2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 298K
  • Politics 
HeelYeah2012 said:
When talking about how far a dollar stretches, I think that term is generally used to talk about the net impact of how much money someone is making less what they’re spending on goods. In other words, it encompasses both wage growth and inflation. Otherwise yes you’d be right that taken literally, any 0.1% inflation would make you say your dollar “stretched further” under the predecessor.

To put it a different way - more middle class families felt they were getting ahead under Trump than they do under the current administration.

Obviously you are smart enough to know that just because inflation has now normalized a bit, people’s salaries haven’t caught up to the massive inflation we were seeing a couple years ago. Current year over year inflation might be 2-3% but it’s 2-3% on top of a crazy high number that was hurting a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. The 3-4 year percentage price increases are still crazy, especially for groceries.

And that’s why Trump still has a puncher’s chance to win.
Click to expand...
Real wages are very close to being up over Biden's term. And the only reason they're not significantly up is the distorting effect of the pandemic, when real wages skyrocketed, largely because so many lower-earning Americans were laid off for a period of time. Real wages now are significantly higher than they were under Trump prior to the pandemic. So if you believe the numbers, most Americans' dollars do "stretch further" now than they did under Trump.

www.factcheck.org

Competing Narratives on Real Wages, Incomes Under Biden - FactCheck.org

In recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Sen. Tim Scott offered seemingly contradictory claims when discussing the impact of inflation on the typical American's wages and income. Both can cite economic data that support their claims. The difference is the starting point of their...
www.factcheck.org www.factcheck.org
 
Calheel said:
84% would be a near historical low for a Democrat. That would be a disaster if that were her actual number.

Hillary got 89% and still lost.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's a big concern but that's what she's polling at right now. On the plus side, she is improving among college-educated whites vs Biden. And Hillary got 91% and still lost. Biden got 92%.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
But brother, if you don’t think Rachel Maddow is far left I’m not sure what to tell you. MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
Click to expand...
www.quora.com

Is Rachel Maddow center-left or far-left?

Answer (1 of 13): Labels have become essentially meaningless in today’s media nomenclature. Rachael Maddow, like her Fox News counterpart, Sean Hannity, positions herself considerably to the right of center when we consider her hawkish stance on almost every foreign policy issue. Yet, she succeed...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Answers:
1) Maddow represents the liberal opinion well. While biased toward the liberal world view, all her commentary is thoroughly fact-checked and accurate. Fox News often sounds more like a propaganda outlet for the far right and has been caught numerous times telling outright lies by fact-checking organizations.

2) Her actions put her center left, she exhibits an open-minded thinking process , has been willing to discuss an consider more moderate positions (open to compromise) and those qualities put her in the center or less radical left.

3) Rachael Maddow positions herself considerably to the right of center when we consider her hawkish stance on almost every foreign policy issue. Yet, she succeeds in gaslighting her viewers into believing she is a progressive because she espouses liberal views on social policy.

4) Rachel Maddow definitely is more of the political news/commenter type, so it is understandable why she would want to be on a network like MSNBC. And she has told many stories that I dug into and they were completely true.

I think when people blast liberal reporters they sometimes overlook that there are genuinely decent reporters who are just liberals. Rachel Maddow is one. She never acted unethically as 1. She told you she was liberal. 2. She reports real news. 3. She invites commenters on to give perspectives separate from those of her own.
 
Calheel said:
84% would be a near historical low for a Democrat. That would be a disaster if that were her actual number.

Hillary got 89% and still lost.
Click to expand...
It really wouldn't be a disaster with that number. As I've said before, the numbers can tell only one story. If you're looking at a poll that shows Kamala +3, and she's only at 80% among black people . . . it means she has support elsewhere. For that to be bad for her, you'd have to assume the 80% holds but the stronger support elsewhere doesn't.

Remember also that composition effects matter. Kamala could do worse with every single demographic group than HRC and still win, if the mix of demographics changes. If black people were 10% of the electorate in 2016 and 15% this year, then the black vote will be better for Kamala even if she's not winning as high a % of it.
 
CFordUNC said:


Lolololol Republicans, get the fuck over here and come get your old ass demented grandpa!

Translation: “I did not want to get my ass rocked by a black guy.”
Click to expand...

Or, some poor white trash kid from Levittown, Flatbush, Maspeth, or Whitebush.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
But brother, if you don’t think Rachel Maddow is far left I’m not sure what to tell you. MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
Click to expand...
It's not the ideological lean that makes Fox News a scourge. It's that it's not news.

If Fox and MSNC covered the same stories relying on the same facts, they might put different spins on it. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that, in our current landscape. But that's not what happens. Fox is singularly mendacious. MSNBC has its fair share of folks who are a bit loose with facts (though since I don't watch, this is largely impressionistic), but it's living in a different universe.
 
Given that no one actually on the far left thinks that Rachel Maddow - or MsNBC, a corporate news outlet, for that matter - is "far left," it seems highly unlikely that she would be far left.

