2020 US presidential election

CNN used to be smack in the middle between the two parties, it's the GOP that kept inching more to the right until all mainstream media seemed to have a liberal bias.
By now, from the view of the GOP and FOX, reality itself has a left-wing bias. They've just gotten far right over the past years. CNN is not a partisan network. It's a sensationalist, idiotic network. But not partisan.

So I misunderstood the AOC thing. This explains why she "endorsed" Bernie.

If you were confused, no worries!

Convention rules require roll call & nominations for every candidate that passes the delegate threshold.

I was asked to 2nd the nom for Sen. Sanders for roll call.

I extend my deepest congratulations to @JoeBiden - let’s go win in November. https://t.co/uI92P3UfLn

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) August 19, 2020

Yes, it needs to come from what we know, like Hillary losing despite having a lead on the polls. Sound familiar?

Didnt Hillary win the popular vote though? So the polls were right kinda

Trump disses Michelle Obama: "She was over her head, and frankly, she should've made the speech live, which she didn't do, she taped it. And it was not only taped, it was tape a long time ago, because she had the wrong [coronavirus] deaths." pic.twitter.com/Ckyj3wtoWq

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 18, 2020

This is wild. "No, 150k didn't die on my watch, it was actually 170k" has to be the stupidest political defense of all time.

The subtle charge of pedophilia against Biden is disgusting.

Why in American culture any man holding a child in a decent position is seen as some kind of Predator?

I mean add 5 photos of you with children and boom good enough for public to declare you as pedo.

Saw this today and I still can’t comprehend the levels of sociopathy. pic.twitter.com/Rrony9uF54

— Omar Sheriff (@OmarSheriffHD) August 20, 2020

Honestly first time seeing that, i have detested Obama for many reasons. What a POS.

Meh. Par for the political course. I'd be more surprised if he didn't have a video out there like that somewhere in ether. Standard stuff for our politicians.

FennecFox7 wrote:Yes, it needs to come from what we know, like Hillary losing despite having a lead on the polls. Sound familiar?

As Myesyats said, Hillary won the popular vote. National polls were pretty good. Most state level polls actually performed well. However, the polls were NOT correct in a couple of key states (WI being one of the most egregious).

The reason, by the way, wasn't because of "shy Trump voters", but because the pollsters didn't properly weight by education. Something that pollsters are doing better this time (although in the polling community there is still a want for more education by weighting...but you can bypass this using 538's pollster rankings and only pay attention to pollsters rated highest, or just pay attention to any gold standard polling like NYTimes/Siena).

Also, polling is a statistical/mathematical exercise. That means that there is inherently uncertainty. That's why polls don't come out and say "Hillary is going to beat Donald Trump", they say "Hillary will likely beat Donald Trump, we're giving Trump a 30% chance". The latter is what 538 said, and if you read any coverage up until election night, you would have read Nate Silver proselytize on and on about the legitimate chance of a popular vote/electoral college split that could benefit Trump. He was right.

Ask yourself a question, if you went skydiving, and there was a 30% chance your parachute wouldn't deploy, would you do it? No, you wouldn't, that's an unlikely but still very probable chance of occurring. Those were Trump's odds. It wasn't likely, but it happened.

BTW, polling in the modern day is generally "correct" way more than it's "wrong" (I put those in quotations because, again, it's work in probabilities), when you look at the outcomes.

McLewis wrote:Meh. Par for the political course. I'd be more surprised if he didn't have a video out there like that somewhere in ether. Standard stuff for our politicians.

There are no clean politicians.

Politics is often dirty. I'm not going to defend Obama here, except to say that you're gonna be able to dig shit up on anyone if they were a productive member of Congress*. What you should look at is what they manage to get done, and is it helping people on the whole, or is it hurting people?

Obama's presidency isn't squeeky clean, but neither is anyone's. However, he managed to do pretty well, relative to many presidents. History will be the judge. Truman left with a 25% approval rating, and is now looked at as a lock for top 10 president, bordering on top 5

*I included the star here because idealogues can, at times, be relatively pure politicians. But by virtue of who they are, they usually manage to get fuck all done.

Obama managed to get the US involved in 5 armed conflicts without congress' approval, killed Americans without trial, was utterly ineffectual at passing legislation and enacting change other than for the first 2 years, was in charge of the most ambitious government spying program to date, etc. He is very far from 'squeaky clean', just benefits from the fact that he is sandwiched by 2 of the worst presidents the US has ever had.

His foreign policy has always been and will always be my biggest gripe with him. It was a shit show only Trump could've (and has) surpassed.

