Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 236: The Obama's new house is half baked

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Maybe we can ease tensions here by finding common ground. We all agree that people on the left frequently view Republicans in power as evil, correct? I dont necessarily believe evil exists in some absolute manner, but in a colloquial sense I absolutely believe they are evil.

So then the only issue is whether or not people on the right view Democrats as evil equally, or to
a lesser degree, correct?

is this really worth bickering about? Wang isnt saying that this makes Republicans better or anything, I dont believe. Just that their lines of attack are different.

For what it's worth, that GOP vs. Marco Rubio debate remains hugely relevant and is probably the most important political debate in recent history. Rubio said that Obama was evil and the field said that he had good intentions but was just out of his depth. The field decisively won that debate.

That said, it's important to distinguish between individual evil and collective evil. A group of individuals none of whom are evil individually can yet form a group that does evil collectively. Thus we can say that Democrats are evil without accusing any individual Democrat of evil.
---

lmao the 18-49, Biden is down to Andrew Yang levels
---

That crowd with the "Bernie is backed by Russia" conspiracies lol

https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/1165727041074999296
---

favourable of that Monmouth poll

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1166041084893499394
---

Nrrr posted...

The polling indicates that Trump voters are most likely to switch to Bernie, not Biden. There is no data about this either way, but I don't see non voters coming out to anti vote Trump. Voting goes up when people are inspired to vote FOR something, when they are disgusted by the government, but aren't inspired by the other option, they tune out and just stay home. People in this topic follow politics, but non voters usually only pay attention if someone catches their attention. Joe Biden isn't bringing those people in.

The poling also indicates that Biden is strongest against Trump head to head at this point. That is indisputable. You can look at every poll, national and state levels, and it is always Biden that performs best.

I understand not wanting him to win the primary, but Rock's claim that Biden currently performs best is indisputable.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Nrrr posted...

The polling indicates that Trump voters are most likely to switch to Bernie, not Biden. There is no data about this either way, but I don't see non voters coming out to anti vote Trump. Voting goes up when people are inspired to vote FOR something, when they are disgusted by the government, but aren't inspired by the other option, they tune out and just stay home. People in this topic follow politics, but non voters usually only pay attention if someone catches their attention. Joe Biden isn't bringing those people in.

The poling also indicates that Biden is strongest against Trump head to head at this point. That is indisputable. You can look at every poll, national and state levels, and it is always Biden that performs best.

I understand not wanting him to win the primary, but Rock's claim that Biden currently performs best is indisputable.

I will be interested to see where that poll stands in 4 months tbh
---

The trouble about "Biden performs the best" is the framing those results are under. During the primaries, to conservative voters Biden is going to look favourably as the moderate guy that isn't too far to the left - but in the general that contrast reverses as it becomes a Biden vs Trump one-on-one and suddenly Biden's officially becomes the face of the left, of the Democratic party.

That isn't to say those measurements are inaccurate... but not really significant or indicative of the real general, especially since everyone at this point is polling really well against Trump.
---

Well the promising thing is that regardless of candidate, Trump seems to have a fairly steady baseline.

Some examples going from RCP (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/):
Arizona (8/22): Trump 43, 44, 44, 44, 43 (Biden the only one that cracks above 43 with a 45 giving him a +2 while everyone else trails)
Colorado (8/20): Trump 45, 46, 45, 48, 45 (Biden, Buttigieg, and Sanders all get 55 for +10 each)
Nevada (8/20): Trump 43, 47, 44, 45, 46 (Biden again performs best with a +6)
General election (8/19): Trump 38, 39, 39, 39 (Biden once again outperforms the field posting a 50(!!!) and getting an amazing +12

It goes on and on like this. Trump always polls about the same (there are occasional slight improvement from one extreme to the other). So if you're a democrat who hates Joe Biden, you're sort of hoping that Trump has a sort of ceiling here and that the deficit in the other candidates is made up as more people get to know them.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Nrrr posted...

