The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

It was a much quieter night in NYC.

Hopefully the start of a trend.

[Eamonnca1]

I see the GOP in Iowa have finally tossed out Steve King. After nine terms.

And nothing of value was lost. That'll learn him. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of conservatives running for office on a blatant racist platform.

[Eamonnca1]

Okay, sorry for the mishap with the last one, I've fixed it below, and the latest odds are at the bottom:

Delegate count:
Buttigieg 22
Sanders 21
Warren 8
Klobuchar 7
Biden 6
Bloomberg 0

Betting odds for 2020 winner:

Trump 8/13
Sanders 4/1
Bloomberg 9/1
Biden 20/1

Bloomberg took a hiding last night. He was like a duck out of water. Warren obliterated him. Will be interesting to see how that affects the polling numbers over the next few days, and if his high burn rate can take the bad look off it. I just wish he'd get out of the race and put his money into something useful like flipping the 4 senate seats we're going to need.

Odds update:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 7/2 (3.5/1)
Bloomberg: 8/1
Biden: 22/1

Bernie's odds moving in the right direction. Biden, not so much.

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 1/1
Bloomberg: 4/1
Buttigieg:8/1
Biden: 9/1

Update:
Delegate count:
Sanders 31
Buttigieg 22
Warren 8
Biden 8
Klobuchar 7
Bloomberg 0

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 3/1
Bloomberg: 10/1
Biden: 25/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 5/6
Bloomberg: 4/1
Buttigieg:11/1
Biden: 11/1

Interesting that Chrome still thinks "Buttigieg" is a typo.

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 29/10 (2.9/1)
Bloomberg: 10/1
Biden: 28/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 4/5
Bloomberg: 4/1
Biden: 10/1
Buttigieg:12/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 3/1
Bloomberg: 12/1
Biden: 12/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 10/11
Biden: 4/1
Bloomberg: 11/2
Buttigieg:20/1

Bloomberg and Buttigeig getting it tight.

Bernie's odds are slipping slightly in the general election, but he's still the favourite to get the nomination.

2020 winner:
Trump: 8/13
Sanders: 10/3 (3.3/1)
Biden: 9/1
Bloomberg: 12/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 10/11
Biden: 13/4
Bloomberg: 6/1
Buttigieg:20/1

This stock market crash might throw a spanner in the works. It was this kind of October surprise that worked in Obama's favor in 2008 when "the fundamentals of our economy [were] strong" until they weren't. Trump might cruise to reelection if the economy stays strong, but the coronavirus could change all that.

Get in there Bernie!

Delegate count:
Sanders: 58
Biden: 50
Buttigeig: 26 (I wonder what happens to delegates after a candidate pulls out)
Warren: 8
Klobuchar: 7

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/6
Sanders: 3/1
Biden: 13/2 (6.5/1)
Bloomberg: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Sanders: 1/1
Biden: 5/2
Bloomberg: 7/1
Hillary Clinton(!): 33/1

This is the first we've seen Trump's odds moving in a while. Could be the coronavirus effect. Damned if I know why they're showing odds for Hillary instead of the likes of Warren or Klobuchar who are actually in the race.

Delegate count:
Biden 664
Sanders 573

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/5
Biden: 13/8 (1.6/1)
Sanders: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/7
Sanders: 9/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11
Biden: 6/4
Sanders: 18/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/8
Sanders: 9/1

Trump getting it tight. Looking good for Biden if these odds keep moving the way they are. If he puts Warren on his ticket as VP, that should pick up enough Bernie supporters in November. This could be the light at the end of the tunnel.

