Trump will surely spin, but as you said: who cares about facts? If facts matter, then lies matter.

Your what-ifs don't relate to reality enough to be plausible I'm afraid. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you mean by this...

Are you saying that those conditions will not be realized?

Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that. — Xtrix

I figured out the election.

What do you think of Trump dumping Pence and choosing ... Bernie! Right now the left is angry that the DNC has schemed to prop up Joe Biden in order to "coalesce" around cognitively impaired Joe. And the same people who were themselves calling him that just a few weeks ago, are now pretending to be outraged that I would dare call him that. Why, it's just like those vile health smears on Hillary in 2106. Yeah till the day they had to throw her in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.

So where do the Bernie bros go? Some will stay home, some will vote for Trump, some will hold their nose and vote for sleepy Joe. What if Trump dumps Pence -- which he should anyway, Pence has a very weird and creepy vibe and adds no value to the administration at all -- and picks Bernie. And explains it: "Yes we disagree on specifics, but we both know things in this country have to change! And we are listening to the people!"

I say that ticket wins fifty states.

You're such a fan of my outlandish ideas that I thought I'd run this by you. What do you think?

By the way Whoopi Goldberg just said Hillary should run as Joe's VP. I am curious as to why you think my idea is so outlandish when Hillary's name is in the news every single day, usually linked to speculation about her either being VP or stepping in when Biden inevitably needs to be replaced. I can agree with you that this is an unlikely scenario. But for you to say my idea is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of consideration ... I don't get that. It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me. My Bernie idea is original.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/she-would-be-brilliant-whoopi-goldberg-says-hillary-clinton-should-be-vice-president

So Whoopi is secretly a fan of Trump?

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

I wouldn't consider personal finance trivial. When I hear trivial I think obvious and easy. I think it requires discipline and rejecting materialism. I also think it requires resourcefulness and being able to squeeze extra income sources out of places that many people wouldn't think to go to. It allows one to map out and be conscious/take control of their own future.

Why scrap it? -- life is just unfair, and that's the way it is. No?

I may have been unclear; I'm not just "on board" with all unfairness. In the case of the war on drugs I believe the government is overstepping its bounds. A lot of technological advancement isn't "fair" - workers get put out of work, but ultimately it is for the better. The war on drugs is just overwhelmingly negative... the only people who "win" I guess would be the agencies that receive federal funding, but "the people" certainly don't. At least the consumers win when we get lower prices as a result of better technology and other jobs are created elsewhere.

I'll have to pull a Socrates and pick on the word "fair," in this case. You're sounding a bit like Thomas Hobbes to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I mean human life. This point should be pretty uncontentious - some of us have full, wonderful lives and others have short and terrible lives. Even if you were to put people in some sort of utopia I'd still consider this a facet of human existence... you would still have miserable people. You will always have miserable people unless your utopia involves drugging people up until they're zombies. There's always winners and losers in society. I'm not judging the losers; I'm just stating how it is.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair."

This is fine, with the exception that you need to be careful in cases where you disenfranchise one group to empower another. I'm fine with making plenty of things more fair, but we just need to talk about the specifics and how its implemented.

I do notice this though: People tend to push for equality in areas where they're disenfranchised. If genetic scientists were able to come up with a way to control human height or good looks who do you think would be pushing for equality in that area? Probably short and ugly people. People tend to be interested in equalizing the playing field in areas where they're disadvantaged and then they ignore other ones where they're fine. However, equalizing all playing field just isn't a remotely reasonable option (my reference point here is disability communities.)

Politics, additionally, does have the potential to touch every domain of human affairs. This is of course not what the founding fathers had in mind, but we both know this idea has been demonstrated.

Bernie would not accept. Trump has been part of the political corruption on both sides of it... the buyer and the seller of public policy.

Whoopie Goldberg is clueless. As a black prominent influence she ought be ashamed of it. But of course, she doesn't know she's clueless, because she believes the democrat narrative. It's false.

During the Clinton era, the DNC prided itself upon the notion of black(low income) people being able to purchase their own homes. The American Dream for everybody!!! The Clinton administration 'reached across the aisle' and repealed Glass Steagall allowing the financial industry to sow and cultivate the seeds of the the '08 crash which devastated so many of those hopeful home owners. In addition, the DNC also took public assistance from those who needed it most, and perpetuated the movement of everyday average American good jobs(opportunities) overseas.

