July 6, 2015

Hillary wins / Bernie loses

Setting aside policy differences (which are insignificant to all but the most exclusionary purist ideologues), there is one key differentiator between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: Hillary can win the Presidency, Bernie will lose it.

Don't believe me?

There is a list of how popular candidates are. Sanders is so far behind, many polling outfits haven't even bothered testing his name, but we do have results for Arizona, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Washington.

Referencing this:

In Arizona...
Hillary is tied with Jeb Bush, and trails Scott Walker by 1% (well within the 4% margin of error)
Bernie loses to Scott Walker by 15%

In Iowa...
Hillary is outright ahead of all Republican candidates above the margin of error, +7% over Scott Walker
Bernie loses to Scott Walker by 5%

In Kentucky...
Hillary is behind against many Republican candidates, but within single digits (3% to 8% vs major GOP candidates)
Bernie is hopelessly behind, 13% or more

In Michigan...
Hillary is ahead, above the margin of error vs every Republican.
Bernie loses outside the margin of error.

In Ohio...
Hillary is ahead (albeit within the margin of error)
Bernie loses outside the margin of error.

In Washington...
Hillary is ahead outside the margin of error
Bernie is actually tied! (with Scott Walker) In Washington State.


Oh, but it's early?

Not in the least. Look at where Obama was in June of 2007 on the electability question:
CNN: Obama over McCain by 50% to 45%
Gallup: Obama over McCain by 46% to 42%
Newsweek: Obama over McCain by 51% to 36%
Rasmussen: Obama over McCain by 48% to 44%

Obama was ahead nationally. Sanders trails the Republicans by even more than Obama led by at this point.

Basically, Sanders sets Democrats back by a minimum of 15%. He loses states Hillary wins, and make competitive states that Democrats shouldn't have to be fighting over. He has no path to 270 electoral votes, and will lose us the election. This doesn't mean Hillary is a lock to win - getting a third Presidential term for one party is always hard in the United States - but she is clearly our best chance.

Final note. I don't expect to persuade the ideologues on this board with these irrefutable facts. (I'm over and done with that useless exercise.) So if you have a dream and want to keep dreaming it, that's fine. But when Hillary crushes Sanders on the road to the nomination, don't go pretending to yourself that this is because of any nefarious Wall Street "buying" of the election. It's just that Democrats - regular Democrats - want to win. It's kind of important to us - because unless you do, all those words and positions (absolutist or nuanced) mean nothing.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

March 14, 2014

In truth, I wish she wouldn't do the ROFL smiley bit...

Still when screamer side behaves like creationists, and responds to long strings of pertinent facts from established authorities by just repeating bullshit assertions, I can see how she would end up being sadly amused.

No one cares about whether people who have no credibility think others have credibility or not. When anyone blithely dismisses established facts, that speaks volumes. Roughly speaking, the typical exchange goes something like this:

MoronicLeftWingNut: President Obama beats his wife. A blogger from Russia Today says so. So it's true.
ProSense: It's provably false: made up by an insane southern racist. Here's a link to research debunking it.
MoronicLeftWingNut: Do you think the President should stop beating his wife?
ProSense: Did you read the link?!?
MoronicLeftWingNut: Answer my question! Do you think the President should stop beating his wife?
ProSense:

This repeats ad-nauseum on the D.U. constantly. Moron Screamers vs Information Providers. I myself have been sucked into spending hours figuring out the actual facts surrounding an issue (which I admit is a interest of itself, as sometimes research can be fun), usually finding out that the thing is quite murky with no clear "right" answer, only to be met with a response that clearly shows that the petulant D.U. screamers have absolutely zero interest in an adult, fact based, conversation.

I strongly suspect that ProSense has also given up on these people. They're the leftist equivalent of Teabaggers. They certainly appear to hate the President just as much. And are about as interesting as them as well, which is to say - not at all.

Specifically, in this thread, your entire attack was nothing but a thinly veiled Ad Hominem against ProSense, accusing her of being "ignorant" with a quote from Azimov because she was providing referenced facts to the ignorant screamers. Then you tried to justify your attack by calling those referenced facts "self-referential", when they were provably not. Right in the same thread!

