Which actual candidate was either running in the Democratic Primary or has any statistical chance of winning the presidency without being either the Democratic or Republican nominee?
Who is this “actual candidate” you keep blustering about? You’re all “fuck genocide joe and the neolibs” but never once have any of you offered a viable alternative. Special, urgent emphasis on viable, by the way. Otherwise, I am going to assume you do want Trump to win as some sort of accelerationist gambit so the proletariat revolution can finally begin… well, guess what, in the power vacuum you want so bad, you’ll be surprised to see who actually ends up against that wall.
If you read the article, it says the Republicans are proposing raising the age to collect full Social Security benefits to 69 (it is now currently 67). That’s not quite the same as ‘cutting’ social security.
BTW, the surplus SS currently has in its account will run dry in about 10 years. Once that happens, Social Security will become a pay as you go program if nothing changes, which means benefits will be reduced by about 25% (i.e. the amount of money coming in from SS taxes will only cover about 75% of projected outlays).
I did read the article. The current age to collect full benefits is 67. They are proposing it be raised to 69. Please illuminate for me what I am missing.
So when you paid into it, you were told you would get money out at 67.
You will no longer be getting paid for those 2 years, thus are getting less money back from the gov (and forcing 67-69 y/os potentially back into the work place).
Now who has no idea what Social Security is? If this proposal passes, I can still retire at 62 (with reduced monthly benefits). The proposal is to increase the age at which you receive ***full ***benefits.
“You will no longer be getting paid for those 2 years” - That is absolutely not true. I would not receive full benefits for those two years if this proposal passes.
One additional fun fact I gleemed from the article that no one here has mentioned: according to this article, if this proposal passes, it would amount to a 14% cut. But if nothing changes, the Social Security trust fund will become insolvent in 2033 (just 9 years away!!) which will result in a 23% cut.
Obama floated a single-payer option for healthcare, he was stopped by Republicans. People also need to realize that the Democrats scraping by means they have to compromise to survive.
You want them to do more? They need a mandate, not a razor thin slice. The Republicans have gerrymandered the fuck out of your country and made it so that even when they aren’t elected, they can control or block everything. They’ve made it impossible for Democrats to get a landslide, blocked absolutely everything they can, stirred up as much voter apathy as possible, so that even when they lose, they win. And you’re buying right into it.
This is also why everyone should vote Democrat. You only have two parties in your country. If the Democrats always win because the Republicans are too right wing, they will forced to abandon their most repugnant social policies to save the golden goose, tax cuts and cutting social programs.
This will force Democrats to move left to differentiate themselves, and so forth. Short of electoral reform which will never happen, it has to become political suicide to be against abortion, LGBTQ issues, etc like it is in other countries.
Obama floated a single-payer option for healthcare, he was stopped by Republicans.
You might want to check that one out again. The Ds had a majority in Congress and managed to fuck themselves on that one.
Single payer will never pass, big insurance owns too many congress people on both sides of the isle. A couple million dollar payoff for a dissenting vote is much cheaper than the billions they’d lose if either ACA is repealed, or we cut them out of the game with something like universal healthcare.
Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema. There’s always going to be a rotating villain. Our political landscape is designed to invest the least amount of political capital for the preservation of the status quo. Our Congress is beholden to the interests of the ruling class and that money flows to both sides of the aisle.
but we need to vote for the republicans cosplaying as Democrats so that they can continue to be the reason we don’t get anything instead of Republicans. The fatal flaw in the idea that people like Manchin, Sinema and other blue dogs are another obstacle the Dems need to overcome is that Dems. Chose. Them. Those people are in congress getting in the way of the democratic agenda because democrats put them there.
Presidents can’t just make laws without going through Congress, despite what pretty much every news media organization likes to imply. For two years Biden had an obstructionist Senate and now it’s the obstructionist House.