Delegate count:
Biden 664
Sanders 573

2020 winner:
Trump: 4/5
Biden: 13/8 (1.6/1)
Sanders: 16/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/7
Sanders: 9/1

Delegate count:
Biden 857
Sanders 709

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11 (1/1.1)
Biden: 13/10 (1.3/1)
Sanders: No longer in the top 4

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/14
Sanders: 40/1

2020 winner:
Trump: 1/1
Biden: 15/13
Sanders: 50/1
Deval Patrick: 50/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/16
Sanders: 33/1

The trend is unmistakable.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10
Biden: 11/10
Sanders: 33/1
Deval Patrick: 33/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/12
Sanders: 25/1

Game over for Trump, it seems. Although it's a long way to November, but I'm not sure how he can come back from this. He can't lie or spin his way out of this. Not even Fox News can help him when the dead start piling up.

From what I saw of the debate it looked like Bernie was knocking it out of the park while Joe was wandering off into the weeds.  Still, Bernie seems to be getting it tight now.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10
Biden: 11/10
Mike Pence: 33/1
Sanders: 40/1

Democratic candidate:
Biden: 1/12
Sanders: 40/1

Funny old game.

2020 winner:
Trump: 1/1
Biden: 11/10

WTF is the matter with people?

2020 winner:
Trump: 10/11
Biden: 5/4

Seems like Trump's lash-out-at-the-media-and-shoot-the-messenger strategy is paying off.

But if Biden does get in somehow, I could see him serving one term and then someone like Newsom having a go.

I wouldn't write Biden off yet. It's a long way to November and a lot of dead bodies are going to be piled up between now and then thanks to Donald. A lot will depend on how successful he is in shifting blame away from himself. He'll take credit for anything that goes right and deflect blame for anything that goes wrong, which will play well with the religious crowd who are used to doing that sort of thing with God. I don't know if it'll be enough with swing voters though.

Well well well. Trump starting to get it tight again. Maybe his supporters are dropping dead with the virus.

2020 winner:
Trump 1/1
Biden 5/4

Wheisht! Trump getting it tight now.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10 (1.1/1)
Biden: 15/13 (1.15/1)

Well well well. Now it's even. Trump's odds of reelection are in freefall. As the covid death toll mounts and the riots spread, I expect to see him get even more desperate. Expect more scapegoating of China, Mexico, immigrants, and people of colour in the next few months. That includes you, Whitey. I assume you're an immigrant. Don't for one minute think he has your back.

2020 winner:
Trump: 11/10
Biden 11/10

Joe seems to be the favourite for the first time. Trump's odds are definitely drifting and Biden's are shortening. Still a bit close for my liking though.
2020 winner:
Biden: 1/1
Trump: 11/10

The "violent protests are hurting Biden" theory doesn't seem to be holding up. His odds are still shortening and Trump's are still drifting. Biden is now the favourite.

2020 winner:
Biden: 19/20
Trump: 11/10

[whitey]

https://fallriverreporter.com/report-85-year-old-air-force-veteran-body-slammed-in-fall-river-for-holding-trump-sign/

Now they're Battering 85 year old Trump supporters

A veteran who fought for their right to protest

I can't wait to read what The NY Times and WaPo have to say about this

(I bet Trump will be calling him on the phone to inquire after his well-being later today)

[sid waddell]

Sid - while I admire your stance but it is more complex than that.

To just say 'I am wrong' and then tar millions of people with the same brush with no evidence is 'wrong'.

Im no Trump supporter and the biggest issue in the US right now is Police brutality & racism - period.

You can surely see the violent protestors is pushing people towards Trump?

Regarding who was voted in last time - perhaps given the choices Clinton or Trump - it means that many voted as the least worst in their eyes - not that every single one of them was racist?

Hillary Clinton was not a racist, fascist demagogue. Neither is Joe Biden. Each is problematic in their own way but very much within a normal frame of reference and each was/is unquestionably a better option than a racist, fascist demagogue. Jacques Chirac was problematic within a normal frame of reference in 2002 but was unquestionably a better option than the racist, fascist demagogue Jean Marie Le Pen. Similarly with Emmanuel Macron over Le Pen's daughter in 2017.