I mean seriously. Are you stupid? Or do you think we are?!?


You want a picture? Here's one. It unfortunately describes all too many of the hate-filled anti-Democratic left that for some reason have decided to hang out on the D.U. instead of RevLeft.com:




- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

March 5, 2014

Hi realpolitics...

First, welcome to the Democratic Underground. Although this site usually has a large number of members on the left of the Democratic party, this site is open to all Democrats and people who consider voting for them.

Second, let me say that you are very intelligent for reaching out. Let me see if I can answer your questions:

> I believe that conservative ideology is best when mixed with liberal ideology.
This is fine. There are a number of things old-fashioned conservatives believe in that Democrats have taken to heart: making sure that government money isn't wasted, making sure that work is rewarded and non-work (including by what economists call "rent-seekers&quot is not as much, and religious-values (such as taking care of the poor). Unfortunately, that old-fashioned "conservatism" is now overshadowed by racists and hypocrites claiming to be conservative, and so has a well deserved bad reputation.

> For example I believe minimum wage should be raised but not to 15 dollars. I believe the 8 hour workday is just fine.
Before unions, there were no laws to keep employers from working people as long as they wished. President Obama has called for the minimum wage to be raised to $10.10. Even that is below the level it has been in the past.

> I believe that people in the US should have food stamps and welfare. One aspect I cannot understand is why these people, who are suffering from poverty choose to have children? That is one thing that has baffled me.
The answer is an unfortunate one. Many poor women don't choose to have children. Rather, they're pressured into sex by their boyfriends, they don't have money for birth control, and they wind up pregnant when they can't afford the baby. Planned Parenthood (the one the GOP demonizes) actually spends most of its money trying to give birth control away so that this doesn't happen; the abortions they provide are only a last resort.

> My family is "1%". However we have always helped people, cared, and my grandpa even funded an orphanage. I do not understand why people hate the wealthy. I do not show off my wealth. I dress comfortably and never to show off. I have one pair of shoes and one suit. I am not what others imagine as showy or flashy. I want to know why many of my friends once finding out about my background argue with me and criticize me.
This is unfortunate. No one should be discriminated against. There are actually many people in the 1% who are kind and decent people. Many of them well known Democrats: John Kerry, the Kennedy family, George Soros, even President Obama (though he started out middle-class).

What most people speak of when they talk about the "1%", are the people who have deliberately passed laws that have made it hard for other people to get ahead. When a family has ten million dollars, and they find a way to get another million dollars by denying their employees health care, or forcing them into poverty, or firing everyone and importing the same goods from an overseas supplier who pays 25 cents an hour, people get extremely angry. And unfortunately, this behavior has become so common among the wealthy, that people just think anyone who is rich is automatically evil. That's not true.

Here's a funny story about that. During the election that took place about 10 years ago, Kerry vs Bush, there were a bunch of protesters who ran around with "Billionaires for Bush" signs. They meant that only Billionaires would benefit from President Bush. But the strange thing was that someone went around and asked the real billionaires who they were voting for, and it turned out they supported John Kerry. Because they didn't think Bush was good for the country. (And they were right.)

> Furthermore I do believe there is opportunity. I know of hundreds of people who have nothing and work to achieve there goal. They did not rest, vacation, have children, spend, and barely ate. They were successful. I do not understand how people think success is attainable without wit, handwork, intelligence and sacrifice? They do not work 8 hours a day and do not have a "break". Every "evil" and "greedy" businessman worked and works his or her butt off to succeed. What is your take?
There is opportunity, however it's a lot harder than you might think. It's difficult to study for a test when you're hungry, for instance. So if you are, you don't do well in school. And from there, everything gets worse. You know how having a snow day is cool? Well there are students for which it's not. As one teacher put it: [link: https://www.nokidhungry.org/blog/school-meals/2013/12/snow-days|“The saddest are the children who cry when we get out early for a snow day because they won’t get lunch.”]

