I get that. But on a scale of shitty things, I'm still more comfortable with government using the carrot than the stick. At the end of the day people often vote politicians in order to solve some problems. There's a mandate there to at least do something. If not the stick, and not the carrot ... the range of options becomes very limited. Which may be good in some cases , but problematic in others.
They're only as jokey as someone like Trump wants to make them. Somebody like Elizabeth Warren would give them teeth.
The GOP certainly thinks so. The party fought hard to keep her from heading the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. She was Obama's first choice when it was established, but the GOP effectively said "over my dead body," and Obama backed off. When it comes to Wall Street regulatory enforcement, Warren vs. any Republican is a very clear choice.
I just had to post this because we're entering a twilight zone of absurdity. This is MSNBC's graphic tonight : What in the actual f https://t.co/2Xo1c5qIBM— Zach Graumann (@Zach_Graumann) September 6, 2019 For those who haven't followed this, it goes all the way back to the first debate night when MSNBC asked 2 questions of Yang which was the fewest of the 20 candidates, despite polling around 9th at the time. That unleashed a string of subtle and some not so subtle instances of MSNBC erasing Yang from all their graphics as if he didn't exist. One graphic at the time was supposed to show all 20 candidates at the time, but only 19 faces were on the screen. Anyways, after several more of these, it culminated last week when CNN got in on the fun (CNN had been pretty fair up to that point). CNN showed a poll that should have had Yang in 6th place, but he was erased and replaced with Beto, giving the viewer the impression that Beto is in 6th place. A few days before CNN erased Yang's 2nd debate performance from their Youtube channel, the only candidate to be erased. Anyways, that day #yangmediablackout trends on Twitter, several journalists weigh in ... some sympathetic, some not. CNN seems to issue a half hearted mea culpa. And then MSNBC does this today. I'm not the sort that gets outraged at this stuff. I have a philosophical Kafkaesque outlook on America's corrupt media. Outrage is futile. I'm mostly just disappointed because it's this sort of corrupt journalism that creates phenomena like Bernie and Trump. The more the media lies, the more prone people are to falling into counter culture movements by default.
From a purely technical POV, if they'd included the 10th name in the bottom right of that MSNBC still, it would have intruded into Bug Space (where the peacock logo is) which is a big network no-no. I can totally imagine a scenario where some rookie motion graphics person just screwed up the design.
Here's the CNN one from last week : CNN: "We have decided that if @AndrewYang didn't exist, these would be the top 6 from the Quinnipiac poll, so despite Yang polling 3% in this poll, there is no point in displaying him in the top 6."#YangGang #Yang2020 #WhoIsAndrewYang? pic.twitter.com/S3geCQ0HC9— Scott Santens (@scottsantens) August 28, 2019 I mean, I mostly just think it's funny in a sad way. I mean first of all it's just graphics. Do they really think that a premeditated graphic campaign is going to have a big electoral impact? Do they really need to go to these lengths to censor a guy polling at 3%? To be fair, I don't think it's really about Yang. Tulsi is getting the same treatment. Also Bernie in 2016. There's a pretty clear correlation between politicians who don't accept PAC money/mega donor fundraisers and politicians who get shafted by the MSM. One of the dumbest thing you can do as a progressive is be naive enough to believe that AT&T and Comcast are telling you the truth.
lol ... NBC keeps bringing it. This is now on their website. Guess who's missing? https://www.nbcnews.com/2020candidates I never thought I'd see the day where someone at the editorial level in NBC starts an all out petty trolling campaign against a presidential candidate.
Hillary? I'm more disturbed that this Bennet guy isnt even 'Merican Full Name: Michael Bennet Birth Date: November 28, 1964 Birth Place: New Delhi, India
Gotta give it to MSNBC ... Expert trolling. Last week they get called out for leaving Yang off their graphics, so they respond this week by covering the John Yang campaign. John Yang? That’s a new one. https://t.co/XEUOZBzpsM pic.twitter.com/vG2XkYtEmL— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) September 10, 2019 This trolling is so funny it's actually kind of endearing. I'm almost starting to like MSNBC again. They just need to rebrand as a comedy news satire station.
This is the first poll of its kind to put Yang up against Trump head to head. Yang's name recognition is still too low nationally to make this poll work on that level. But this poll was done in New Hampshire where Yang has campaigned a lot and name recognition is pretty mainstream. Just as most people following Yang have been saying, he has that secret sauce to steal a large chunk of Republican and independent voters. This is just one poll, but this is a stat worth keeping an eye on for voters who are primarily worried about electability.
promising people to buy their votes can be popular. It is not just NH, I remember a Carolina poll (I think the south one) also had the women doing worse than the males.
Well, New Hampshire has two sitting female Democratic senators, so I don't think there's a woman problem there. Warren's problem there is the fact that her approval ratings are pretty low in Massachussetts, and that naturally spills over into New Hampshire. As for Kamala, she's taken a bit of a beating since the 2nd debate so I'm not surprised to see those numbers. Yang has been able to rise because nobody has attacked him so far. Yang has been smart to not attack anyone. He's taken on the positive team player persona on the campaign trail. By not being attacked, he's been allowed to define himself. Yang's biggest problem so far has been the media, but in a small state like New Hampshire he can break through that media filter somewhat. Let's see how long this honeymoon lasts. Sooner or later someone is going to attack him on the debate stage. Keep in mind that Yang was an international debate champion as a student, so that may play into his wheelhouse.
So, they should instead believe that the leadership of multiple huge corporations are so terrified of the Andrew Yang juggernaut that they've orchestrated a top-down plan to .....exclude him from some poll result graphics? Not sure that the potential impact from a tiny segment of the public briefly seeing that Andrew Yang was surging to 3% in a Quinnipiac poll is so severe that it would warrant a lot of attention from the great corporate overlords - but maybe I'm just naive that way.
Those poll numbers add up to 100%, meaning that they must be of people who have made up their minds. There can't be a whole lot who have done so about Yang, though. I mean come on, I realize that New Hampshire gets more of the candidates' attention, but still, few people know anything about Yang, if they have even heard his name.
If Yang's name recognition is so high in New Hampshire, then why is he in eighth place in the Democratic primary in the exact same Emerson poll - behind Gabbard and tied with Delaney? Maybe the difference between the primary and the general election poll indicates that Republican and independent voters really want a candidate whose centerpiece policy is a multi-trillion dollar Universal Basic Income redistribution plan, whereas Democrats don't like that idea for some reason. Or - just maybe - the sort of voter who hasn't decided whether or not to vote against Trump also might respond favorably when asked about a hypothetical Democrat that they know little about other aside from their male first name.
Setting male/female aside, my guess is that an invented, nonexistent Dem candidate would beat Trump in that poll. Warren loses because she's worse to NH voters than a nonexistent Dem. Which connects with my comments on the Election board. Outsiders get elected because people have an easier time imagining their virtues than their vices, while insiders' vices are well known. That doesn't make outsiders better, though. See Trump, Donald.
Let's keep in mind that, based on the results of that poll, we're analyzing the preferences of people that choose Biden OR Sanders OR Yang over Trump - but would also choose Trump over Warren for some reason. If that unspecified reason isn't sexism, then it must be something else that's pretty stupid. Because there is absolutely no rational and well-informed way to justify the above preference order.
Those are good numbers. In more normal times it should be: Huge Steaming Pile of Dogshit - 75% Herpes - 20% Trump - 5%