Domestically, it's ironic that the only 2 years he was able to pass legislation effectively ensured he wouldn't be able to do so again for his next 6 years. The emergence of the Tea Party and the GOP retaking Congress really hamstrung him.

Culturally, he will go down as a top 5 President though. I think he's already surpassed Kennedy, though that's not particularly fair for obvious reasons.

Kennedy is hugely overrated though, would be a nobody if he didn't die in office.

CBarca wrote:Sorry just realized what you said about the CNN poll

You're literally talking out of your ass. "100% pro Dems". A poll wouldn't be published if the sample was all Dems. Only SRS gets published. Once again. It sounds like projecting. You saw CNN and thought "must be biased for Dems", and that was the whole thought process.

I understand your concern but it needs to come from a place that's grounded in what we know empirically.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40414886
Things like these made me doubt about CNN's allegiance. There're more such cases.
There was a time I regarded CNN as a source of information. As of now, only bbc and theguardian remain as the last English speaking newspapers worth more than the paper they're printed on.

CBarca wrote:Shy Trump voter has been proven to not be a thing in 2016 and I'd be surprised if it's a thing in 2020. Polling has gotten better, and every Trump supporter I've met in the last 4 years is generally relatively loud and proud about it. Way more than in 2016

Any person in public position or higher up would be prosecuted by the PC shitstorms. You act as of PC morale apostle brigade doesn't exist. No intelligent Trump supporter is going to openly say he/she/it is supporting Trump. There're voters who can't stand Trump at all but don't want a Biden at the top. They don't want to be associated with Trump but will vote for him during the elections.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Obama managed to get the US involved in 5 armed conflicts without congress' approval, killed Americans without trial, was utterly ineffectual at passing legislation and enacting change other than for the first 2 years, was in charge of the most ambitious government spying program to date, etc. He is very far from 'squeaky clean', just benefits from the fact that he is sandwiched by 2 of the worst presidents the US has ever had.

In terms of results which should actually count for how well a president term was and not some popularity contest Obama has been one of the worst American presidents from all points of view (internal and foreign politics). Trump was voted in and won because the people back then were fed up with the establishment. Biden was a huge part of that establishment. That's why I wanted Sanders. He would've been at least a signal for a fresh start.

Sorry if I don't take your anecdotal opinion on Trump voters seriously, coming from someone all the way in *checks notes* Germany. Not to mention, there is empirical evidence from 2016 about the "shy trump voter" phenomena.

Shy Trump Voter Depressing His Poll Numbers? Research Finds Little Evidence

Shy Trump voters are likely a myth, but polls aren't perfect --> This one is CNN, which (maybe it surprises you) I have a very large disdain for, but it doesn't matter because it's Harry Enten. Former editor for 538, who gets to write what he wants for CNN.

My anecdotal evidence is that I generally haven't met Trump supporters who are afraid to say it. That's the opposite of yours, but luckily, the numbers support my argument.

VivaStPauli wrote:CNN used to be smack in the middle between the two parties, it's the GOP that kept inching more to the right until all mainstream media seemed to have a liberal bias.
By now, from the view of the GOP and FOX, reality itself has a left-wing bias. They've just gotten far right over the past years. CNN is not a partisan network. It's a sensationalist, idiotic network. But not partisan.

You must be joking.  CNN is as partisan as it gets...  as much a bunch of propaganda nonsense as Fox, MSNBC and the rest of them. Completely unreadable and unwatchable. Stopped wasting my time on all of these.

The only places to get decent news, frankly, is the business newspapers like FT, WSJ, etc.  All they care about is informing people that are investors with facts. Euronews is good too.

CBarca wrote:Sorry if I don't take your anecdotal opinion on Trump voters seriously, coming from someone all the way in *checks notes* Germany. Not to mention, there is empirical evidence from 2016 about the "shy trump voter" phenomena.

Shy Trump Voter Depressing His Poll Numbers? Research Finds Little Evidence

Shy Trump voters are likely a myth, but polls aren't perfect --> This one is CNN, which (maybe it surprises you) I have a very large disdain for, but it doesn't matter because it's Harry Enten. Former editor for 538, who gets to write what he wants for CNN.

My anecdotal evidence is that I generally haven't met Trump supporters who are afraid to say it. That's the opposite of yours, but luckily, the numbers support my argument.

It might be more true in blue states where the newspapers that popularized these myths are based and where the "social consequences" of admitting you're a Trump supporter are worse. From anecdotal experience, I know quite a few former coworkers that claimed they voted for "independent" but we were all pretty convinced they voted for Trump, and some later confirmed it.

sportsczy wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:CNN used to be smack in the middle between the two parties, it's the GOP that kept inching more to the right until all mainstream media seemed to have a liberal bias.
By now, from the view of the GOP and FOX, reality itself has a left-wing bias. They've just gotten far right over the past years. CNN is not a partisan network. It's a sensationalist, idiotic network. But not partisan.