> Furthermore wealth inequality is a problem. However I do not understand why people think that bringing the rich down is a solution. Why can we not try and bring the poor up? If we tax the rich insanely and the money goes into the governments pocket than how does the money "trickle" from the government to the poor. Couldn't the government spend it?
The government does spend it. Immediately. And they spend it on programs to help the poor. But many Republicans don't want any money spent to help the poor.

As far as taxing the rich "insanely", the truth is nearly the opposite. The mega-wealthy don't pay much at all. Let me explain how. Say that you have 10,000 dollars your family gave you, and you use it to start a new oil company. Now, say that this company of yours is extremely successful. And it makes $100 million dollars. How much tax do you pay?

The answer might surprise you. The answer is zero. You don't pay a dime until you sell the company. Regular people have to pay anywhere from 10% to 40% every single year, while you pay nothing. It's so bad that Warren Buffet (who is another billionaire who is a good-1%er) started complaining about the law. He said it was stupid that he was being asked to pay a lower percentage of his income each year than his own secretary.


> I believe that gun control should be in place. Mental health checks, background checks etc. are good. However I do not believe in limiting the types of weapons we should be able to have. A pistol can do damage just like an automatic weapon. By taking automatic weapons away what would we do in the event of a hypothetical invasion or revolt? I simply believe that automatic weapons should not be taken away and that it would help the economy if we imposed a larger tax on owners or a recurring gun carry fee that is higher than others! Plus it would increase production. What is your take?
You will find that Democrats disagree on this. I happen to agree with you. However, other Democrats look at other countries with much more strict gun-control laws in place and say that they have a much lower rate of gun-violence.

> I simply want to here liberal ideology straight from liberals and there arguments. Is communism actually a viable solution? It fails over and over even in the tiniest of countries.
Democrats do not believe that communism is a viable solution. In the 1930s and 1940s, it was actually Democrats who saved Capitalism from its excesses by making it work for people who were literally starving. You likely heard from your family (or their friends) that Democrats are Communists. That is untrue, and as deeply insulting to us as anything you ever have heard about 1%ers.

> Socialism works in some countries yet miserably fails in others? My friend made the argument that capitalism is a class where most get c's d's and f's and some get B's while one guy gets an A. I argued that communism brings everyone to a C. watched a video of Peter Schiff arguing with the occupy wall street movement and everyone sounded like an idiot.

First off, you will find that there are a lot of people who get so emotional, they all sound like idiots. They're not really stupid; they just are so angry that they act that way. You might be too if someone you loved was going hungry.

If I were going to make a school analogy, I'd say that socialism is like everyone being on a team. And it doesn't matter how well you do individually, it only matters how well the team does. This can work really well. If everyone on the team is committed to everyone's success, it works better than anything. But it can work really really poorly - if someone on the team slacks off, everyone else has to do the work for them. Capitalism is where each student works only for themselves. This can also go bad if the teacher only gives out a few "A" grades, doesn't pay attention as students secretly snatch rival student's homework to tear it up (to keep them from getting the "A&quot , or gives out grades based on what kind of materials a school project is made of, rather than whether it is right or not. Democrats believe in Capitalism, but with the teacher ("the government&quot keeping a very strict eye on the students so that doesn't happen. Democrats believe that the Teacher should do certain things (like teach), because you just can't do it fairly any other way. (Imagine how your grades would be if they were given by other students.)

Democrats believe in equal opportunity, not equal results.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

March 2, 2014

It's ironic how the most accessible online library about Orwell...

...has a .ru (russia) country name. It's hosted there.

To me though, the most cogent passage is the one just before the one you highlighted:

In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong.

Scratch out Britain, and update it with the United States, and there you have a perfectly apt description of these DUers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

- C.D. Proud Members of the Reality Based Community

September 22, 2013

Hate? No. More like pity.

Again with the hate business. Here's a bit of a clue: you're projecting. We don't hate you. You hate us. I might pity you a bit for being so constantly, utterly wrong, but that's a different matter.