To your point though, I think Democrats could do a better job promoting all the changes they would make. Say you’ll “enshrine the right to an abortion” into law, say you’ll establish a minimum wage that keeps up with inflation, say you’ll let doctors heal and teachers teach, say you’ll take the title away from China as the leader in renewable energy, and for fuck sake say you’ll stop kowtowing to the Israeli government.
I was responding to the second paragraph where they said that Democrats need to message better. I believe a lot of the topics they gave as examples that the Democrats could push in their messaging was in the State of the Union.
I think I’m missing something. So the insurrectionists, yell “charge” as if in battle and say to pull all the Democrats out into the street and have a mob trial, but what they’re being charged with is interfering with a government proceeding? Like that’s the only thing wrong here?
You’re missing something. He’s being charged with breaking multiple laws, not just “interfering with a government proceeding.”
The criminal proceeding against him has been tied up in appeals after a Trump-appointed trial judge ruled that one of the criminal laws Fischer is charged with violating must be read very narrowly.
But only one of those charges is being contested. The Supreme Court gets to decide if he’ll be tried on that charge, but it sounds like he’ll be tied on the other charges regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. The headline is sensational, but what else would you expect from Vox?
Can we please stop with the whole “if the Republicans make the country terrible enough, they will start losing!”
No. That’s a terrible strategy. It worked once, with the repeal of abortion protections, and even then it didn’t work super well. And the tradeoff was not worth it. Women are dying.
Voters, especially Republican voters, are so stupid and brainwashed that they will believe the GOP when the GOP tells them that it’s actually Democrats (and immigrants etc etc) who have made their lives worse.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the GOP recently lost two more special elections in places they normally wouldn't & nationwide the Democrats are still beating polling by 9+ points at the ballot box post Roe V. Wade fuckery by SCotUS. Also, the GOP's bank accounts are literally being looted by the Trumps which will devastate down-ballot politicians.
I'm assuming they are using AI or a something similar for targeting polling to get the "answers" they want,
Polling hasn't been anywhere near accurate since 2016, but the Media needs its horse race. Make sure you vote & make sure 3 other people vote & we've got this.
EDIT: the silly little fascist symp @syllogi has been blocked by everyone, so all they can do is sad little downvotes. How pathetic you are, fash.
Exactly. Who do you think is more likely to answer a phone poll? A rural landline to an older man with nothing better to do then shout “Trump” into the receiver OR an urban mobile number owned by a young non-white woman with two kids?
These polls oversample loud conservatives and undersample quieter Democrats with actual lives. Remember 2020 when Trump had lots of “enthusiasm” at his rallies? How’d that work out?
It doesn’t matter how enthusiastic your vote is, it matters if you vote. Just vote and help others to do the same. Sign up for a Biden or local Democrat’s GOTV effort. That’s actual democracy.
Dude exactly, also a bunch of us dems are just of the type who wouldn’t participate regardless even if they got a hold of us. If they want my time they have to pay.
The corrupt trump judge’s reading of the statute in focus here is such overly-obvious bullshit. Also, not even his reading I’m sure (did someone follow the paper trail that shows how the federalist society likely fed him his “thoughts” on this to pave the path to the conflict of interest laden Supreme Court?
This is serious, but none of it is sincere. 250 years to fully confront the fact that the US founding principles of government are built on “gentlemen’s agreements” and an assumption of minimum level of real/performative integrity (and a fear of tarnished legacy after death) - our way of government is helpless if those core assumptions aren’t in place. Now we’re just left here to watch an obvious slow moving train intentionally crushing line after line of school children and ultimately headed towards a cliff.
Plenty of warning time, but nobody can move the children or stop the train.
I have believed this for a long time. They could make the world better for everyone but focus on making sure that others suffer just a little bit more than they do.
There is a study about this (link); many people would rather have less as long as their peers are worse off. This is our inner caveman brain telling us this is a zero sum world.
Used to love that band, their concept album about the early years of superhero Spawn was dope. Can't stand to listen to them now knowing that terrorist was a major part of it.
…respondents said that Trump would do a better job by double-digit margins.
