Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:07 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:51 am

Corporations also refuse to open source code, for fear of giving advantage to competitors, so I'm not sure the problem is quite unique to politics.

That's not the main issue, it's the one that makes the first issue worse.

See this Twitter thread

This probably relates to your other post about Caucuses, but I don't think local party groups should be having to develop their own reporting tools using campaign funds. The national party has plenty of money to develop and maintain whatever software is necessary (which I suspect is actually none) between campaign seasons, and nationally standardisation would be much better for transparency.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:13 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:07 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:51 am

Corporations also refuse to open source code, for fear of giving advantage to competitors, so I'm not sure the problem is quite unique to politics.

That's not the main issue, it's the one that makes the first issue worse.

See this Twitter thread

This probably relates to your other post about Caucuses, but I don't think local party groups should be having to develop their own reporting tools using campaign funds. The national party has plenty of money to develop and maintain whatever software is necessary (which I suspect is actually none) between campaign seasons, and nationally standardisation would be much better for transparency.

That's not 100% true in the US. The campaigns have a fair chunk of the money, and there's issues with the apps being of worth, and so counting as donations to the campaigns, and that interacting with spending and donation limits.

Of course, only one side has to follow those rules right now.

The apps are how the various campaign data are processed, linked together and managed - it's a massive chunk of what campaigns do, and that is an area that is constantly improving and changing, which is why money needs to be spent on it.

Again, see that thread.

That said, the caucus results thing is a state party issue. But that's the state party, not the national party.

Another related thread about campaign tech that worked properly, and made it to the DNC for national use.

Whatever is actually going on, it's a really, really bad look for the Democratic Party.

And Buttigieg is literally the only plausible winner losing to Trump in the polls.

Buttigieg has been running a one state campaign, in the hope of getting a decent result in Iowa to keep him plausible for the rest of the country. He's succeeded beyond expectations at that. But he's going to have a real problem on 3 March - super Tuesday - because he's got no support in the south. This is when Biden will be cleaning up and storming through to a dominant position.

The national polling get derided by experts who think we should look state by state, but they show what is to come. Biden averages 25-30%, consistently. Buttigieg averages 5-10%. Klobuchar is similar - invested a lot in Iowa for a decent 5th, but struggles down at 5% nationwide.

In fact, the only real change for months has been Warren vs Sanders. The two left wingers get about 45% combined, but the split has swung around. Currently 22% Sanders, 14% Warren - but it was the reverse Oct-Dec 2019,

And the rise of Bloomberg in the polls, when he announced he quickly emerged from the scrum of candidates on 1-2%, achieved 5%, and now 10%.

Buttigieg has basically zero support in the Black community, which seems to support Biden, and I believe generally leans towards the conservative end of the Democratic party..

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican leaning press doesn't spruik Buttigieg a little bit. The guy has no chance of winning a national election against Trump.

Democratic voters might be prepared to vote for a gay candidate, but they were going to vote Democrat anyway. He'll probably get fewer votes than Hillary (aka Evil Incarnate) in strongly Republican areas, and do badly in any areas which are even, as he may well energise the Republican voting base to come out (pardon the pun) and vote. I'm sorry to say that America* isn't ready for a gay candidate.

I think the best he can hope for is to do well enough to be on the ticket as vice-president for a more moderate presidential choice, but he could still be seen as a liability even then.

[* America as a whole - some areas would have no problem.]

He's only about 22 or something, though, so he could well be the nominee in 2036 or something.

ETA: he's actually 38, would make him 54 in 2036. Or 70 in 2052. The USA might have achieved basic civilised behaviour by then.

TBH I've been wondering if Buttigieg knows he doesn't really have a shot at the presidency, but is auditioning for a good state office (VP or Secretary of State) ready to make a proper run in 8 years time with that experience behind him

CF

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:59 pm

TBH I've been wondering if Buttigieg knows he doesn't really have a shot at the presidency, but is auditioning for a good state office (VP or Secretary of State) ready to make a proper run in 8 years time with that experience behind him

CF

That makes more sense, but I wonder whether 'middle America' will be sufficiently more liberal in 8 years time, especially if at least 4 of those years have been under Trump's 2nd term.

Doubt it tbh. They're probably closer to civil war than liberalism.

That'll create a market for the arms trade.

Apart from Buttigieg, all of the remotely plausible candidates are Too. f.cking. Old. Maybe not too old to win the election (someone has to, and Trump will be 74 on election day), but too old to be President of the Goddam Yoonited States.

Older readers may remember the 1980s, when we persistently mocked Ronald Reagan for being old and past it because he was 69 (OK, and a bit) years old when he took office.

Being Prez is a full-time job that needs the stamina of someone like Margaret Thatcher. It frazzled Obama, who was a young-ish athletic guy.

JQH wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:47 pm

That'll create a market for the arms trade.

They already are the market for the arms trade. Hence the NRA.

What do the odds look like on trump being re-elected?

Because whatever they are, they're worth a bet. I honestly can't believe that Americorbyn is going to win this one. What a bunch of f.cking wazzocks.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:19 pm

What do the odds look like on trump being re-elected?

Because whatever they are, they're worth a bet. I honestly can't believe that Americorbyn is going to win this one. What a bunch of f.cking wazzocks.

The polling shows Sanders as likely to beat Trump as any Democratic candidate, so I'm not sure that that's warranted. The "Any Functioning Adult 2020" campaign is pretty strong.

And TBH, the supporters of the other candidates are less likely to do a BernieBro2016 and not vote or vote Trump if their preferred candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Functioning is optimistic. He's 128 years old and has had a heart attack and is concealing his health records. Jane Sanders is a worry. His Corbynesque links to terrorist are even worrier.