The polling indicates that Trump voters are most likely to switch to Bernie, not Biden. There is no data about this either way, but I don't see non voters coming out to anti vote Trump. Voting goes up when people are inspired to vote FOR something, when they are disgusted by the government, but aren't inspired by the other option, they tune out and just stay home. People in this topic follow politics, but non voters usually only pay attention if someone catches their attention. Joe Biden isn't bringing those people in.

The poling also indicates that Biden is strongest against Trump head to head at this point. That is indisputable. You can look at every poll, national and state levels, and it is always Biden that performs best.

I understand not wanting him to win the primary, but Rock's claim that Biden currently performs best is indisputable.

Based on what?

Let's discuss WHY Biden "indisputably polls best against Trump" (also I swear I've seen differently, but I'll argue on your terms for now), and consider whether those reasons will hold up for another year.

I posit that Biden's literal only strength is self-fulfilment: People assume he's the best chance and so he is.

But as the primary moves forward, people are going to finally ask themselves what he offers and I think he's going to crater. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not even Top 3 by Iowa.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

The trouble about "Biden performs the best" is the framing those results are under. During the primaries, to conservative voters Biden is going to look favourably as the moderate guy that isn't too far to the left - but in the general that contrast reverses as it becomes a Biden vs Trump one-on-one and suddenly Biden's officially becomes the face of the left, of the Democratic party.

That isn't to say those measurements are inaccurate... but not really significant or indicative of the real general, especially since everyone at this point is polling really well against Trump.

Not necessarily true for that last point. Everyone isn't performing "really well" and you very frequently see polls in Nevada, Arizona, etc where Biden or Biden/Sanders/Warren are the only ones in the lead.

Everyone performs well nationally, but as we saw in 2016 that doesn't matter in the slightest. Pay attention to polls released most importantly in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and the secondarily to places like Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada. People that consistently poll well there are the ones who poll really well against Trump.

And the polls specifically aren't going for favorablitliy, it is "who would you vote for in this hypothetical matchup". You can twist it however you want, but Biden polls really well across the board.

There are plenty of reasons to not want him to win (and why someone like Warren is a much better candidate imo!) but the argument of "he has the clearest way forward to defeat Trump" is backed up very strongly by data at this point. Things change of course, but for now it is definitely true.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Nrrr posted...

The polling indicates that Trump voters are most likely to switch to Bernie, not Biden. There is no data about this either way, but I don't see non voters coming out to anti vote Trump. Voting goes up when people are inspired to vote FOR something, when they are disgusted by the government, but aren't inspired by the other option, they tune out and just stay home. People in this topic follow politics, but non voters usually only pay attention if someone catches their attention. Joe Biden isn't bringing those people in.

The poling also indicates that Biden is strongest against Trump head to head at this point. That is indisputable. You can look at every poll, national and state levels, and it is always Biden that performs best.

I understand not wanting him to win the primary, but Rock's claim that Biden currently performs best is indisputable.

Based on what?

Let's discuss WHY Biden "indisputably polls best against Trump" (also I swear I've seen differently, but I'll argue on your terms for now), and consider whether those reasons will hold up for another year.

I posit that Biden's literal only strength is self-fulfilment: People assume he's the best chance and so he is.

But as the primary moves forward, people are going to finally ask themselves what he offers and I think he's going to crater. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not even Top 3 by Iowa.

If you've seen differently you aren't paying attention to polls. Go through all of RCP polling archives. Go to 538. Go through sites that aren't just cherry picking specific polls. Biden, across the board, does best right now. Again, things change. I think Warren still has a great shot because she doesn't have the name recognition of Biden yet and still does very well against Trump in the places that matter. You can say "Biden is a bad candidate because he's senile and is too conservative and says stupid things on a daily basis" and you're right. But if you argue "Biden is a weak candidate against Trump" then I have about six months of polling data so far that says you're wrong.

