Mountain West Microbrew: Chit chat and irrelevancy

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

So I'm just curious, does Colorado's single payer health care initiative have any legs for the general election?

Not really, no. Hasn't been much discussion of it yet, but leadership of both parties are setting themselves up in opposition.

[ThePusherMan]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So is Utah gonna go blue this year? That would be cool.

It's possible. Utah is not a Trump state... Not a Hillary state either.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Prediction: Cirrus will not answer the questions I posed in my previous response.

Hey, now you're getting it! First correct thing you've said here.

Here's where I stopped caring what you think:

Originally Posted by Scottk

#willlegitvoteforTrumpifsheiscandidate

See, that there tells me you're not interested in thinking logically about how to achieve liberal goals.

I tell you what: Disavow that statement, flip-flop on it to show that you can grow and change like a mature adult, and then maybe I'll take your questions and opinions more seriously.

[TakeFive]

Interesting weekend reading.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I tell you what: Disavow that statement, flip-flop on it to show that you can grow and change like a mature adult, and then maybe I'll take your questions and opinions more seriously.

Ahhhh, I get it now!!! Either I agree and support your political beliefs, or you ignore me and don't give a fuck.

So, how is that echo chamber again?

Never thought I'd see the moderator of this site openly admit that they will ignore people who disagree with them, but nothing surprises me anymore.

#2- My prediction remains correct.

[bunt_q]

So are you saying you are not interested in liberal goals? If so, that's okay. A desire for revolution with no particular aim in mind, other than to shake up the evil establishment, is a position, I suppose.

Now, if you do support liberal goals, and you think Trump is more likely to further them than Hillary is, then you're simply not very smart. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And that position would be factually incorrect.

[Cirrus]

Your inability to distinguish "only cares about an echo chamber" from "only cares about rational discussion" would be laughable if it wasn't tragic. Repeating that claim doesn't score you any points.

Bunt_q has nicely summed up why your position is irrational. You can either try to explain to us why you think you're being rational (that is, tell us why voting for Trump will help you achieve whatever it is you want), or we'll continue to justifiably dismiss you.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So are you saying you are not interested in liberal goals? If so, that's okay. A desire for revolution with no particular aim in mind, other than to shake up the evil establishment, is a position, I suppose.

Sure, it's the position of your typical liberal arts graduate with no real world experience and a ton of angst. It's a position, just not well though out.

Now, if you do support liberal goals, and you think Trump is more likely to further them than Hillary is, then you're simply not very smart. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And that position would be factually incorrect.

It doesn't seem like ScottK has any kind of liberal/conservative goals in mind, rather it's an anti-establishment goal of blowing up the current state of the world (a Western dominated globe that is secured via economic and military alliances of which the United States is the lynchpin) and establishing a new order. Both Trump and Sanders have promised this with fairly little (Sanders) to no concern (Trump) of the second and third order effects that would be experienced. So, if you want an arsonist, both are your guys. Granted, Sanders is far more rational than Trump and understands the limits and repercussions of his policy proposals better. But Sanders also understands that when he doesn't secure the nomination the best path to advance large portions of his agenda is going to be Hillary and he'll do so with a full-throat endorsement after gaining several assurances from her.

[seventwenty]

Well shit: The Denver Eye Shuts, Ending Its Daily Look at Denver's Architectural Past

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Sure, it's the position of your typical liberal arts graduate with no real world experience and a ton of angst. It's a position, just not well though out.

... it's an anti-establishment goal of blowing up the current state of the world (a Western dominated globe that is secured via economic and military alliances of which the United States is the lynchpin) and establishing a new order. Both Trump and Sanders have promised this... So, if you want an arsonist, both are your guys.

I like this but let's look at a tamer view of things.

Perception IS reality

• Survey Says: 2 out of 3 people say country headed in the wrong direction (Real Clear Politics Ave.)
• Survey Says: 80 percent say Congress is out of touch with real people and serves special interests. (Gallup)
• Survey says: 56% of Americans think their kids will be worse off than they are. (Pew Research Center)

Perhaps many (of us) give this no more than passing thought when we read them?.? Even though the 3rd question is only a small majority, don't underestimate its importance.

