Its on my calendar!

I don't think it does. The Left just fights like ****. I have my guesses as to why, but for some reason the Left really is seen as the party that says to America "Shut up, I know what's good for you" instead of working to change minds. The one thing you have to give Bernie is he's the first guy in a long time that understood politics. His timing with healthcare was unfortunate.

Think people are saying that because of how weak Biden seems. It's literally not even clear if he'll run for a second term if he wins. He is just a place holder candidate in every sense of the word.

I honestly don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference in that regard. Fox and friends called Obama a communist Muslim and they call Bernie Sanders a communist Jew. Part of the strategic problem with the red scare approach is they basically muddy the waters between different types of Democrats by just calling them all commies.

Yeah, that's probably true. But politics isn't a game of big numbers. We're talking about maybe 5 states, and certain counties that really determine the game in any year. Fivethirtyeight is giving Biden big odds in November.

I think Biden took Pelosi's advice and took someone who's going to help him win. I continue to go back to South Carolina. Twitter called Biden dead. Pundits told Biden he was dead. I'm sure this place had some comments. And yet, all the projected winners are gone now. If you want to win this thing you have to keep in mind the South Carolinian without a Twitter account.

I would love an honest assessment from the in-house crowd here on where you disagree with Bannon on things. I ask because he sounds like you guys 60% of the time. That is, of course, if this isn't too much of a think piece for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0

Please stop masturbating in front of everyone.

I hate that your arguments are so tight. If you'd said this to me before March I'd have voted for Bernie.

It was a request, not a political stance.

I think Biden himself has said as much - I could be wrong, but didn't he basically commit to being a one-term president?

I still remember watching the New York Times Probability Meter on Election night in 2016. Hillary had, I think, a 95% chance of winning at the beginning before the results started to pour in. Hour after after, that lead slowly dissipated, until - by the time I grew tired enough to go to bed, around 2am EST - Hillary had around a 1-2% chance of winning.

Do you trust the polls this time?

2 and a half hours of Steve Bannon?

Reminds me of 2000, simpler times. And Cheney has 27 times the heart she does.

Most of it was removed though.

I get that it's not for everyone. But I do wonder how many DSA members (who never listened to him before) would react to Bannon saying a lot of things that they wouldn't disagree with.

If not this, American Dharma was also a great interview with him. I saw it in Cambridge and the Director spoke afterward. It was a great interview and the Q&A was wild.

The New York Times is not Fivethirtyeight. I trust nothing all the time but Nate Silver said throughout the Summer of 2016 the polling was trash, that it was not easy to predict, but also that polls showing Trump way behind as being unfounded.

Actually lol'd. Well said.

Yes but by all accounts the pro Biden vote is riding on the back of anti Trump sentiment. I don't think his odds have much of anything to do with him, his policies or his running mate. If the coronavirus or the economic situation somehow turned around before the election you won't see those kinds of odds.

As opposed to what? There's nobody he was seriously considering who was not a moderate.

it wasn't looking great for him before SC but that was actually surprising considering his front runner status before the primaries. It was pretty surprising to see him not even get 3rd place. That was just a really poor showing on his part.

I don't believe it's going to be the older black people in SC who according to you don't have Twitter who will make the difference for him in the general election, obviously. Like I said I believe fundamentally it will depend on Trump and the current state of things. Biden could've selected Warren or even Sanders as a running mate and still won under the current conditions. He had no interest in doing so. He said flat out he would veto M4A even if it passed Congress.

No, you're right. I think Biden would be up but not by a lot over Trump without Covid. Biden doesn't electrify people. He's the guy this year because he represents stability. Thats about it.

And I think the Kamala=Win comment has more to do with looking at the numbers, rather than her being a moderate. Who did he need to win? Where is he vulnerable? What would unite the party? I don't think he's ever going to get the DSA crowd so you can't factor them in. That's why he sucked out all that woman's blackness a few pages back.

Seems like you already have a good concept of what it would be like. What kind of reaction did you have in mind from that group?

Like what specifically?

The only overlap I've ever heard is a generic distaste for the Davos elites and some protectionist oriented trade policies. But I can't say I'm that familiar with him

Yeah, but I'm not interested in my own reaction. I want to know where the gap between is.