All supported by the notion of centrists/moderates "getting things done".

The results... more inferior low quality choices... disservices, cheap goods, and low pay, low quality employment. Yay globalism!!! Go Hillary. Go Biden. Way to get things done! Way to be the ones to reach across the aisle!

Etc.

That's exactly why Bernie has said on numerous occasions that he saw very little difference between the two parties. They have both enacted legislation that caused unnecessary demonstrable financial harm to the most vulnerable Americans, as well as the overwhelming majority.

The DNC has caused tremendous harm to black Americans. Let us not forget the three strikes and your out(in prison) for misdemeanor(now legal) marijuana charges.

What evidence am I ignoring? I haven't ignored the polling, I just don't think a raw reading of the polls tells the whole story - note how variable they are. This suggests a higher degree of error in them than the statistical analysis suggests. — Relativist

Yet this is the only reliable evidence we have. Do you admit this or not?

Looking at polling aggregates is important. Yes, there is variation and margins of error. But overall, polling is very predictive and accurate. What do you really understand about polling? Do you understand the process behind it? The statistics behind it? If you do, then you'll realize how important they are. In that case, why the qualifications and skepticism about certain polls and not others? Notice Trump is doing the same thing: a poll comes out that's somewhat favorable to him, he'll tout it. If not, he'll point out how inaccurate polling is, and will give specific examples (his favorite, of course, is the 2016 election).

Polling isn't the only evidence, but when it comes to elections it's the best singe piece of evidence we have.

The 1st general election I voted in was 1972. I was a big-time fan of George McGovern. He was very liberal, and very popular among young voters like me. We believed he would change the course America was on. I was so enamored of his message that I was convinced he could win. Nixon trounced him election 520 to 17 electoral votes. There are parallels to Bernie: appeal to the young; ideologically far from the center. And supporters who think with their hearts instead of their heads. — Relativist

I'm sure you're aware that this comparison has also been made in the media, many times. Before even getting into it, is this historical fact (and parallels) MORE important that polling data, or less? Again, I would argue FAR LESS. Why? Well look at the polling in 1972. What did the polls say. Not "what did enthusiastic, young-spirited, idealistic liberals" think and feel, but what did the data show? Did they take good polls back then? Did they have statistical tools? Turns out, they did. So what did the polls say? I'll let you look them up yourself, if you're interested in doing so. Don't take my word for it.

But assuming my claim is true about polls AND your comparison is also assumed to be accurate in that there are striking parallels (which I agree with, BTW) to McGovern's and Bernie's campaigns, what would our prediction be? We already know the outcome, of course, but that's beside the point. I would conclude that any kind of "landslide" victory would show up in polling prior to it happening -- if polling is worth anything at all, it should at least do that. Turns out, it did. Again, you can look up the numbers yourself -- this isn't controversial.

So McGovern was Bernie in 1972, with polling indicating he would lose handily to a popular incumbent.

Switch gears to 2020, where polling indicates Bernie slightly ahead of Trump, averaging 5 percentage points. Maybe 3 polls show Trump winning, by no more than 5 points, in over six months and, in fact, show only Bernie winning since late January.

Biden averages 6.4 percentage points.

Republicans are much more likely to say "the polling is biased," Bernie people will perhaps say the same thing because he's not polling as well as Biden is nationally. But they are what they are. Do we argue that every credible polling source -- Pew, Gallop, major newspapers, etc., when taken as an average, are all biased? No. It's the best information we have.

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. Consequently I know a lot of Republicans. Some of them aren't happy with Trump, but they're downright scared of Bernie. Most consider Biden safe and acceptable. This is consistent with what I've read and heard from never-Trumper Republicans in the news. I've heard no Republicans express the converse view, that they could live with Bernie, but not Biden. — Relativist

Sorry, but this is anecdotal.

Polling can be a tool for a very specific purpose. The questions can be asked in very specific ways to a very targeted audience. The results can then be custom tailored to suit the needs of those using them as evidence to influence public narrative and/or beliefs.

