. Regardless of age, just going by how their appearance, Biden comes across sometimes as frail to my mind. More so than just a couple of years ago. Bernie seems the same as 2016.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 06:39 am
RealClearPolitics always has averages of most of the respected polls. I can't figure out how to get the image of their graphs posted here but the link is below.

RCP
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 06:48 am
Another pollster place is of course 538, about the only one got 2016 right. Nate Silver is talking about the Biden and slight Warren bounce in the polls.

Does Biden’s Polling Bounce Mean Anything?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 06:48 am
I think Harris has a good chance to ascend, she's somewhere in between neolib and progressive.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 07:02 am
@snood,
Quote:
I don’t know why we’d “get stupid” about polling at ANY time - now, or a week before the voting.
Fair point. But at the same time, it is not that polling is valueless.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 12:27 pm
@blatham,
It is valueless to me. I have learned that questions can be slanted to get the answer you want.. I don't trust any polls.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 01:09 pm
@Real Music,
Ihaad exactlyy the same rreactionn. Definitely an ssound and there is no s in yyou. But there iis one in Jews.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 03:18 pm
@Real Music,



Have a bit of patience everyone. I said that I was gong to spend yesterday going to a city to see Endgame. With a movie slightly over three hours, and a bit more than an hour and a half drivetime each way, that took seven hours out of my day yesterday.

And I just got my first bit of free time to get online today.

And my research of the issue is not going to consist of reviewing that one video (which incidentally I had already seen, as hightor posted it in a different thread long before you guys posted it in this thread). I'm going to try to listen to multiple recordings of everything that was chanted throughout the entire day.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 04:36 pm
@RABEL222,
Well then you better talk to every PR/advertising agency in the world as they all pay (often) big money for polling. Likewise, every political campaign in every advanced nation in the world.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 05:38 pm
The following is from today's column in the Post by Margaret Sullivan (previously ombudsman at the NY Times). She's one of the brightest media people around. And I can't recall anything she's written at either paper that has run this many words. Like many of us, she's frightened of what Trump is doing to America and to journalism.

Quote:
It’s a tsunami of lies.

It’s an avalanche of falsehoods. It’s a deluge, a torrent, a rockslide, a barrage, an onslaught, a blitzkrieg.

President Trump has made more than 10,000 false or misleading statements since becoming president — on the size of the inaugural crowd, the number of steel plants being built in America and whether he knew about hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, to name just three.

And as unbelievable as it sounds, the tempo is picking up dramatically.

On Tuesday, an oddsmaker predicted that the prevaricator-in-chief will tell 22,500 false statements by Election Day 2020.

“As the election approaches and the number of rallies, debates and opportunities to discuss policy is magnified, we are expecting all-time highs in the number of false statements from President Trump,” said odds consultant John Lester of BookMaker.eu.

The gambling site sent out its prediction as an email blast on Tuesday, and when I followed up with Lester, he told me that Trump is more likely to bend the truth when he is “caught up in the excitement of crowd reaction” and when he is discussing policy.

The site — which uses The Washington Post’s Fact Checker as its measuring rod — has been burned before by underestimating the president’s tendencies.

After Trump gave his first address from the Oval Office (on border security) last January, the site had to pay out nearly $300,000 to people who had bet that he would tell more than 3½ lies during his televised talk.

“We knew we were in trouble early with this one,” Lester, at the time, told BuzzFeed News. The Post, as it turned out, clocked six presidential falsehoods in that address. The site’s experts had reasoned that Trump would be constrained by the address’s short duration and the fact that the world was watching.

Clearly, they didn’t know who they were dealing with: the greatest.

At some point, and we’ve definitely arrived there, the number of presidential falsehoods overcomes the public’s ability to care.

The thinking seems to go like this: We get it, already. He lies a lot. Now, back to whether James Holzhauer will win big again tonight on “Jeopardy!” or whether the Nationals’ bullpen will get fixed.

But it does matter. Lies — especially repetitive lies — are a crucial part of how propaganda works. Truth is a basic part of a functioning democracy.

And the press is supposed to hold powerful figures accountable for their misdeeds.

So, to do their jobs, the news media can’t engage in business as usual.

Yes, they have to do the hard work of fact-checking and keeping track.

But they also have to bring some new tools and techniques — and maybe a new attitude — to the project.

