Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[GeneticBlueprint]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105

 

Harris campaign about to implode, it seems.

Her first debate performance was awesome. That moved the needle for me on her. Not enough to overcome my top two preferences, but it put her solidly in 3rd or 4th for me. But she's squandered that boost to say the least.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Her student loan forgiveness plan was just lol. Like there are not good plans and no plans, but hers was a league of it's own

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Citations needed

[Massdriver]

Carbon taxes (or at least pricing carbon) shouldn't be the only solution to climate change, but they are a necessary one: 

 

Quote

Policies reflecting a high price on emissions are necessary in models to achieve cost-effective 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). Other things being equal, modelling studies suggest the global average discounted marginal abatement costs for limiting warming to 1.5°C being about 3–4 times higher compared to 2°C over the 21st century, with large variations across models and socioeconomic and policy assumptions. Carbon pricing can be imposed directly or implicitly by regulatory policies. Policy instruments, like technology policies or performance standards, can complement explicit carbon pricing in specific areas. {2.5.1, 2.5.2, 4.4.5}

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf

 

Quote

 

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.

 

I.          A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.

 

II.         A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.

 

III.        A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.

 

IV.        To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.

 

V.         To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.

 

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History

 

Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change

 

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/climate-change-policies

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Media criticism != Policy criticism

[Massdriver]

High anxiety: Jittery Democrats fear their candidate won't beat Trump

Acknowledging the concern, former President Barack Obama told his party's moderates to chill and the left to get more realistic.

 

Medicare For All A Vote Loser In 2018 U.S. House Elections

 

[SaysWho?]

18 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

High anxiety: Jittery Democrats fear their candidate won't beat Trump

Acknowledging the concern, former President Barack Obama told his party's moderates to chill and the left to get more realistic.

 

Medicare For All A Vote Loser In 2018 U.S. House Elections

 

 

I just read the MFA link and I'm not seeing it. This just shows number of races won or loss but doesn't really look at which races they were individually, and with the amount of people in swing races who didn't support it -- along with it being a big Democratic year -- it stands to reason that the non-MFA supporters' wins would be high by that alone.

 

In the meantime, gubernatorial candidates Gillum and Abrams supported MFA and did better than the centrist Democrats who ran in 2014, 2010, 2006, and 2002, with Gillum doing better than any centrist Democrat who ran since 1994. Something like that -- comparing the district/Senate/gubernatorial race with past ones -- would be a more thorough analysis.

[Joe]

10 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I just read the MFA link and I'm not seeing it. This just shows number of races won or loss but doesn't really look at which races they were individually, and with the amount of people in swing races who didn't support it -- along with it being a big Democratic year -- it stands to reason that the non-MFA supporters' wins would be high by that alone.

 

In the meantime, gubernatorial candidates Gillum and Abrams supported MFA and did better than the centrist Democrats who ran in 2014, 2010, 2006, and 2002, with Gillum doing better than any centrist Democrat who ran since 1994. Something like that -- comparing the district/Senate/gubernatorial race with past ones -- would be a more thorough analysis

 

Democrat donors are unhappy with this current crop of candidates and are trying to fool us into thinking the Democratic electorate is unhappy as well. This is a blatant lie. Massdriver's first link contains this quote:

 

"Democratic voters have expressed little interest in expanding the field. Eighty-fight percent said they are "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with their present options in a September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, while other surveys have found a sizable number of Democrats wanting to winnow their options."

 

How on earth do they have the nerve to come up with that headline and then put this bit of info in the article? 

 

To add to this point from another source, Democrats are VERY happy with their current crop of candidates:

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/huffpost-yougov-fourth-debate-poll-electability_n_5daf6c22e4b08cfcc323edb2

 

 

 

 

[Massdriver]

35 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I just read the MFA link and I'm not seeing it. This just shows number of races won or loss but doesn't really look at which races they were individually, and with the amount of people in swing races who didn't support it -- along with it being a big Democratic year -- it stands to reason that the non-MFA supporters' wins would be high by that alone.

 

In the meantime, gubernatorial candidates Gillum and Abrams supported MFA and did better than the centrist Democrats who ran in 2014, 2010, 2006, and 2002, with Gillum doing better than any centrist Democrat who ran since 1994. Something like that -- comparing the district/Senate/gubernatorial race with past ones -- would be a more thorough analysis.

That seems reductive given that they did a regression analysis and controlled for other factors, but sure they could be wrong. 
 

Edit: I read my response, and it should be read sincerely. I really believe their analysis could be wrong. Anything controlling for other factors should be taken as evidence but not definitive proof by any stretch. 

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

That seems reductive given that they did a regression analysis and controlled for other factors, but sure they could be wrong. 
 

Edit: I read my response, and it should be read sincerely. I really believe their analysis could be wrong. Anything controlling for other factors should be taken as evidence but not definitive proof by any stretch. 

 

What they controlled for isn't enough. I want to know what the comparison point was from the last election or set of elections, but these are the variables:

 

Quote

The independent variables are the Democratic presidential margin in the district in 2016, a dummy variable for districts with a Republican incumbent (vs. open seat contests), the natural logarithm of Democratic campaign spending, the natural logarithm of Republican campaign spending[2] and, finally, whether the Democratic candidate supported Medicare for All.