That's the reality.

Prior to placing any value, any confidence, or basing any belief upon polling results, there are some questions that need to be answered.

What were the exact questions asked and in what order and/or context? How were the participants chosen?

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. — Relativist

That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'...

You make some good points, so I'm reconsidering. I'll review the latest polling in swing states and see what they tell us.

One thing that doesn't seem to be measurable is voter turnout. e.g. Turnout by African Americans was the difference in Obama winning and Hillary losing. On this measure, Biden's popularity with blacks is important. — Xtrix

Finally, I live in Texas, and worked for an oil company 33 years. — Relativist


That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'... — creativesoul

Bigot.

You work for an industry that receives tremendous amounts of government assistance(subsidies), despite the huge record breaking profits realized until fairly recently. You work for an industry that overcharged consumers... exploited them... all the while having nearly all the risk being offset by common people's(exploited people) taxes.

Not just poor people either. Everyone pays at the pump.

Biden is much less of a threat to your own personal well-being...

Since oil has dropped to well under 50 dollars a barrel... when do you figure the exploited people get to see a real savings at the pump?

What about all those fuel surcharges five or ten years back? You know, the ones used to jack up all the travel, and shipping costs because the price of oil was well over a hundred dollars a barrel? The airlines used it as a reason to charge for luggage. When do we see the savings return since those circumstances no longer hold???

I know all of these circumstances are not personally due to you... they are however, directly tied to the industry you work in. The culture... oil industry... goes quite a ways in explaining why you've been arguing what you have been about electability. Biden or Trump is better for your industry than Bernie.

Bernie is better for average everyday American people...

Nevermind all the environmental issues...

Bigot?

That's funny. I may be a lot of things, and accused of being even more, but that's the first time I've ever been accused of bigotry. Shows me that your reasoning skills are lacking on the matter. It's not that I'm intolerant of your opinion on the matter. To quite the contrary, I can perfectly understand why and how you would believe what you do.

I'm intolerant of the public disservices, misinformation, and propaganda that helped forge it.

I am curious as to why you think my idea is so outlandish when Hillary's name is in the news every single day, — fishfry

It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me. — fishfry

Ugh. Come on.

Ok, but then the point is trivial - and I don't mean that disparagingly.

I wouldn't consider personal finance trivial. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not what I said.

But regardless, we're discussing politics, which is something we've created, not a factual claim about life itself. Within that specific domain, I just don't think we can observe unfair policies, laws, etc., and say "well lots of things are unfair."

This is fine, with the exception that you need to be careful in cases where you disenfranchise one group to empower another. I'm fine with making plenty of things more fair, but we just need to talk about the specifics and how its implemented. — BitconnectCarlos

Sounds good to me. And I myself am not particularly worried about the 0.01% of the population who will be "disenfranchised."



No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-are-all-right/

Bigot? — creativesoul

Yes, because you assume that the company that employed me (note the past tense; I'm retired) defines my political deology. Here's some other things about me:

I grew up poor. My dad was a cook in a diner, my mom was a grocery store clerk. I was able to go to college because my father was over 65, and at the time, there was a social security benefit for children of retirees if they were in college (Reagan killed this BTW). I knew college was my way out of poverty, so I took advantage of my opportunity and got a degree in a field that was well-paying. The job opportunities in Houston are predominantly in the oil business. I have no regrets. The object of the game was to get out of poverty. I did. What's wrong with that? Is that not part of your vision?

I never forgot where I came from, and how I got out of it: government assistance, and I'm both angered and saddened that the opportunities available to me to climb out of poverty have disappeared. Cost of college and health care are barriers that keep the poor chained to their circumstances.

That would explain the push for Biden and the attempt to portray Bernie as 'unelectable'... — creativesoul

I have given my honest analysis. I may be wrong. Xtrix provided some cogent reasons to think I might be. You have just been an asshole.

Yes, and please do.

You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of).

Bernie's looking good in this debate. I don't see it changing things, but I'm glad it happened.

No, the reality is that polling is and has been very accurate indeed. There are bad polling sources, but the credible ones have been consistent for decades. We're talking here about presidential elections. — Xtrix

Are you denying that what I wrote is true?