First off, they should stop using euphemisms, such as the New York Times did the other day when on Twitter it described one particularly brutal falsehood by Trump — that doctors and mothers collaborate to execute newborns — as a case of the president reviving
“an inaccurate refrain.”

As one Twitter wag put it, an inaccurate refrain is when the Jimi Hendrix lyric from “Purple Haze” is bungled as “ ’Scuse me, while I kiss this guy.” This, on the other hand, is a despicable lie.

The Times is far from alone in this tendency to soft-pedal, as Daniel Dale, the excellent Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, told Benjamin Hart of New York magazine.

“I think our job as journalists is to call things what they are. And so if someone commits 100 crimes, you don’t say, ‘We’re gonna call the first two ‘crimes’ and the [rest]’ — I don’t know what the softer word would be — ‘non-legal behavior.’ ”

“If we use the word ‘lie’ 100 times in a week, you know, people are gonna think we’re biased or the word is gonna lose its power. But, to me, if there’s 100 lies, you use the word ‘lie’ 100 times.”

Editors have noted, reasonably enough, that the word lie denotes intentionality, and it’s sometimes unclear if Trump’s misleading statements are always intentional or just what some have called his “word salad.”

But when appropriate, say so, as a Post editorial did recently with this headline on Trump’s border separation policy: “Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper.”

Dale would also like to see reporters challenge the president more directly and more often on false statements, even small ones such as his recently saying that his father was born in Germany, when it was actually New York.

Do it, he suggests, in the president’s frequent, informal gaggles with reporters. (“Why did you say that your father was born in Germany?”)

“I don’t expect that a more confrontational approach would result in him being dramatically exposed and no one supporting him anymore,” he said. But it would be worthwhile anyway.

And look for innovative ways to tell the story of the endless lies, as the Times did in a graphic, putting to rest the often-heard argument from Trump supporters that “all presidents lie, you guys are just picking on our guy.”

None of this, of course, will solve the problem. It’s unlikely to reverse the avalanche or slow the ever-increasing pace.

But it may help an overwhelmed and numbed public find renewed reason to care.
https://wapo.st/2GVQLgZ
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 05:39 pm
Bernie, kicking Trump ass nationwide.
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-trump-midwest/
Bernie Sanders Is Hitting Donald Trump Where It Hurts

Bernie is slyly trolling the president in battleground states, calling out GOP lies about saving jobs.
By John NicholsTwitter YESTERDAY 1:30 PM

Bernie in Pittsburgh
Bernie Sanders waves to a crowd at the University of Pittsburgh on April 14, 2019. (AP / Keith Srakocic)
Bernie Sanders is running against Donald Trump.

Even as he competes with an increasingly crowded field of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, the senator from Vermont is focusing considerable time and creative energy on upending the best-laid plans of the Republican he hopes to defeat in 2020.

No matter who the Democrats nominate when they convene their national convention in Milwaukee next summer, the route to victory will be the same. It runs through the Great Lakes states that had reasonably well-developed patterns of backing Democrats for president right up until they failed to deliver in 2016.

The list includes Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Sanders has visited them all in recent weeks—along with Indiana, a Republican-leaning state that Barack Obama won in 2008 and that strategists believe could be competitive in 2020.

As Sanders says, “You’ve got to show up.” That’s especially true in Wisconsin, where Democratic presidential nominees won in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.

In 2016, after the first campaign in decades when the party’s nominee did not bother to visit the state during the fall campaign, Wisconsin’s electoral votes went to a Republican. Trump barely won, finishing 22,748 votes ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Badger state; but with similarly narrow victories in Michigan and Pennsylvania, the Wisconsin result was enough to give the loser of the national popular vote a Electoral College “win.”

So Sanders, who won a landslide victory in the 2016 Wisconsin Democratic primary, is showing up. He’s not alone in doing so. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar made a stop in the state shortly after announcing her candidacy, and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke has been through several times. And plenty of contenders, including former vice president Joe Biden, are targeting Trump.

But Sanders is going deeper.

What distinguishes the senator’s campaigning in the battleground states is the consistency of his presence and his messaging, which is focused on upending Trump’s claims about job creation and manufacturing.

On April 12, Sanders delivered a fierce rebuke to the president’s approach at an outdoor rally in Madison that, despite blustery weather, drew several thousand supporters. Sanders plans to keep coming back to Wisconsin and other fall battleground states. But it’s what he and his supporters are doing when he is outside the state that could be one of the savviest strategic moves of the 2020 election cycle. While most other Democratic campaigns are focusing messaging and campaign spending on key primary and caucus states, the Sanders camp is turning energy and resources toward the Great Lakes states where Trump is already campaigning.