Well to make it more digestible, PBS walks through chronologically so you get the ethos in the first 20 mins. But I'd rather hear what people think than just give my opinion. I like mixing it up.

That's why I asked about your concept of how dsa members would react to "agreeing" with Bannon.

I'm guessing it's not as wide as either side would think. But I suppose thats what I was hoping to find out.

Their reaction wouldn't be wide?

Hey look man, I'm just out here jerking off publicly you know? It's a think-piece thing. You wouldn't get it.

Socrates vs Diogenes except they're both secretly Diogenes.

Christ, what a mess that would be. You feel bad for the janitor. I'm not even sure who the "they're" are here, but I don't dislike anyone enough to say they're Diogenes. I don't think the hard Left is bad, I just wish they'd explore some nuance once in awhile. The far left...less so. There's too much racial motivation over there, but I would still politely try to explain why they're wrong to them.

In the first 20 minutes I didn't honestly hear much that was very contentious. Yes the 2008 financial crisis was bad and the people responsible were never given real consequences. Yes this helped lead to the rise in populist politics with occupy on the left and the tea party on the right. None of this seems uniquely appealing to the DSA to me. I rarely hear or speak to anyone who disagrees with this.

To clarify: you're Diogenes for publicly masturbating and I'm Diogenes for calling out bad logic like a dick.

More about the concept of the working class getting sold out and gutted by the higher ups, I would have guessed would have been a welcome position.

Who knows, maybe I'm projecting, but the biggest gripe I have with the DNC, and the area I'm probably more aligned with the DSA on is the wild over financialization of the US. The Ivy Grads getting a degree in space aeronautics and working at McKinsey, every company regardless of sector offering you a credit card, the leveraged-buyout apocalypse putting people out of work.

I guess I was wrong. Oh well.

As long as you acknowledge you're a dick, I'm fine with it.

You have to admit that you're wrong first.

I guess to ask what you're asking you'd have to assume the far left picked up on all that but had no other principles informing their choices and just kind of happened upon socialism as the first anti-bad people idea they'd ever heard, so it could just as easily been far right populism.

Bull**** it doesn't.

And it's because we aren't a petty fascist monolith who's sole goal is to stick it to the republicans. We have values and standards. While some of us are willing to sacrifice it in the name of the same petty game the fascists are playing, others aren't. And some just simply think universal health care is too far left despite it being hardly a nudge that way. We're just such a capitalist right wing **** tank that anything resembling a left leaning idea is thought of as communism or extreme. Bernie Sanders being considered far left is kind of laughable but they think Obama and the conservative ass Clintons are far left too.

alright then

Oh hey what's going on over where you are about the DA charging protesters as a gang and potentially giving them life in prison? You planning on burning the city down or something?

Once again that's not wrong it's just not some unique DSA talking point. It's the kind of thing that is so popularly held as self evident that even the politicians who might not sympathize with it deep down still feel the need to pay lip service to it.

No. I don't want a life sentence.

Free room and board and food and medical care for the rest of your life might be the better option at this point.

America sucks the ding dong.

I rarely see the Centrists mention it.

That's because centrism is more about maintaining the status quo than any actual ideology, which often leads to putting one's head in the sand.

Another articulate point, said to a friendly audience, with zero citation. I don't care what you guys do, but this thread is a circle jerk of preaching to the choir.

Source confirming that centrism = marblemouthed nonideology

Now where's your sources bucko

I like Nate Silver, I think he's a sharp guy. But Fiverthirtyeight's polls/forecast largely favored Clinton to win, like most polls did. To be clear, they gave Trump a 28.6% chance and Clinton a 71.4% chance to win on Election night.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

It could simply be that their polling/forecast methodology or samples were not as refined or accurate as they could have been, or - it could simply be that the 28.6% just happened to occur. But if you're going to hold up Fivethirtyeight's polls now as indicative of what's going to happen on Election day, or simply as reason for optimism, it may be prudent to explain why considering what their predictions were on the night of the election.

Were there problems identified in the methodology that were corrected? Factors that weren't taken to account that now are? After 2016, I simply have a difficult time putting much faith or stock in polls.