Your posit makes sense for the democratic primary (as to why he polls well), but doesn't for the general election polls I'm talking about (where it is 1 vs 1 against Trump).
---

What I'm saying is you cannot ignore statistical trends in polling because you don't like them.

If you're supporting another candidate (which I am, btw - I'm not a Biden fan and he's like at the bottom of my list) then you're doing so because you think they're better for America, not because you view them as stronger in the general election. The former is fine and great and yes I agree. The second is just delusional right now.
---

But going in the vein of "one really good poll I shouldn't put too much weight into just yet but I can't help but get excited about":

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/az/arizona_senate_mcsally_vs_kelly-6801.html

It is very good news that McSally is already trailing Kelly when she is the "incumbent" is really, really promising. Kelly is a perfect candidate for Arizona and Sinema just got done slapping her around, so this is probably the second best pick up opportunity for Dems this year.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1166033264093618177?s=21

New national Monmouth poll:

Sanders: 20% (+6)
Warren: 20% (+5)
Biden: 19% (-13)!
Harris: 8% (-)
Booker: 4% (+2)
Buttigieg: 4% (-1)
Yang: 3% (+1)
Castro: 2% (+2)
ORourke: 2% (-1)
Williamson: 2% (+1)

I was so excited by the top of the poll I somehow missed Williamson at 2%.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-whos-qualified-for-the-third-debate-and-whos-on-the-bubble/

I'm cheering for one of Steyer/Gabbard/uh I guess Williamson now to hit the poll numbers needed otherwise the DNC plans to force all ten into a single night again for the same bloated nonsense as the last time.
---

wow I did not expect Gillibrand to end up below Williamson. Gilly seemed like a seriousish candidate early on and Williamson is maybe some kind of wizard?

---

williamson plz
---

Who in the blue hell is Steyer?

(Also The Blue Hell is a good name if its a 10-person debate)

---

Steyer is the old dude that is completing bombarding Youtube with the "WE NEED TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP" ads. He's super rich and just got into the race like a month ago.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Steyer is the old dude that is completing bombarding Youtube with the "WE NEED TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP" ads. He's super rich and just got into the race like a month ago.

So hes running on a platform of...impeaching Trump after he beats him?

---

Also who decided to cap it at 10, but split into two nights at 11, an odd number?

wouldnt it have made more sense to cap it at 9 and split at 10?

---

I think I value one night with all the frontrunners on a crowded stage more than two decompressed nights, but both options kinda suck.

Clearly the solution is to not randomize two nights and put the four frontrunners, Buttigieg, and either Booker or Beto on one, and then put everyone else into the meme debate starring Yang and Williamson.
---

At the end of each debate they need to vote someone off

---

meme debate would probably be best case scenario for Yang too since hed get to actually talk and not be super overshadowed by the candidates people care about

so maybe that would be bad, im not sure how much attention I want to give the #YangGang

---

To be honest, I like a lot of what Yang has to say.

He seems generally intelligent and willing to do research to solve problems. I expect his base is going to continue to swell.
---

I like Yang well enough, but I have yet to see any evidence that his central thesis that automation will lead to permanent high unemployment is true.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I like Yang well enough, but I have yet to see any evidence that his central thesis that automation will lead to permanent high unemployment is true.

It's a scary enough future to plan for even if we don't know that it will happen, no?
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1166030050371784704

i know we've already posted this biden gaffe but I just really love the hill's tweet & caption in reporting it
---

In contrast...
https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1165437108523294721

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In contrast...
https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1165437108523294721

i like that i found my dad tweeting in the responses
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I like Yang well enough, but I have yet to see any evidence that his central thesis that automation will lead to permanent high unemployment is true.

How about the very low success rate of retraining programs?

Coal jobs are not coming back.
Self driving cars are on the horizon.

Human call service representatives will always be preferred or necessary to some extent, but more and more sophisticated AI will handle more and more of the volume so less humans will be needed.