People don't get "pushed" into voting for Trump. That's an excuse for giving in to their own bigotry. If they vote for Trump it's because they're happy to accept a racist, fascist demagogue in the White House.

Do you accept there is significant interference being run here by far right agent provocateurs to turn protests violent?

That's a naked attack on the right of the black community to protest. It's telling the black community - "if you protest, we will interfere to make things violent with the express aim of deligitimising and demonising you". I'm sure you can see the problem for democracy there.

Which is a much, much more important story than some hangers on going too far and looting some shops. Maybe not for people who have a predisposition to vote for a racist, fascist demagogue.

We rightly say white America has never come to terms with its original sin. It has never dealt with its endemic racism, and thus, we have police brutality against black people. What could be more demonstrative of the undealt with endemic racism than mass support for a racist, fascist demagogue? Support for that demagogue is the banality of evil. I'm certain those in Germany who supported Hitler in the 1930s mainly thought of themselves as good people. Most people think of themselves as good people. The majority of Trump supporters would not inflict violence on somebody of an ethnic minority. They're likely polite in person, and capable of compassion. But that's not the point. That's not what everyday racism is. If somebody supports a racist, fascist demagogue, they are giving support to evil. They are participating in the. perpetuation of endemic and vicious racism

Trump literally campaigned on chaos. He is on record as calling for riots and chaos and for things to "go to total hell".

A significant amount of his supporters desire chaos. My evidence is the following.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/trump-voters-chaos.html

Last week, at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, the winner of the best paper award in the Political Psychology division was "A 'Need for Chaos' and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies."

The paper, which the award panel commended for its "ambitious scope, rigor, and creativity," is the work of Michael Bang Petersen and Mathias Osmundsen, both political scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark, and Kevin Arceneaux, a political scientist at Temple.

It argues that a segment of the American electorate that was once peripheral is drawn to "chaos incitement" and that this segment has gained decisive influence through the rise of social media.

------

How do Petersen, Osmundsen and Arceneaux measure this "need for chaos"? They conducted six surveys, four in the United States, in which they interviewed 5157 participants, and two in Denmark, with 1336. They identified those who are "drawn to chaos" through their affirmative responses to the following statements:

I fantasize about a natural disaster wiping out most of humanity such that a small group of people can start all over.

I think society should be burned to the ground.

When I think about our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking "just let them all burn."

We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.

Sometimes I just feel like destroying beautiful things.

In an email, Petersen wrote that preliminary examination of the data shows "that the 'need for chaos' correlates positively with sympathy for Trump but also — although less strongly — with sympathy for Sanders. It correlates negatively with sympathy for Hillary Clinton." (After publication of this column, Petersen asked to clarify his comment. "The information given in the above quote," he said, "solely reflected an initial interpretation of a preliminary analysis, which is not part of the research on which the column is based.")

-----
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/trumps-hardcore-fans-crave-chaos-and-think-society-should-be-burned-to-the-ground-political-scientists/

The study's authors — political scientists Michael Bang Petersen and Mathias Osmundsen of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Kevin Arceneaux of Temple University — found that Trump supporters were far more likely than other voters to be sympathetic toward statements such as "I fantasize about a natural disaster wiping out most of humanity such that a small group of people can start all over" and "I think society should be burned to the ground."

These views are a minority among voters, the authors claim, but they nonetheless have "incredible amounts of support" among the general population. In fact, the study found that 24 percent of all 6,000-plus people surveyed said they believed society "should be burned to the ground."

[J70]

https://fallriverreporter.com/report-85-year-old-air-force-veteran-body-slammed-in-fall-river-for-holding-trump-sign/

Now they're Battering 85 year old Trump supporters

A veteran who fought for their right to protest

I can't wait to read what The NY Times and WaPo have to say about this

(I bet Trump will be calling him on the phone to inquire after his well-being later today)

Tell us, what do you think the Times and Post will be saying?