To this end, Sanders has made Wisconsin a test case for a challenge to the lies the president keeps telling about protecting jobs in general, and manufacturing positions in particular. Those lies are critical to Trump’s reelection strategy in battleground states such as Wisconsin. But the Sanders campaign is not giving the Republican an inch.

When Trump announced that he would hold a rally in the northeastern Wisconsin city of Green Bay on Saturday, April 27, Sanders went to work.

Green Bay is located in the Fox Valley, a historic manufacturing region of Wisconsin where many of the industries are now experiencing plant closings and job cuts. Trump tweeted on April 23: “I will be going to Green Bay, Wisconsin, for a really big Rally on Saturday Evening. Big crowd expected, much to talk about. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Sanders immediately responded, “Trump promised to protect American jobs. He lied, and workers across Green Bay and the Fox Valley have lost their jobs. When we are in the White House, we will end the corporate greed behind the Shopko closures, Kimberly-Clark layoffs and Foxconn scam.”

The senator was referencing job losses in the valley caused by the closures of Shopko department stores and the downsizing of Kimberly-Clark Corp. factories. Sanders also took a shot at the fiasco that has played out since Trump and former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker promised the Taiwan-based technology firm Foxconn $3 billion in state subsidies (now closer to $4.5 billion) in return for a wildly optimistic promise to create 13,000 jobs in southeast Wisconsin. As the company sent mixed signals about actually following through on its commitments, Walker’s already ailing 2018 reelection campaign stumbled, and he was defeated by Democrat Tony Evers.

Two days later, Sanders was back on Twitter, declaring that “Donald Trump betrayed working people in Wisconsin. Our message to President Trump as he visits Green Bay: you’re not going to get away with your lies any longer. We’ll defeat you and protect American jobs.”

The senator’s trolling of the president drew headlines in Wisconsin newspapers, along with radio and television coverage.

Then the Sanders campaign took things to the next level. On the eve of the president’s visit to Green Bay, the Twitter message was amplified by a banner ad on the top of the front page of the local daily newspaper: “Donald Trump Lied to Wisconsin Workers. In a Bernie Sanders White House, we will end the corporate greed behind the Shopko closures, Kimberly-Clark layoffs and Foxconn scam.”

On the day of the Trump event, Sanders backers rallied in Green Bay to challenge presidential claims that have never stood up to serious scrutiny.

What Sanders and his supporters are doing is sly. They won’t neglect the primaries and caucuses that are essential to winning the nomination. But instead of focusing exclusively on the competition with other Democrats, they are messing with Trump—with an eye toward exposing the president’s lies and reframing the fight for the battleground states.

Challenging Trump’s economic claims may not be all that is required for the Democrats to win back states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—and perhaps Ohio and Indiana—in the fall of 2020. The party’s nominee is still going to have to make a convincing case that she or he is prepared to respond to deindustrialization, automation, and all the other challenges faced by factory workers, historic manufacturing communities, and traditional industries.

But Sanders is making a smart start by refusing to surrender territory where Democrats once won presidential races—and where a fighting Democratic Party could win again.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Wed 1 May, 2019 06:49 pm
@blatham,
Yes! A thousand times, yes! It may not do anything, as she says in her piece, but give people a reason to care. But I think that’s so significant right now with us having become so inured to the constant lying. Every reporter - at those press gaggles- at every turn- needs to draw a line every time he lies and say “No sir, that is not true”, or “Sir, why did you say you would release your returns?”

That would be so refreshing , and so different than what they normally do - which is cow down and clam up every time he says “Excuse me!” and then bullies everyone into accepting his effed up word salad of lies.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 04:46 am
@snood,
Yes. The constant avalanche of obvious lies disheartens all of us. That's made worse by our relative helplessness to change conditions that permit and reward such corruption. Media failures of the present period are deep and dangerous, which many recognize, but no one has yet been able to figure out how to combat what's going on. We have to just keep battling. Part of that battle has to include striking at media where they fail, particularly where they become (or are designed to be) propaganda operations.

On the plus side, there's good evidence (a piece was published this week but I can't recall where I read it) that details how motivated Americans are as regards this next election.

