Yeah, unprecedented event after unprecedented event. Still you could’ve been vindicated if anything mildly unfortunate had happened before the DNC. Like if Harris picked a different VP, if Vance was actually in any way adept, etc. And hey, knock on wood, but you could still be right in the end – we probably shouldn’t count our chickens before they hatch.
Good on you though for being a good sport about your previous comments. I was on the “drop out” side (not that Biden would drop out, but I thought pretty much anyone else would have a better chance), but at the end of the day I kinda think we’re all talking out of our asses to a certain degree, because political science isn’t actually a science at all.
Why do you think political wisdom wasn’t applicable in 2016 and hasn’t been since?
I think that’s is really one of the most important things we need to try and understand and I don’t think it’s mainly due to the Internet being a factor.
My guess is it’s moreso due to the influence of money on political campaigns, the influence of mega-corporations on the job market, and all the offshoring of jobs in the last few decades. The terrible state of our education system really doesn’t help either
Why do you think political wisdom wasn’t applicable in 2016 and hasn’t been since?
I think that’s is really one of the most important things we need to try and understand and I don’t think it’s mainly due to the Internet being a factor.
The internet, globalism, the collapse of Rhine Capitalism in favor of neoliberalism and reactions against it, the lack of a clear ideological ‘enemy’ to face… it could be any number of things. All I know for sure is that we’re living in ‘interesting times’, and it’ll likely continue to be ‘interesting’ for a while before any new ‘conventional’ wisdom can be made.
What’s to be learned? What is weak logic about the mainline, presumptive nominee, who is a sitting president, who one way or another was the only human being to beat trump in an election, would become the actual nominee and democratic candidate?
That is not a bad bet, or bad logic, if we are sitting in March or April.
Idk, I asked someone else in this thread that and they had a great answer. They mentioned how the way we predict elections has changed since 2016 (or something) and I thought that was super interesting and worth reflecting on. If I answered your question right now it might be something simple like age or someone with a better understanding of history might mention how the current level of wealth inequality compares to previous moments in history
That said, I’m not sure why this similar comment was seen as more offensive. This is literally something I try to do myself when someone I trust is wrong about something. I might not cancel em or whatever but I’ll try to understand what went wrong or maybe just stop listening to them about certain topics they’re consistently wrong on
Wealth inequality has fuck all to do with a reader’s assessment of election candidacy, especially when the primary source (the candidate) is emphatic about their intent to run.
By all available signal, Biden fully intended to run until after the debate, where the cracks formed, other candidates were discussed, and Harris stepped up.
To suggest otherwise could only be arrived at by wish, or reliance on a more distant, less direct source, which is a worse bet.
Idk, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t accept Biden’s words. So, it’s wild, to me, that an informed citizen would simply accept things the way they’re told they are. Maybe this isn’t about “sources” and more about pundits and narrative-makers/builders - the ones that decide who is “electable”. Not everyone accepted the narrative that Biden wouldn’t step down. Some even had the narrative that he must step down and apparently they were “right” - for lack of a better word (sorry for any poor communication)
That said, you’ve clearly made up your mind and you don’t really seem interested in entertaining this idea, so we really don’t have to keep going
For example, you could note that “only human being to beat Trump in an election” is a really small sample size. It’s equally true to note that so far, Hillary is the only Democrat to lose to Trump in an election. The performance post-switch would indicate Trump is not a uniquely dangerous and persuasive candidate, but that his opposition was uniquely weak so far.
Did you learn anything?
That conventional political wisdom is getting less applicable with every year since the hell-date of 2016?
Yeah, unprecedented event after unprecedented event. Still you could’ve been vindicated if anything mildly unfortunate had happened before the DNC. Like if Harris picked a different VP, if Vance was actually in any way adept, etc. And hey, knock on wood, but you could still be right in the end – we probably shouldn’t count our chickens before they hatch.
Good on you though for being a good sport about your previous comments. I was on the “drop out” side (not that Biden would drop out, but I thought pretty much anyone else would have a better chance), but at the end of the day I kinda think we’re all talking out of our asses to a certain degree, because political science isn’t actually a science at all.
It’s a wild time for sure. If I knew senators were going to quote 4chan when discussing policies… Man what a time.
That’s actually really great! 1000 kudos to you
Why do you think political wisdom wasn’t applicable in 2016 and hasn’t been since?
I think that’s is really one of the most important things we need to try and understand and I don’t think it’s mainly due to the Internet being a factor.
My guess is it’s moreso due to the influence of money on political campaigns, the influence of mega-corporations on the job market, and all the offshoring of jobs in the last few decades. The terrible state of our education system really doesn’t help either
The internet, globalism, the collapse of Rhine Capitalism in favor of neoliberalism and reactions against it, the lack of a clear ideological ‘enemy’ to face… it could be any number of things. All I know for sure is that we’re living in ‘interesting times’, and it’ll likely continue to be ‘interesting’ for a while before any new ‘conventional’ wisdom can be made.
What’s to be learned? What is weak logic about the mainline, presumptive nominee, who is a sitting president, who one way or another was the only human being to beat trump in an election, would become the actual nominee and democratic candidate?
That is not a bad bet, or bad logic, if we are sitting in March or April.
Idk, I asked someone else in this thread that and they had a great answer. They mentioned how the way we predict elections has changed since 2016 (or something) and I thought that was super interesting and worth reflecting on. If I answered your question right now it might be something simple like age or someone with a better understanding of history might mention how the current level of wealth inequality compares to previous moments in history
That said, I’m not sure why this similar comment was seen as more offensive. This is literally something I try to do myself when someone I trust is wrong about something. I might not cancel em or whatever but I’ll try to understand what went wrong or maybe just stop listening to them about certain topics they’re consistently wrong on
Wealth inequality has fuck all to do with a reader’s assessment of election candidacy, especially when the primary source (the candidate) is emphatic about their intent to run.
By all available signal, Biden fully intended to run until after the debate, where the cracks formed, other candidates were discussed, and Harris stepped up.
To suggest otherwise could only be arrived at by wish, or reliance on a more distant, less direct source, which is a worse bet.
Idk, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t accept Biden’s words. So, it’s wild, to me, that an informed citizen would simply accept things the way they’re told they are. Maybe this isn’t about “sources” and more about pundits and narrative-makers/builders - the ones that decide who is “electable”. Not everyone accepted the narrative that Biden wouldn’t step down. Some even had the narrative that he must step down and apparently they were “right” - for lack of a better word (sorry for any poor communication)
That said, you’ve clearly made up your mind and you don’t really seem interested in entertaining this idea, so we really don’t have to keep going
For example, you could note that “only human being to beat Trump in an election” is a really small sample size. It’s equally true to note that so far, Hillary is the only Democrat to lose to Trump in an election. The performance post-switch would indicate Trump is not a uniquely dangerous and persuasive candidate, but that his opposition was uniquely weak so far.