Whose facts do you speak of?
"Facts" might be great for intellectual discussions (here) but to the vast majority it's about their perceptions.

2016 Presidential Primaries: Any questions?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[*]Survey Says: 2 out of 3 people say country headed in the wrong direction (Real Clear Politics Ave.)

This is the most useless statistic there is, because it doesn't ask WHY they think we are headed in the wrong direction. If 1/3 are Bernie voters lamenting that we are still so backwardly anti-progress, and 1/3 are Trump voters who think the coming of brown people means "arm thyself citizen, the end of America is imminent," then this is a great statistic for America. It means that the 1/3 of us in the middle, who are busy stifling revolutions and rapid movement in either direction, are winning, and keeping America stuck in the mud with the status quo. "Wrong direction" to those who hanker for change, but it ain't a bad place to be, I would argue.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[*]Survey Says: 80 percent say Congress is out of touch with real people and serves special interests. (Gallup)

Another useless statistic. Since 95% re-elect their incumbents, I would say this means 80% of Americans are whiney morons. 80% sounds about right, actually.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[*]Survey says: 56% of Americans think their kids will be worse off than they are. (Pew Research Center)

This is a fact. But the survey question doesn't ask whether they give a shit. Considering at least that many Americans are greedy no-saving live-in-the-moment a-holes, I think a majority aren't too worried about this.

[TakeFive]

bunt... All good and interesting questions perhaps but they don't matter. It's the Big Picture, not the details that matter.

Let's look at it from a different angle. This election may be about many things but it's primarily about real estate. In this election Trump owns the best real estate, not only for the Republicans but for the electorate as a whole I suspect. That said Bernie holds a piece of this action.

Every voter may have a unique take and tale but I'm most interested in pluralities, majorities and the squishy middle. Exactly why people think we're headed in the wrong direction or whether they're to the left or right of center isn't as important as they just want somebody who will fix it. The seeming irony of reelecting their own has nothing to do with choosing a Presidential candidate where this question matters a lot. With respect to the third question we can agree to disagree.

Those survey questions clearly point to why this year is the year of the "outsider." Even on the left while Hillary may bring comfort to many like an old shoe, she does not have the warmth and charm of Bill nor the oratorical skill of Obama. But even more important, Bernie is the outsider, somebody fresh and then there's that real estate.

In this election the best piece of politcal real estate is the Kitchen table and both Bernie and Trump own that in their respective parties. People want to know about pocket book issues and they want hope for a better future for them and their families. That's what is important according to what the Survey Says and that's how they've been voting.

[seventwenty]

Well the unity ticket discussion has officially begun:
In an election dominated by misogyny, a Clinton-Warren ticket might just work

Originally Posted by Quartz

In many ways, a Warren pick makes perfect sense. She’s widely respected and admired for her anti-Wall Street crusades, and she is already playing a lead role in the Democratic fight against Trump on social media. As a hero to many of the same people who currently support Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders, her presence in the Clinton campaign could help unite the party. And she would bring extra firepower to what is sure to be a brutal general election.

Much of the article is about how we got to now in the primaries and about the possible fallout because sexism and gender. But the paragraph above is how you get people like ScottK back into the fold.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Much of the article is about how we got to now in the primaries and about the possible fallout because sexism and gender. But the paragraph above is how you get people like ScottK back into the fold.

I have no particular opinion on whether Warren would be a good choice or not. But IMO this whole misogyny/sexism kerfuffle is mostly a red herring. Oh it's a big deal among those that are committed Dems who would never vote Republican anyway. I'd also guess there are a number of women not fitting that profile that *currently* feel they won't vote for Trump.

Ultimately women especially and especially suburban women care about the security and well-being of their children - today and into the future. I expect that the dumb things that Trump has said will fade into the background as voters look for who will best address and fix their kitchen table concerns.