Yes, because you assume that the company that employed me (note the past tense; I'm retired) defines my political ideology... — Relativist

I assumed nothing of the sort. To quite the contrary, that was a conclusion... your being employed by the oil industry explained all the common misconceptions that were grounding your opinion regarding electability. It made perfect sense how and why one would believe what you do...

...according to your participation here..

Bernie's looking good in this debate. I don't see it changing things, but I'm glad it happened. — Xtrix

There is enough footage to stitch together the big picture...

Leaders need good judgment.

Biden showed a lack thereof during the debate tonight when he did not recognize that one can point out something good in another foreign government without condoning everything about it. This tied to another... his accusing Bernie of using a republican talking point(canard). The tie is one of double standards. Joe's narrative regarding Cuba closely resembled the earlier piece of propaganda put forth here by the vampire.

Biden's record shows that he judged incorrectly during key times on key pieces of legislation. Joe is part of the problem... and has been.

Good leaders are right at the time. Joe had to come around to it later.

Joe talks all about what he's gonna do to help eliminate/resolve problems that he himself helped to create by virtue of being wrong at the time. He says he's going to do something to correct his own mistakes of past...

Here's some other things about me:

I grew up poor. My dad was a cook in a diner, my mom was a grocery store clerk. I was able to go to college because my father was over 65, and at the time, there was a social security benefit for children of retirees if they were in college (Reagan killed this BTW). I knew college was my way out of poverty, so I took advantage of my opportunity and got a degree in a field that was well-paying. The job opportunities in Houston are predominantly in the oil business. I have no regrets. The object of the game was to get out of poverty. I did. What's wrong with that? Is that not part of your vision? — Relativist

Nothing at all wrong with that. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

I never forgot where I came from, and how I got out of it: government assistance, and I'm both angered and saddened that the opportunities available to me to climb out of poverty have disappeared. Cost of college and health care are barriers that keep the poor chained to their circumstances. — Relativist

We share the same concerns here.

You have just been an asshole. — Relativist

Of that... I very well may be guilty. Hard to tell in this medium.

I thought I made it clear that my issue is not you personally... but rather... my issue is how and why you've come to believe what you have. Public disservices... commonly held false beliefs...

Yes, and please do.

You're right about turnout -- that's harder to predict. My "hunch" tells me that enthusiasm matters, but that doesn't seem to be panning out for Bernie with younger voters (who he wins 80% or so of). — Xtrix

This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that?

Florida (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there.

Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)- polls are mixed as to who wins, but all polls show Biden winning by a higher margin than Bernie, or losing by a lower margin. 7 of the 12 Republican win scenarios depend on Pennsylvania; it's winnable, but not a sure thing.

Michigan (16 electoral votes) lots of polls; some show advantage for Bernie, some for Biden. Michigan is in 8 of the 12 combinations for a Trump win.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Trump wins some polls, loses others. Biden wins by greater margin than Bernie, or loses by a smaller margin. (NC is in 7 of the 12 Trump winning combinations). Winnable, but not a sure thing.

Arizona (11 electoral votes) Biden has better margin than Bernie in 2 of the 3 recent polls.

Wisconsin(10 electoral votes) Negligible difference between Bernie and Biden.

Polling can be a tool for a very specific purpose. The questions can be asked in very specific ways to a very targeted audience. The results can then be custom tailored to suit the needs of those using them as evidence to influence public narrative and/or beliefs.

That's the reality.

Prior to placing any value, any confidence, or basing any belief upon polling results, there are some questions that need to be answered.

What were the exact questions asked and in what order and/or context? How were the participants chosen? — creativesoul

Are you denying that what I wrote is true? — creativesoul

I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.

So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed.

This website shows the importance of the most populous swing states. It shows there to be 12 combinations of these states that can result in a Trump win. So I examined the most recent polls from those states. It indeed shows Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than Bernie (details below). You convinced me to focus solely on the polls, and they indeed show Biden has a better chance. Can you now accept that? — Relativist

Of course, as I have from the beginning. I said from the beginning that that was a very reasonable position to take. But that was not what the narrative was when Bernie looked like he was winning the nomination, and not what you claimed either. You said you agreed that Bernie wasn't electable, which is what the DNC was pushing all along and which, as has been shown, is nonsense. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's not a trivial distinction. To say Bernie was "unelectable" implies he would lose to Trump which, when you look at the only good evidence we have, clearly isn't true. To say Biden is 1% ahead of Bernie in national polls, and voting for him because of it, is a very different position.