For instance, take your statement about "what a minority" we are. Please look at the following chart.



As you can see by the poll, Very Liberal people (which is what you are, in addition to being counterproductive) comprise 10% of the Democratic party. Meanwhile, 20% of the Democratic party see themselves as "Conservative" or "Very Conservative".

So while I am under-represented on this website, to the point where some DUers will say "Conservative Democrat" is "an oxymoron", in the real world, my side of the party is twice the size of "very liberal" Democrats.

Almost too much so. I'd like to pull some of those Very Conservative Dems more to being merely Conservative. Again, contrary to your utter wrongness, our end of the party is generally very rational, and we have no desire to follow the GOP into their wingnut hellhole.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

September 21, 2013

Top 20 signs you might be a counterproductive left wingnut

1. You blame Democrats for what Republicans do
Whenever the GOP does something, that becomes the Democrat's fault.

2. You imagine that President Obama is a dictator and he's deliberately making sure that Congress doesn't help people
You argue that all Obama needs to do is "fight harder" and "show some backbone" against the thinly-disguised GOP racists, and then they'd all just fall in line.

3. You're not a regular campaign volunteer. In fact, you think writing screeds on DU is activism
You don't even know what cutting-turf is. You've never actually tried to convince an uncommitted voter, rather than attack people outside your little echo chamber.

4. Most of your DU screeds are not anti-Republican, they're anti-Democratic
You constantly crow that you're just "holding feet to the fire" except the vast majority of your screeds only bash Democrats. And often take on Republican coloring, like a reflexive belief in government and Democratic administration being evil.

5. You refuse to credit the President for anything you actually like, instead focusing purely on your hatred of him
If the President gets a very good deal, 99% of what you want, you'll rant about the 1% he had to give up. "Compromise" to you means everyone agreeing with what you want 100%.

6. No one can remember the last time you actually praised anyone or anything, except someone else's hate-filled anti-Democratic screed
You seem to never have anything positive to say, leading most to believe that you're a very angry, bitter, person, with little emotional maturity. And other hate-filled screeds are all you manage to praise.

7. You refuse to acknowledge that people on the other side of a debate have any legitimate concerns at all - like trying to keep a dictatorial regime from gassing its own people
Your fellow Democrats must be obsessed with bloodlust and love war, or at least that's what you believe.

8. You never provide a argument about what should be done instead that would address the other side's concerns
An actual argument that would potentially be agreeable to both sides might actually change minds, but that would deprive you of your ability to feel sanctimonious. In fact, "Third Way" is an anathema to you.

9. You counter any moral argument with a diatribe about some past bad action taken by the U.S. - nearly always done during Republican leadership 10 to 50 years ago
All reprehensible actions taken by anyone outside the U.S. can be justified in a kindergarten "we did it once too" by bringing up some ancient cold-war wrong, nearly always done during a Republican administration.

10. Instead of congratulating Democratic leaders on making what you feel to be the right choice, you imagine you have "defeated" the people who were actually mature enough to change their minds
You live in a black and white world of a zero-sum game, where someone else's winning means your losing and vice-versa. Therefore anything you like that happened is due to a "defeat" of the Democratic President.

11. You see no difference between Democrats and Republicans
Boy, there is not a single whit of difference, because you haven't gotten your maximalist position on everything.

12. Your arguments reference no facts, but are instead filled with unsubstantiated assertions. Your counter-arguments are ROTL icons
Did you know that President Obama is secretly twisting arms to destroy Social Security? Well, just because it isn't true doesn't keep you from stating it as fact. Any vague rumor is automatically true if it shows Democrats in a bad light. Your counterarguments typically run like this: "You're Quoting the New York Times?!? " You aren't actually laughing.

13. You dismiss facts that don't fit your worldview, and personally attack people who provide them
ProSense drives you crazy, what with all her facts and figures and research that disprove your assertions. You attack people specifically when their references refuting your made-up B.S. are long and well documented.