I've just ordered a copy of Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism. Have meant to read it for a long while but have concluded that now, I must read it.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 06:30 am
@blatham,
I truly admire your optimism about voters’ levels of motivation and I know we have no real choice but to try to find ways to battle on. What makes it hard for me to share the feeling is the fact that Trump was elected in the first place and seems to be running a criminal operation with minimal resistance.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 06:59 am
@snood,
Now and again, I feel like I'm in a mineshaft collapse. But hope is the only sustainable posture, emotionally and politically.

My political awareness dawned in the early 60s when a news channel out of Washington state (one of two channels we could receive) carried the civil rights conflicts of that period. That movement, along with others like women's suffrage, the union movement, Greenpeace, gay rights etc are the models which I think we must follow. The odds can look bad - the odds can be bad - but we have no other choice.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 07:01 am
Credit where due
Quote:
Fox News host Chris Wallace sought to set the record straight Wednesday, urging viewers not to take “opinion people” — including those on his own network — at face value in regards to their commentary on special counsel Robert Mueller’s letter to Attorney General William Barr.


“I know there are some people who don’t think this March 27 letter is a big deal,” Wallace said. “Some opinion people, some opinion people who appear on this network, who may be pushing a political agenda.”

“But, you know, we have to deal in facts,” he continued. “And the fact is that this letter from the special counsel, and it was one of at least three contacts with the Attorney General between March 25 and March 27, was a clear indication that [Mueller] was upset, very upset, with the letter that had been sent out by the attorney general, and wanted it changed, or wanted it at least added to and the attorney general refused to do so. He felt the attorney general’s letter was inaccurate.”

This take varies wildly from some of Wallace’s peers’ coverage, including Laura Ingraham’s, who called the letter a “non-story.”
http://bit.ly/2GXVAGM
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 07:06 am
Quote:
Barr’s Justice Dept asks court to tear down the ACA in its entirety

...The filing from Trump’s Justice Department has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: it asks the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to tear down “Obamacare” altogether, stripping tens of millions of Americans of their health coverage, and eliminating important health care benefits for millions more.

The evolution of the Republican administration’s position has been extraordinary in its own right. As regular readers know, shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, Donald Trump tried to tell voters that when it came to health care benefits, Republicans were actually more liberal than Democrats. “Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions,” the president tweeted two weeks before Election Day. “Democrats will not!”
https://on.msnbc.com/2GVtCLA

These bastards do not give a tinker's damn about anybody but themselves.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2019 07:24 am
In today's NYTimes is an opinion by Jochen Bittner, a political editor for the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit (a more left-liberal paper with some right-liberal episodes. Bittner is an example of it):
Why Is Socialism Coming Back in Germany?

Quote:
Forget the wannabe socialism of American Democrats like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The 29-year-old Mr. Kühnert is aiming for the real thing. Socialism, he says, means democratic control over the economy. He wants to replace capitalism as such, not just to recalibrate it.

In the United States, policies frequently branded as “socialist” — health care for all, a national minimum wage, and tuition-free universities — have very little to do with actual socialism. Big government, yes — but all of them fit comfortably in a traditional free-market economy.

In contrast, German neo-socialism is profoundly different from capitalism. In an interview with my newspaper, Mr. Kühnert took specific aim at the American dream as a model for individual achievement. He said he questioned a system “in which millions start a race, very few make it over the finishing line and then shout back to the others, ‘You could have made it, too!’”
[...]
Unrestrained capitalism was clearly not what the founders of the West German republic had in mind. “The capitalist economic system did not serve the interests of the German people,” the center-right Christian Democrats declared in 1947. That’s why West Germany was built on the idea of the social market economy — in German, the soziale Marktwirtschaft — in which individual competition was prized, but so was the obligation of the wealthy to help the worse off.

Today, though, the wealthiest are often those with the resources and skill to avoid taxes and ship jobs to China. Often they aren’t even German; Warren Buffett is a major investor in Berlin real estate. Seventy years ago, no one imagined such scenarios, and neither of Germany’s major parties has figured out to to adjust the social market economy to those new international realities.

As a result, some Germans, like Mr. Kühnert, react not with calls to fix these mistakes, but by condemning capitalism outright. What they fail to see is that socialism will not bring the change they seek. On the contrary, offering failed recipes from the past will only make it easier for the profiteers of unfettered capitalism to denounce them. Cousin Werner would have understood this all too well.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 01:36:12