You must be joking.  CNN is as partisan as it gets...  as much a bunch of propaganda nonsense as Fox, MSNBC and the rest of them.  Completely unreadable and unwatchable.  Stopped wasting my time on all of these.

The only places to get decent news, frankly, is the business newspapers like FT, WSJ, etc.  All they care about is informing people that are investors with facts.  Euronews is good too.  

WSJ opinion is as biased as it gets too, but generally I agree, Bloomberg is pretty good too imo. But the best thing is to read a broad array of news and be aware of the multiple takes on the issues so you can have an informed mind on them.

Babun wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Obama managed to get the US involved in 5 armed conflicts without congress' approval, killed Americans without trial, was utterly ineffectual at passing legislation and enacting change other than for the first 2 years, was in charge of the most ambitious government spying program to date, etc. He is very far from 'squeaky clean', just benefits from the fact that he is sandwiched by 2 of the worst presidents the US has ever had.

In terms of results which should actually count for how well a president term was and not some popularity contest Obama has been one of the worst American presidents from all points of view (internal and foreign politics). Trump was voted in and won because the people back then were fed up with the establishment. Biden was a huge part of that establishment. That's why I wanted Sanders. He would've been at least a signal for a fresh start.

Eh, I listed what I see as his flaws above, but he also had a lot of wins. He restarted the economy decisively after it exploded due to Bush-era laxness. He gave millions of Americans medical coverage and decidedly improved their lives (albeit sometimes ineptly). He brokered important international treaties like the Paris Accords and Iran Nuclear Deal. Definitely nowhere near "one of the worst". Especially when the likes of Trump, Bush the Younger, Buchanan and Andrew Jackson are in the list.

@BC... the problem with CNN, Fox, etc. is that I have a hard time matching the "news" stories.  It's as if they're talking about completely different things lol.

WSJ opinion end editorial stories are slanted (by design and they have them properly tagged; they're not trying to deceive you).  Their pure news stories are very good.

Bloomberg is good too... I agree.  Try FT.  It's the best as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure that some people didn't want to admit to others they voted for Trump or felt stigmatized for it. That's definitely a thing. It's not my experience. But that doesn't matter, as the data is clear on "shy trump voters", when it comes to polling...it aint a thing

Not that you were really arguing that BC

CNN is absolutely godawful unless it's Harry Enten talking about polling.

The best sources are NPR and PBS as they are public goods, paid for by the government with their primary source of income coming from the people themselves. They don't take advertisements (although they take donations from local businesses). But you should probably read/watch/listen to a variety of sources, as BC said. Exposing yourself to diversity is the best thing to do, in addition to NPR/PBS

If anyone wants to get a broader look at the issues from multiple viewpoints, I highly recommend AllSides

It's pretty much all I use now for political news.

I'm not disputing that CNN is awful, I'm just saying it's not partisan. It's just trashy, sensationalist, and poorly editorialized. It's not pushing any particular agenda despite viewer numbers and ad sales.

In this era of Trump lies, alternative reality, exaggeration and pure bullshit, everyone that tells us truth and reality, is deemed to be partisan and thankfully they are!

futbol_bill wrote:In this era of Trump lies, alternative reality, exaggeration and pure bullshit, everyone that tells us truth and reality, is deemed to be partisan and thankfully they are!

I mean yeah, since the Republicans just started flat-out lying in every sentence to close ranks with the Trump administration, I assume telling the truth is having a liberal bias, but in that case we all do.

VivaStPauli wrote:I'm not disputing that CNN is awful, I'm just saying it's not partisan. It's just trashy, sensationalist, and poorly editorialized. It's not pushing any particular agenda despite viewer numbers and ad sales.

It’s partisan in the sense it panders to the establishment. Just like Fox, msnbc etc. Republican or Democrat, they will smear and lie about genuine candidates such as sanders, Ron Paul, etc.. wait till someone like AOC runs for higher office, they’ll turn on her too. All about keeping the status quo

That’s why people voted for trump, he’s “anti-establishment” cause he’s unhinged, unpredictable, and isolationist. Trump doesn’t care about anyone or anything.. which I like, but he’s too much of a shitbag and awful human being to capitalize on the good things he’s done

You shouldn't like anti-social behaviour in someone who is supposed to lead a society.

I am disheartened this has to be explained.