14. You Godwin political discussions, liberally attacking other Democrats with words like "Authoritarian", "Police State", "Hitler", "Fascist", "Corporatist&quot the new dog-whistle for fascist)
You call people who explain mainstream Democratic thought Obama "apologists", ignoring that there is absolutely nothing to "apologize" for. Paradoxically, taking actions to actually stop a dictator from gassing little children to death is something you are against. You never acknowledge that Hitler wasn't stopped with a sternly-worded letter either.

15 You imagine that the DU is representative of mainstream Democratic thought, instead of being a place for the very liberal left to gather
And further, you actually argue that your positions are correct simply because the majority of the D.U. hold it. Here is a small point of fact: President Obama's approval rating among Democrats is 85%.

16. You have "left" the Democratic party and/or are sole-arbiter on who is actually a "Democrat" and who isn't
Anyone who actually likes President Obama clearly can't be a real Democrat in your mind. You have also written a "Goodbye cold cruel DU - because people don't support me right or wrong - I will never vote Democratic again". For bonus points, you've done both.

17. You continue to make excuses for Nader
And others who strengthen the GOP by dividing the Democratic coalition.

18. You imagine that anyone would pay to try to convince people like you that mainstream Democratic thinking is correct
Any time you lose an argument, or someone shows your assertion is complete bullshit by referencing established facts (see ProSense), they are clearly being paid to do so. Never mind that actual Koch propaganda is as nutcase and unconvincing as you are, it's all a grand conspiracy, I tell ya! A conspiracy!

19. You recognize many of these behaviors in the Tea Party, and recognize how much they're damaging the Republicans, but don't acknowledge the same in your own behavior
Your few moments of clarity come when you look at the GOP and see how their extremists are destroying their brand. But the similarities between the Tea Party and you (including a reflexive hatred of the U.S. government and conspiracy mongering) is something that you refuse to acknowledge.

20. You are incredibly offended by this list
Are you pissed off by this list? Maybe there is a reason for that.

June 30, 2013

It would be truly interesting to have a debate...

...with people on the other side of this issue who could actually acknowledge reality. Saying something like: "Yes, obviously the law allows this, but it should be changed. Here's how we could draw the line a little closer, and not interfere with our legitimate national security concerns."

Alas, I've come to the conclusion that the D.U. isn't the place to do this. It seems to be the last bastion of magical thinking, tribalism, conspiracy theories, counterproductive screeching, willingness to completely make "facts" up, and so many different kinds of logical fallacies it's hard to keep track of them all.

The oddest thing is the absolute pure anti-Democratic party hatred. So many here really are the mirror image of the Tea Party: mindless screaming ranters determined to tear the one organized group that is actually effective in pushing forward the policies they purport to believe in. If I were as conspiracy minded as the loons that accuse me receiving a paycheck for posting on the D.U., I'd say they were secretly all Republicans conspiring to tear Democrats down. Alas, Occam's Razor tells me that instead, it's just people too wrapped in their own internal partisan morality play to acknowledge reality or the complexities of the real world.

The good news is that our party isn't plagued by these people as the Republicans are. Hard leftist loons sound doubly mad because they know normal Democrats don't pay attention to them. On the GOP side though, the inmates really have taken over the asylum. Howard Dean said it best, rather recently, to a GOP consultant on Bill Maher's show. "Your party is about 49% crackpots, ours has only 10."

And at least our crackpots know how to use a spelling checker. That's a plus.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

January 18, 2013

This is the origin...

...of white-flight.

So the "Residents" do buy up valuable farmland and pave it over with pure white-only-in-everything-but-name gated communities, where they surround themselves in a little bubble of flag-pins, talk radio, and FOX. And due to the inherent bias toward rural and suburban spaces built into our system (by our founding fathers specifically to prevent national politics becoming a mere extension of big-city politics), they have disproportionate electoral influence.

A much less snarky, and better, reply would have been:

Dear Residents: Before you condemn them, why don't you meet them? If you're religious, recognize that they are children of God, just as you are. Different does not mean evil.


We need less hatred in this country, and it's very hard to hate people you've actually met. And by the way, this goes both ways, my dear hyper-partisan friends.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community