We're already seeing it with kiosks in fast food restaurants. Yes employees are still required and yes cashier's still exist, but if every restaurant can start to staff 9 employees instead of 10 you know they will.

.

We're still a long way from an automated eutopia complete with robot butlers for everyone,, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that more and more automation will continue to occur and it's important to look forward and keep this in mind, rather than letting it blindside us down the road.
---

woah John Heilemann on Deadline not pulling punches for Joe Walsh, calling him out as a racist to his face and his trash history
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

How about the very low success rate of retraining programs?

Coal jobs are not coming back.
Self driving cars are on the horizon.

Human call service representatives will always be preferred or necessary to some extent, but more and more sophisticated AI will handle more and more of the volume so less humans will be needed.

We're already seeing it with kiosks in fast food restaurants. Yes employees are still required and yes cashier's still exist, but if every restaurant can start to staff 9 employees instead of 10 you know they will.

.

We're still a long way from an automated eutopia complete with robot butlers for everyone,, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that more and more automation will continue to occur and it's important to look forward and keep this in mind, rather than letting it blindside us down the road.

Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about how to transition workers whose jobs are being automated away into other careers, but my point is that there isn't a ton of reason to think that automation due to robots/AI is going to be fundamentally different from previous job destruction through technological advancement (which has been happening all throughout human history). For example, huge portions of the population used to be farmers, and technology has developed to the point where we need way fewer farmers per capita to feed the population. As those jobs disappeared, other new jobs arose. That will likely be the case again.

---

Agree.Forceful_Dragon posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I like Yang well enough, but I have yet to see any evidence that his central thesis that automation will lead to permanent high unemployment is true.

How about the very low success rate of retraining programs?

Coal jobs are not coming back.
Self driving cars are on the horizon.

Human call service representatives will always be preferred or necessary to some extent, but more and more sophisticated AI will handle more and more of the volume so less humans will be needed.

We're already seeing it with kiosks in fast food restaurants. Yes employees are still required and yes cashier's still exist, but if every restaurant can start to staff 9 employees instead of 10 you know they will.

.

We're still a long way from an automated eutopia complete with robot butlers for everyone,, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that more and more automation will continue to occur and it's important to look forward and keep this in mind, rather than letting it blindside us down the road.

Agree. "It's never happened before" is not a great argument for "it can never happen in the future." By that very same logic, climate change would be not a big deal, since humans have never destroyed the Earth's climate before, so it shouldn't be possible in the future.

In the past, new technological advances generally created more jobs for humans, because the new technologies (1) required humans to operate and (2) did not come close to human intelligence. For the very first time, AI is approaching human intelligence. There's a sort of willful blindness among people in high skill fields like programming and academia I think - a feeling that they can't be replaced by machines. But you most certainly can - at the rate computers are improving, the time gap from when AI replaces McDonald's cashiers and when they replace university professors is probably less than 1 human generation.

If you do not deal with this issue now, it will be too late very very soon. If humanity retains any control of our civilization at all - it will only be through concentration of capital, which will become ever more valuable relative to labor, since AI can do the labor part.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about how to transition workers whose jobs are being automated away into other careers,

See this is the part that doesn't work nearly as well as we would like to imagine it would. The simple fact is that your average person 40+ years in age will not adapt in a meaningful way.

And yes new jobs will arise and a young workforce will take to those positions capably I'm sure. But you are not likely going to see any thing resembling a 1::1 ratio of new jobs to jobs automated away. And there is nothing preventing the magical "new type of job" from simply also being automated away. Yes it's bleak, but it's something no one else is even addressing.
---

Also Yang has spoken about late nights playing StarCraft so I hard core relate to that
---

red sox 777 posted...