As for Bernie voters a lot of them are Millennials and I'd guess by and large don't have a political commitment to either party. Chances are a lot of them don't care for Hillary and will just skip the election which they are notorious for doing anyway. Warren will likely assuage some Bernie voters but typically people vote for a President, not the VP. Many Bernie voters will by default support the Dem nominee.

If Dems try to make the election about sexism it would be a big strategical mistake IMO. Only to the extent that it's important to rally the base would it have any merit. For most it will be just noise they couldn't care less about.

[Cirrus]

I do think Warren would get a lot of Bernie voters back. She's a better candidate than he is anyway. Had Warren run in the primary, I think she'd have won.

As for sexism, well, like you said in the other thread, "we are all guys. The women of our world have a whole different visceral reaction." I do think a lot of women who typically vote Republican are not going to vote Trump, for various reasons that include but are not limited to sexism. That said, I agree that it would be a losing bet to make sexism the defining argument of the campaign. Sexism combined with racism combined with all Trumps other -isms as a broad stroke attack on how he's unfit to lead today's America would, however, turn out of a lot of liberal and moderate voters.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I do think Warren would get a lot of Bernie voters back. She's a better candidate than he is anyway. Had Warren run in the primary, I think she'd have won.

As for sexism, well, like you said in the other thread, "we are all guys. The women of our world have a whole different visceral reaction." I do think a lot of women who typically vote Republican are not going to vote Trump, for various reasons that include but are not limited to sexism. That said, I agree that it would be a losing bet to make sexism the defining argument of the campaign. Sexism combined with racism combined with all Trumps other -isms as a broad stroke attack on how he's unfit to lead today's America would, however, turn out of a lot of liberal and moderate voters.

Meh, one might think you lived in a NE-ern bubble.

Don't recall any problem in the states that Trump won? Afterall Cruz was the "perfect gentleman." Nobody comes free of personal baggage and I'm sure there'll be a lot of tit-for-tat. All fun and games, especially for the bases but mostly noise for everybody else.

[Cirrus]

It's possible I live in a NE bubble. What did I say in that comment that you don't think is true? Do you really disagree with my claim that Trump's sexism & racism will turn out liberal & moderate voters to vote against him?

I agree it won't make any difference to the GOP base. But it will increase turnout among liberals.

[seventwenty]

The real question for Warren is what does she want more: a possible 8 years as a VP where people can ignore her by looking at the top of the ticket or gunning for Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairwoman in the new few Congresses? I think Reed and Schumer are Dems on Banking, though. Plus the Dems have to, you know, win back the Senate.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's possible I live in a NE bubble. What did I say in that comment that you don't think is true? Do you really disagree with my claim that Trump's sexism & racism will turn out liberal & moderate voters to vote against him?

I agree it won't make any difference to the GOP base. But it will increase turnout among liberals.

It could have made a difference in the GOP base if it was such a big deal. Women could have voted for Bush or Rubio or Dr. Carson etc and maybe a few did. That sexism and now again racism is somehow a big deal feels like a liberal fantasy to me. Generally people that don't always vote are motivated to vote FOR somebody as opposed to against.

FWIW, Dr. Carson who has a significant role in the Trump campaign would disagree with your racism obsession. While AA's come out more for Presidential elections I'll guess that they don't vote in quite the same numbers in this election as last time.

Will a lot of women vote for Hillary bcuz she's a women? Good question. I did feel that would have been the case last time but that was then and I'm skeptical now.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It could have made a difference in the GOP base if it was such a big deal. Women could have voted for Bush or Rubio or Dr. Carson etc and maybe a few did. That sexism and now again racism is somehow a big deal feels like a liberal fantasy to me. Generally people that don't always vote are motivated to vote FOR somebody as opposed to against.

FWIW, Dr. Carson who has a significant role in the Trump campaign would disagree with your racism obsession. While AA's come out more for Presidential elections I'll guess that they don't vote in quite the same numbers in this election as last time.

Will a lot of women vote for Hillary bcuz she's a women? Good question. I did feel that would have been the case last time but that was then and I'm skeptical now.

The fact that you casually say "racism isn't a big deal" screams of the perspective of an old white man living in Arizona. Weird.