 

It also goes into one issue but doesn't control for the totality of all their positions and quality of their opponents.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Um whoops I think maybe

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Um whoops I think maybe

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

More voted this year in LA than 2018s midterms, and the cities/suburbs have become a serious liability for the GOP.
 

 

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What the fuck is wrong with people

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[SaysWho?]

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

So Biden is the furthest left!

[Joe]

Booty is leading by NINE in Iowa.

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

Booty is leading by NINE in Iowa.

 

Mayo Pete leading in mayo state? 

[Joe]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Mayo Pete leading in mayo state? 

 

He's got a good chance of becoming the nominee, sadly.

[MarSolo]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

He's got a good chance of becoming the nominee, sadly.

Nah man, it’s Tulsi.

 

You know, if Hillary, the DNC, the MSM, CNN, the Lamestream Media and everyone else weren’t holding her down.

[mclumber1]

10 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

He's got a good chance of becoming the nominee, sadly.

 

Centrism is what is going to win the election for Democrats.  Not pie in the sky ideas that are unfeasible, unconstitutional, or both.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Centrism is what is going to win the election for Democrats.  Not pie in the sky ideas that are unfeasible, unconstitutional, or both.

 

Okay Hillary.

[Joe]

I love being told what is best for Democrats by non-Democrats (that goes for Berniebros, too)

[elbobo]

25 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

He's got a good chance of becoming the nominee, sadly.

 

he is not going to be pulling anywhere near those numbers in states that aren't 90%+ white, though he will have some good momentum with Iowa and NH being the first 2 states in the primary. 

[Joe]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Okay Hillary.

 

I mean, she was probably right.

[Massdriver]

This is going to be an interesting primary to say the least. Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, or Biden could be it. It's impossible to tell right now.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

21 minutes ago, elbobo said:

 

he is not going to be pulling anywhere near those numbers in states that aren't 90%+ white, though he will have some good momentum with Iowa and NH being the first 2 states in the primary. 

He's a white Obama without the hope and change and personality

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

He's a white Obama without the hope and change and personality

 

Or instant good will with the black voters in the party.

 

Nobody benefits more from Pete winning Iowa than Biden. The southern voters won't move to Pete because he won in Iowa. 

[Massdriver]

What Happens If Buttigieg Wins Iowa?

Quote

 

Since these factors are already baked in, I’m not sure how much Buttigieg’s success in Iowa and potentially New Hampshire will do to make him a viable national candidate (i.e., address his weaknesses among voters who aren’t white). But I do think that the damage done to the other front-runners by a Buttigieg one-two punch in Iowa and New Hampshire could create big problems for their campaigns. To take one example, if Buttigieg winds up pulling disproportionately from Biden supporters in the first two states, it could damage Biden enough in Nevada and South Carolina that anothercandidate (not necessarily Buttigieg) could inherit his support among nonwhite Democrats.

 

On the other hand, if Buttigieg winds up pulling disproportionately from Warren, it could make for a more complicated race. A world where Buttigieg wins both Iowa and New Hampshire is one where Warren will have finished second (or worse) in two early states that, on paper, look tailor-made for her. The underwhelming performances could drain her support among two key elements of her base — wonky-but-not-ideological college-educated whites, who could switch to Buttigieg, and devoted progressives, who could switch to Sanders. In fact, the Selzer poll already showed signs that Iowa liberals were leaving Warren for Sanders; if that happens nationwide, the Democratic primary could exit Super Tuesday as a three-way race between Biden as the candidate of nonwhite voters, Buttigieg as the candidate of party elites and Sanders as the candidate of the left.

 

 

[SaysWho?]

Politico, DNC at odds over Democratic debate moderator

 

Quote

At the behest of its publisher, Robert Allbritton, Politico is pushing for Tim Alberta, the chief political correspondent for Politico Magazine, to join journalists from PBS Newshour at the moderators' desk. The top PBS journalists under consideration are Judy Woodruff, Yamiche Alcindor and Amna Nawaz.

 

Politico’s decision to push for Alberta has rankled officials at the DNC, as well as some journalists at PBS and even Politico, the sources said. The reason: Alberta previously wrote for National Review, a conservative magazine, and has spent the bulk of his recent career chronicling the Republican Party.

 

Democratic Party officials say such a journalist is ill-suited to co-moderate a debate meant to better inform Democratic voters about their potential nominees.

 

In Politico’s eyes, Alberta is a nonpartisan journalist and shouldn’t be penalized because he covered the GOP or wrote for National Review. The news organization is continuing to push to have him on the panel.

 

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

What Happens If Buttigieg Wins Iowa?

 

 

Iowa's an interesting state because it can fuck things up royally for leading candidates (Giuliani, Romney in 2008, Clinton in 2008, Dean and Gephardt in 2004). 

[PaladinSolo]

Absolutely nothing happens cause he'll never overcome this.

 

 

[mclumber1]

It is interesting how Biden has such a commanding lead among black voters in SC.  Even Harris is barely on the radar there.  I think this has less to do with Buttigieg (or Harris) than it has to do with Biden being a known and trusted candidate.  

[CayceG]

Question:

 

Are black voters by and large politically unengaged during primaries? If so, Biden't lead could be due largely to name recognition. 

Someone tell me if I'm wrong.