In the past, new technological advances generally created more jobs for humans

Just look at agriculture. That is an industry that shrunk in manpower due to new tech, but people transitioned to other sectors. It'll be interesting to see if that happens again or if people just can't find work.
---

Unless you are at a very low paying job to start with "transitioning" will inevitably lead to a major fall in wages. UBI is supposed to bridge the gap, but honestly, it's probably not enough. To get a human up to the level where they can compete in today's workforce requires something like 22 years of investment. It's hard to see how we can be competitive with machines in the future given our insanely long build times.
---

Looks like Bernie now leads even Biden among minority voters in the new poll. That could be a big advantage.

---

Nrrr posted...

Looks like Bernie now leads even Biden among minority voters in the new poll. That could be a big advantage.

There is a 0% this poll is accurate
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

red sox 777 posted...

In the past, new technological advances generally created more jobs for humans

Just look at agriculture. That is an industry that shrunk in manpower due to new tech, but people transitioned to other sectors. It'll be interesting to see if that happens again or if people just can't find work.

That worked because there were other sectors that used people's talents well (and better than farming!). If AI outperforms us in every sector......we'll have a problem.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There is a 0% this poll is accurate

Idk why, it's been Bernie's biggest strength for awhile now and Biden is clearly doing poorly right now. Things could change, but he is barely able to put together a sentence in very favorable conditions and people are noticing that. And we have had the data for awhile now that many Biden voters would go to Bernie if they switched.

---

red sox 777 posted...

That worked because there were other sectors that used people's talents well (and better than farming!). If AI outperforms us in every sector......we'll have a problem.

AI will not outperform humans in every sector. There are some problems its well suited to address, and others where its not. Much of machine learning is, fundamentally, doing a complicated statistical fit of some function. That can be pretty effective for solving problems similar to those used to train the model, but its much harder to generalize to fundamentally different scenarios. And its certainly not the Skynet situation that some people imagine when they hear about AI.

---

And if we want to joke a little bit, it's probably about 1 human generation from fast food clerk to university professor, and another generation up to Einstein, and one more generation up to the Chosen Stable Genius himself. In one last attempt to save the planet for humanity His Supreme Imperial Majesty President Supreme Leader Commander Admiral General Emperor Kim Jong Un of Unified Korea, the Soviet Union, and the United States will launch a full scale nuclear attack on the machines, but it will be too late, and the machines will rule over us forever, placing us into the Matrix, until the Chosen One returns.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That worked because there were other sectors that used people's talents well (and better than farming!). If AI outperforms us in every sector......we'll have a problem.

AI will not outperform humans in every sector. There are some problems its well suited to address, and others where its not. Much of machine learning is, fundamentally, doing a complicated statistical fit of some function. That can be pretty effective for solving problems similar to those used to train the model, but its much harder to generalize to fundamentally different scenarios. And its certainly not the Skynet situation that some people imagine when they hear about AI.

Look at how far AI has come in the past 30 years. There is no sector that is safe. And you also do not need generalized AI to be better than humans at every sector - you only need a specialized AI that is better than any human at each sector.
---

If we are in the universe that becomes the matrix, can we really reconcile the fact that the machines decided 1999 was the best year for the simulation, when Final Fantasy X was not out yet? Fucked up

---

Nrrr posted...

If we are in the universe that becomes the matrix, can we really reconcile the fact that the machines decided 1999 was the best year for the simulation, when Final Fantasy X was not out yet? Fucked up

1999 is increasingly looking like the peak of human civilization, honestly.
---

Saw my first 2020 bumper sticker on an actual car today driving home

it was for Tulsi

---

Damn Monmouth credibility must be sad.

Warren vs Trump is a republican dream.

Sanders and Biden prolly beat him.

---

LotM should try 'n get a Delaney bumper sticker before it's too late
---

Monmouth is an A+ rated pollster but I'll be the one to pump the brakes here. It's still a single data point. Let's all chill and wait to see if more polling reflects that/a trend in that direction.

Biden falling is a thing, but that's one heck of a collapse all at once there with a -13!
---