From my remote perspective, which is probably as interested as your average US voter if I'm being cynical / accurate, Saunders is a no-hoper. Trump will bully the sh.t out of him.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

Jane Sanders is a worry.

What about her worries you?

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

His Corbynesque links to terrorist are even worrier.

Is there any evidence for 'links to terrorist(s)'?

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:27 pm

From my remote perspective, which is probably as interested as your average US voter if I'm being cynical / accurate, Saunders is a no-hoper. Trump will bully the sh.t out of him.

Trump will bully the sh.t out of whoever gets the nomination. Sanders seems pretty robust.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:08 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

Jane Sanders is a worry.

What about her worries you?

She did a lot of fund raising for colleges - and it went awry. Badly awry. They went bust because they didn't get the funds they targeted.

Some Republicans in 2016 pretended it was criminal and demanded the FBI investigate her for bank fraud. The FBI closed the case for being without merit. But Trump will come for round 2 on it - and it certainly looks like she was pretty incompetent in the whole thing.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

His Corbynesque links to terrorist are even worrier.

Is there any evidence for 'links to terrorist(s)'?

Less than for Corbyn, but enough engaging in dialogue with proxies for it to be spun by Trump as support.

Trump will invent stuff about any of them, but Sanders has grains of reality on which Trump can hang fantastic tapestries. Warren has Pocahontas which doesn't really matter, Klobuchar has the salad comb which matters less, Bloomberg is a racist Republican already but the even racister Trump can't attack him on that. Biden has the entire Ukraine conspiracy fantasy dragging him down.

I'd be happiest with Warren because vaguely left of centre in UK terms, but Klobuchar would be a good moderate candidate (slightly right of centre in UK terms).

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:24 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:08 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:09 pm

His Corbynesque links to terrorist are even worrier.

Is there any evidence for 'links to terrorist(s)'?

Less than for Corbyn, but enough engaging in dialogue with proxies for it to be spun by Trump as support.

Trump will invent stuff about any of them, but Sanders has grains of reality on which Trump can hang fantastic tapestries. Warren has Pocahontas which doesn't really matter, Klobuchar has the salad comb which matters less, Bloomberg is a racist Republican already but the even racister Trump can't attack him on that. Biden has the entire Ukraine conspiracy fantasy dragging him down.

I'd be happiest with Warren because vaguely left of centre in UK terms, but Klobuchar would be a good moderate candidate (slightly right of centre in UK terms).

Fair enough about Jane Sanders - that will come up for sure, and I have no idea how much weight the exoneration would carry with the unconvinced.

As for Sanders and the "terrorists", it's an interesting case - do grains of reality actually matter any more?

Trump, and presumably his supporters, claim to want to bring as many US troops home as possible. Sanders has consistently opposed US overseas interventions for several centuries, whereas the most Trump has done is dodge the draft and shaft the kurds. So there is a real sense in which Sanders has been advocating, over decades, for what Trump supporters apparently want.

We all know that the US spent a lot of the second half of the last century acting like a terrorist state - assassinating or overthrowing democratically elected leaders on several continents, for example, not to mention actively funding overseas terrorist groups like the Contras - so it's pretty much guaranteed that there are senior Republicans who have had far more direct, and damaging, contact with terrorists than Sanders. I don't know how widely accepted that reality is within the USA, though - I suspect not very.

I like both Sanders and Warren, policy-wise, and there's not very much between them anyway. I do find Sanders's track record, of being right about basically everything for the last five hundred years, quite appealing, as you know what you're getting going forward. Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act is a nice piece of work (though could be a bit more ambitious in its scope - starting at $1bn seems unnecessarily gentle), she's come round to Medicare for All and they're both on board with the Green New Deal.

I think that what puts Warren into (close) second place for me is that she keeps saying how much she loves markets and isn't a socialist and so on, which makes me worry she'd go more for technocratic tinkering rather than structural reforms, and that she wants to keep trying to reach across the aisle to Republicans, which I think is risky as they obviously can't be trusted (though I guess she doesn't want to be too rude about her own family). I know that you and dyqik disagree with me on this, but last time I tried to re-evaluate the candidates (by reading their wikipedia and their own campaign pages) I just found more stuff that confirmed what I already thought

Obviously pretty much anybody would be better than Trump, up to and including one of those black plastic bags of dog poo you sometimes find dangling from a branch. But anybody other than Sanders or Warren would be a wasted opportunity IMHO. The US left needs to strike hard and fast to put systems in place that it would be hard for subsequent administrations to undo, which means being bold as well as having a good strategy.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:08 pm

Trump will bully the sh.t out of whoever gets the nomination. Sanders seems pretty robust.

Robust? He'll get angry and frustrated exactly like the guy in Curb Your Enthusiasm and he'll become a laughing stock for enough voters to swing it.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:54 pm

The US left needs to strike hard and fast to put systems in place that it would be hard for subsequent administrations to undo, which means being bold as well as having a good strategy.

f.ck all that stuff. They just need to do what the republicans do: focus on winning.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:24 pm

Trump will invent stuff about any of them, but Sanders has grains of reality on which Trump can hang fantastic tapestries. Warren has Pocahontas which doesn't really matter, Klobuchar has the salad comb which matters less, Bloomberg is a racist Republican already but the even racister Trump can't attack him on that. Biden has the entire Ukraine conspiracy fantasy dragging him down.

Trump is already attacking Bloomberg as racist, because of stop and frisk.

Obviously Trump called for it to be reinstated after Bloomberg was forced to stop it by the courts. And has since called for the death penalty without the possibility of appeal for the kinds of people it targeted. But that doesn't stop him.