That and the fact that the rest of us have sentience with which we can observe fact and draw logical conclusions. And thus arrive at the position that Rachel Maddow is clearly not far left.
 
Paine said:
The things you say about Maddow are true. She represents the core liberal constituency of the Democratic Party. That’s a very mainstream position to hold.

In my mind, a liberal on a corporate owned TV network who is a mouth piece for a liberal, corporate/business friendly party isn’t far left under any definition.

Left of center? Sure.
Click to expand...
This is correct, depending on what you mean by center. I would argue that the current Dem party isn't really left of center at all, except in the trivial sense of being more liberal on average than the average voter. The Dems today are to the right of the 1990s GOP on a couple of issues, and not really particularly progressive on any that I can think of. If you look at the last half century of American politics, Dems are considerably closer to Reagan than, say, Carter. Well, maybe not Reagan. But definitely Bush 41.
 
MendotoManteo said:
Given that no one actually on the far left thinks that Rachel Maddow - or MsNBC, a corporate news outlet, for that matter - is "far left," it seems highly unlikely that she would be far left.

That and the fact that the rest of us have sentience with which we can observe fact and draw logical conclusions. And thus arrive at the position that Rachel Maddow is clearly not far left.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you and Heelyeah have a very different definition of “far left”. Given that it is a subjective label, I doubt this argument advances the ball very much.
 
Paine said:
I think Bernie is far left for an American politician, for sure. The point I was making about him not being far left is more so in comparison to international politics. I think I was also referencing the universal popularity of a lot of his positions.

The things you say about Maddow are true. She represents the core liberal constituency of the Democratic Party. That’s a very mainstream position to hold.

In my mind, a liberal on a corporate owned TV network who is a mouth piece for a liberal, corporate/business friendly party isn’t far left under any definition.

Left of center? Sure.
Click to expand...
Regarding Maddow and the like, I think many on the right conflate staunch party support for Democrats with ideological extremeness. Likely the result of ignorance vis-a-vis the political ideological spectrum as well as right wing media telling them that everyone to the left of the House Freedom Caucus is dangerous and extreme.
 
Far Left = communist

Slightly less Far Left = socialist

Bernie and AOC are to the right of socialist. Pretty certain they call themselves Social Democrats.

Elizabeth Warren is to their right. Warren would be a slightly left centrist in Europe.

Obama is to her right. Joe Biden has governed more boldly and possibly slightly to Obama’s left by a smidge. They’re both American Centrists.

Obama, Biden, Schumer, and Harris would be center-right in Europe.

Trump, Vance, McConnell, Mike Johnson, Cruz, Rubio, Tillis, Tim Moore, Phil Berger, DeSantis, Haley, etc. would be in far-right parties in Europe.
 
lightbluenc said:
According to Pew Research, Hillary got 81% of black men, 65% of Hispanic men, 32% of white men.

Curious where Harris stands and will stand with each of those.
Click to expand...
From a column in Slate (Mark Joseph Stern)

Adjusting each candidate’s vote share by demographic, as FiveThirtyEight allows, illustrates the problem for Republicans: Bumping up minority support for Trump does shockingly little to improve his odds. My former colleague Matt Yglesias has pointed out, for example, that Trump could improve 10 points with Hispanic voters and 20 points with Black Americans—but still lose to Harris if he does just 2 points worse with white people. Even if Trump does exponentially better with Hispanic voters than he did in 2020, he’ll lose if Harris shaves off a few points among whites. The Electoral College bias is exacerbated by the fact that white people still make up a sizable majority of the country. So Republican gains among nonwhites don’t count for much, especially when they’re offset by even minor Democratic gains among whites.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
MSNBC is just as in the tank for the Democrats as Fox is for Republicans.
Click to expand...
This simply isn't true. Media bias rankings consistently show that Fox's TV programming is both (1) more partisan, and (2) less fact-based than MSNBC programming. You can look for yourself:

adfontesmedia.com

Interactive Media Bias Chart | Ad Fontes Media

The Interactive Media Bias Chart offers the ability to search from among the thousands of rated web/print, TV and podcast sources.
adfontesmedia.com adfontesmedia.com

Compare where Maddow's show is versus programs like Fox & Friends, Jesse Waters' show, and Laura Ingraham's show. You will see that they generally skew considerably more partisan and considerably less fact-based. And that is absolutely confirmed by the "eye test" when you watch these programs. You will routinely see Fox hosts and guests calling Trump the best, the greatest, the most perfect, etc. You do not see MSNBC or anyone else say these things about Harris and Democrats.

Is MSNBC's news coverage slanted to favor liberal perspectives? Yes, it is; it is the furthest left of any cable news network in terms of its coverage. But are they "in the tank" for democrats like Fox is for Republicans generally, and especially Trump? Objectively, they absolutely are not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top