…in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, 40 percent of voters said that Trump’s policies had helped them personally, while just 18 percent said the same of Biden.
So these polls are just showing that Trump gets all the Republicans because they don’t actually care about policy, and Biden only gets a few Democrats because these questions are actually about issues, and his entire platform is that he isn’t Trump
All my life, I voted for the greater good of the greater whole, at my own expense. I am not a Biden fan and many who voted lockstep for the neolibs are most certainly voting on the issues.
It would suck if he got off (and many others by association) but is this the only charge levied against him? They should’ve got him on trespassing, inciting a riot, and possibly vandalism. I would hope those things combined would be at least a 5 year sentence.
I think you misread that line. They meant if Trump was less of a personally crazy person, but made the same accomplishments, he would be on the way to win by a landslide when you also consider bidens popularity.
That being said hope your right. Polls don’t look great and I’d rather have them saying that trump is looking very bad.
I don’t think dumps would be on track to win by a landslide or even a margin taking into account all contemporary factors, including biden’s ostensible poll popularity.
I understand the line, it does not reflect reality.
He lost by an extremely thin margin in 2020 and that was on the back of COVID and before people had a chance to experience four years of Biden. I have no idea how you’re this confident. Does this look promising to you?
And before you all jump down my throat thinking I want Trump to win: I hate that fucker and hope he dies before the election.
“On track to win a historical landslide”? Not at all. Zero evidence for that.
The article doesn’t claim that. It claims that a generic Republican would be on track to win a historical landslide. But not Trump because of his unfavorability.
What? Did you read it? It shows generic R polling vs. Biden winning big but Trump v. Biden polling low. That indicates that the majority of Americans would be open to a Republican Presidency, just not a Trump presidency. They make the case with polling data.
Wow, hyperbolic polling “data” that is consistently inaccurate and being constantly manipulated and interfered with hypothesizing a fictional republican representative with zero adverse character traits?
Did you read that article? Their first example of a polling “miss”:
The average poll in the week before election day had Mehmet Oz beating John Fetterman by nearly 1% in Pennsylvania when in reality Fetterman beat Oz by nearly 5%
Pollsters were actually calling that race a toss up (also 538’s page ). There were several polls that predicted a slim Oz and several that predicted a slim Fetterman. Even the Republican leading pollster that was predicting a 1% the wrong way has a confidence interval of +/- 2.5 and had 4.9% other/undecided factor in the poll.
People are angry that they can’t read polls. They’re angry that a toss up is just that.
Did you read it? It goes on to describe larger polling errors(14%) that resulted consistently in multiple elections going the opposite way of the polls.
Polls are consistently inaccurate.
You can read the whole article instead of the first sentence.
The Siena poll found that “independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights. …The biggest shift came from women who identified as independent voters. In September, they favored Democrats by 14 points. Now, independent women backed Republicans by 18 points–a striking swing given the polarization of the American electorate and how intensely Democrats have focused on that group and on the threat Republicans pose to abortion rights.”
This is the chunk you’re complaining about? They didn’t even refute the poll they just don’t like that data. And that’s after consistently complaining about polls that were marked as toss-ups.
Like please respond to the first one. Because the polls got Oz vs. Fetterman largely correct and it’s the first example of a miss which should be the strongest one.
If a pill has a ± of 5-7 percent with 90% confidence. And you have ten polls, You would expect at least one to be off by more that 5-7%. What your describing is expected.
If I tell you that a rocket is going to land withing a 20ft circle 90% of the time and land 9 rockets in the circle and 1 out of it; was I accurate or inaccurate in your mind?
At least 10 percent of the time the rocket will consistently land inaccurately.
Further, if we more accurately pair your analogy with political polls determining an accurate election result, the rocket will consistently land inaccurately the other 90% of the time as well.
So you’re complaint is that people are telling you, “You have this percentage chance of this being reality” and then you’re mad that they’re unable to be more accurate? It’s polling it’s not fortune-telling.
vox.com
Hot