Florida (29 electoral votes) Trump beats both, but Biden (49-51) has a more realistic chance than Bernie (47-53). Florida is a must win for Trump (Florida is in 11 of the 12 winning combinations for Trump), so it's a big deal to have a chance there. — Relativist

Very true.

By the way, it's more helpful (I think) to look at polling averages, as they do fluctuate.

Given this, Trump leads Florida over Biden by 1.3%.

Biden leads Trump in PA by 3.8%, Michigan by 4.8%, North Carolina 3.4%, Arizona 3.8%.

They're tied in Wisconsin.

That's not bad, so far. I'd like those to be much, much higher, but at least it's competitive. Also, surprisingly, in Texas, Trump is up on average 2.6%. That's really big news for the Democrats.

Joe should focus on Pennsylvania and Michigan, especially, and then Florida. If he puts in time in AZ and NC, then I think he has a good shot of winning, given Trump's unpopularity. But you never know what happens between now and November. So far, this coronavirus response is not helping him. His base won't leave him, but independents will. And they're the ones who swung the election.

Although I went too far when I claimed Bernie was unelectable, the fact is that the data suggests he's got a lesser chance than Biden. Do you agree that it's reasonable to take that into account when voting in the primary? IOW, if my top priority is to get rid of Trump, it makes the most sense to nominate the guy more likely to win.

On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk.

Just want to make a quick assertion regarding wealth distribution (please challenge it if possible):

Coronavirus is costing the global economy trillions of dollars. It has the potential to throw us into a prolonged recession (especially if covid-19 sticks around as a seasonal illness). In short, the economy is being decimated.

Now... My assertion: who is this going to affect the most? You would think that trillions in losses would be hitting the wealthiest the most, but because the costs are somewhat spread out, it is imposing the same absolute costs on roughly everyone (the cost of temporary shut down and medical expense). Therefore, in the short term, those most seriously impacted will be those who are already the most impoverished (anyone living paycheck to paycheck, and below), while anyone with established wealth can happily ride things out until the economy normalizes.

Small businesses will be crushed by this, eventual evictions of families will ensue due to missed payments. Basic quality of life necessities will be sacrificed or missed by many individuals...

And when stocks are at their lowest when we finally turn the corner on the covid, those who were strong enough to survive the squeeze will be left to buy or claim the sudden influx of business and market-share of their failed competitors.

In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart?

And when stocks are at their lowest when we finally turn the corner on the covid, those who were strong enough to survive the squeeze will be left to buy

You would need to be able to call the bottom, which is easier said than done. There's nothing quite like "buying the bottom" only to have things drop another 15-20%. I also think it takes some guts to deploy capital after, say, the dow has been bleeding for 3-4 months.

I'll tell you my strategy - wait until covids cases maybe worldwide (or at least in the US) have started to decrease for 3 days or so then maybe jump back in.

So, I think some rich are gonna get wrecked and some will do well if they're able to time things perfectly. I don't have the exact breakdown nor do I quite know what you're referring to as rich.

During the early Bronze Age when civilizations first appeared, humans organized themselves similarly to beehives. Workers in the fields brought the produce into the temple complex where a portion went to the temple itself, and the rest was distributed back to the people by the will of the king. If you're an individual in this world, your well-being is tied directly to the king's well-being because he's the hub of the organization that gave you life in the first place.

Free markets first appeared around the time of the Bronze Age Collapse. It's speculated that they appeared because of the loss of kingly hubs, but they may have also been a factor in the collapse because people who depend on a market don't depend on kings.

The same thing happened again in Europe around the time of the Crusades. European organization was like a multitude of little beehives. The transition out of this to the rebirth of cities was a result of the rebirth of trade and marketeers.

We live along a progression past the eclipse of the European aristocracy. Yet there's still a beehive-like character to our world. It's just not kings at the hub. It's capitalists.

I don't think there is any social contract that's being stretched.