As for Trump, do you think he'll let the old codger's family say something, unlike with Floyd's brother the other day?

[J70]

I see the GOP in Iowa have finally tossed out Steve King. After nine terms.

And nothing of value was lost. That'll learn him. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of conservatives running for office on a blatant racist platform.

Yep, subtly is essential.

King was fine until he started running his mouth off too openly.

[J70]

BTW whitey, are you in agreement with Heather McDonald that there is NO victimization or mistreatment of black people by police? You posted the piece without comment.

[sid waddell]

Whitey, why are you comparing Police Brutality to Gang related shootings?

It's very important for right-wing nut jobs to try and stop discussion of actual pressing issues, by using deflection.

They do this because they have made the decision to be brainwashed into being right-wing culture warriors who have no progressive vision whatsoever for society, and instead devote their time to mindlessly campaigning for the upholding of indefensible injustice and white supremacism.

Editorial Page of WSJ hardly right wing but jobs but keep believing what CNN is telling you

There you go again Whitey reaching into your Rupert Murdoch bubble to seek validation for your stance on the News Media.

The editorial and opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal are a shameless vehicle for fascism and kleptocracy.

The paper was fervent in its support for Brazil's fascist aspiring dictator Jair Bolsonaro.

[whitey]

https://fallriverreporter.com/report-85-year-old-air-force-veteran-body-slammed-in-fall-river-for-holding-trump-sign/

Now they're Battering 85 year old Trump supporters

A veteran who fought for their right to protest

I can't wait to read what The NY Times and WaPo have to say about this

(I bet Trump will be calling him on the phone to inquire after his well-being later today)

Tell us, what do you think the Times and Post will be saying?

As for Trump, do you think he'll let the old codger's family say something, unlike with Floyd's brother the other day?

I'm sure they will be just as outraged as They were when the Covington kids surrounded and intimidated the Native American Tribal Elder and Vietnam Veteran

[Milltown Row2]

Just watched a video of looters in a what looked like a Nike store, dirty scumbags

Why are you concerned about people lifting a few pairs of shoes that cost $5 to get made in China? I'd rather it didn't happen but not high on my list of priorities compared to police killing people.

So are you not concerned or agreeing with looters?

And what have looters got to do with peaceful protesters? I seen loads of white people heading into the shop multiple times, scumbags.

[sid waddell]

We've found a case of voter fraud.

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1268225403979804673

President Trump tried to register to vote in Florida using an out-of-state address - The Washington Post

[J70]

https://fallriverreporter.com/report-85-year-old-air-force-veteran-body-slammed-in-fall-river-for-holding-trump-sign/

Now they're Battering 85 year old Trump supporters

A veteran who fought for their right to protest

I can't wait to read what The NY Times and WaPo have to say about this

(I bet Trump will be calling him on the phone to inquire after his well-being later today)

Tell us, what do you think the Times and Post will be saying?

As for Trump, do you think he'll let the old codger's family say something, unlike with Floyd's brother the other day?

I'm sure they will be just as outraged as They were when the Covington kids surrounded and intimidated the Native American Tribal Elder and Vietnam Veteran

Talk about setting up a straw man!

On the one hand, a widely covered story arising out of protests at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

On the other, a three line story about an old man with a Trump sign being assaulted by some 27 year old moron in some town no one has heard of in MA, with no other details whatsoever.

Yeah, if the Times and Post don't pick this up and put it on their front pages, its more proof of their ridiculous liberal bias.

You're gone in the head with this stuff.

[whitey]

Nah....I'm just being sarcastic. But compared to the Covington story, this one , if true, is 50 times more outrageous and you probably won't hear a word about it because it doesn't fit their narrative

[sid waddell]

Governor Jim Justice (R) of West Virginia says that he would welcome any president to his state.

Oh wait, any white president.

Just one former president, Barack Obama, is classed as being not welcome.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1268222197212106753