[Terez]

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Elizabeth Warren just published an op-ed in the NYT which comes very, very close to being an endorsement for Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.c...stitutions.html

So happy to see she's not getting closer to Hillary after all.

[HoosierDaddy]

94 Bernie, 92 Hillary, 76 O'Malley.

Sounds about right. Voting for Hillary.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Elizabeth Warren just published an op-ed in the NYT which comes very, very close to being an endorsement for Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.c...stitutions.html

So happy to see she's not getting closer to Hillary after all.

Why? If Bernie doesn't win (and he won't), what're you going to do? Write in Warren?

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Elizabeth Warren just published an op-ed in the NYT which comes very, very close to being an endorsement for Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.c...stitutions.html

So happy to see she's not getting closer to Hillary after all.

Why? If Bernie doesn't win (and he won't), what're you going to do? Write in Warren?

In the general? Why would I do that? If she wanted to be president, she'd be running for president.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Useless how? By using the metrics of the specific platforms and ideals of the candidate, seems to me that's actually quite useful in sorting who your views line up with best.

They used a similar site during the last Canadian election, and it nailed down my political views almost to a 'T' by asking a barrage of similar questions.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Elizabeth Warren just published an op-ed in the NYT which comes very, very close to being an endorsement for Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.c...stitutions.html

So happy to see she's not getting closer to Hillary after all.

Why? If Bernie doesn't win (and he won't), what're you going to do? Write in Warren?

In the general? Why would I do that? If she wanted to be president, she'd be running for president.

Then what's the point of that sentence? It seems like a put down on Hillary for no reason. Just an aside or random thought? Just curious.

[HoosierDaddy]

QuickTidal, on 29 January 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Useless how? By using the metrics of the specific platforms and ideals of the candidate, seems to me that's actually quite useful in sorting who your views line up with best.

They used a similar site during the last Canadian election, and it nailed down my political views almost to a 'T' by asking a barrage of similar questions.

I liked that one. Far more fun than this one.

[Gredfallan Ale]

Apparently:

Clinton: 100%
Sanders:  98%
O'Malley: 89%
Kasich:   58%
Bush:     33%

[Terez]

QuickTidal, on 29 January 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Useless how? By using the metrics of the specific platforms and ideals of the candidate, seems to me that's actually quite useful in sorting who your views line up with best.

For one thing, I've never seen a quiz that actually included all of any candidate's positions. They pick and choose, which makes the metric useless. Also, there's so much more to choosing a candidate than a checklist of positions. See HD's post: according to the quiz, he's a better match with Bernie, but he's voting for Hillary.

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...stitutions.html

So happy to see she's not getting closer to Hillary after all.

Why? If Bernie doesn't win (and he won't), what're you going to do? Write in Warren?

In the general? Why would I do that? If she wanted to be president, she'd be running for president.

Then what's the point of that sentence? It seems like a put down on Hillary for no reason. Just an aside or random thought? Just curious.

I prefer Bernie to Hillary, even if not by much. I was concerned that Elizabeth Warren was "getting closer to Hillary", meaning she might actually endorse her, which would make Hillary's nomination all that more inevitable. The near-inevitability of her nomination makes me very, very sad. Therefore I'm happy that Warren addressed one of Hillary's most tiresome arguments in this piece.

This post has been edited by Terez: 29 January 2016 - 06:07 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

This is what really, really scares me.

I posted my numbers above. I'm a little more pro Bernie than Hillary policy wise. But if you look at the stark difference between percentages of Ds and Rs it's marked. I'm terribly afraid that Sanders voters, if they lose the primary, will not vote. They need to be inundated with these percentages. Look at the differences! Vote for your ideals in the primary but also vote in the fucking federal for sanity!

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

This is what really, really scares me.

I posted my numbers above. I'm a little more pro Bernie than Hillary policy wise. But if you look at the stark difference between percentages of Ds and Rs it's marked. I'm terribly afraid that Sanders voters, if they lose the primary, will not vote. They need to be inundated with these percentages. Look at the differences! Vote for your ideals in the primary but also vote in the fucking federal for sanity!

I think there is a small group of Bernie supporters, mostly angry white men, who will actually sit out the general if Hillary gets the nomination. I can understand the temptation, but ultimately, whoever wins the GOP nomination will probably be motivation enough for me to vote against them, not that my vote matters in the general. I live in a solidly blue state, which is a nice change from living in a solidly red state, but doesn't change the importance of my vote in presidential elections one bit.

[QuickTidal]

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 29 January 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 05:17 PM, said:

There are a lot of different versions of that kind of poll; they're all pretty useless IMO.

Useless how? By using the metrics of the specific platforms and ideals of the candidate, seems to me that's actually quite useful in sorting who your views line up with best.

For one thing, I've never seen a quiz that actually included all of any candidate's positions. They pick and choose, which makes the metric useless. Also, there's so much more to choosing a candidate than a checklist of positions. See HD's post: according to the quiz, he's a better match with Bernie, but he's voting for Hillary.

"Useless" seems extreme. I'll admit that if it's not taking ALL parts of a platform into account, it's not 100% accurate...but it's still accurate enough to let you know how close you fall to what. Re: HD's post: Come on, it's a 2 percent difference between Hillary and Bernie for him. 2% is not enough to say "See, look at this, it's useless". It's enough to point that the metric isn't exacting, but still pretty decent.

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd vote Obama 3rd term if I could. But I can't, so I won't.

I'd really like Warren as a VP, but neither Hillary or Bernie could use her.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

I'd vote Obama 3rd term if I could. But I can't, so I won't.

I'd really like Warren as a VP, but neither Hillary or Bernie could use her.

I don't know if VP is really the right position for her. It's a pretty useless position; I'm sure Hillary will go for a diversity hire and I'm sure Bernie will go for someone who would buttress his weak spots. Honestly I have no idea who Bernie would pick; I think I have a pretty good idea about Hillary's shortlist. Warren would be better at Treasury or some other high-level finance position (like SEC chair). Hillary and Bernie probably both keep Yellen at the Fed.

[HoosierDaddy]

VP is useless if you don't use it to strengths. See one Dick Cheney and foreign affairs. Bush, wrongly, relied on him there.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 08:16 PM, said:

VP is useless if you don't use it to strengths. See one Dick Cheney and foreign affairs. Bush, wrongly, relied on him there.

Almost nothing Cheney did stemmed from his actual duties as VP, though. It was definitely one of the weirdest president-VP relationships in history. As you say, it was more about undue reliance than putting the ill-defined and normally powerless position of VP to use.

[HoosierDaddy]

But, Terez, it does show the potential power a VP can have. So it's not useless.

Further, how about President Palin? It's an important, if not necessary or desired role.

Additionally, it's a stepping stone to the presidency.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

But, Terez, it does show the potential power a VP can have.

Assuming that the president chooses to give it to you. This is incredibly rare.

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Further, how about President Palin?

This is also rare (VP taking over for dead/resigned president). It happens often enough that a presidential candidate should want to choose someone who is capable of the job, but not often enough that it makes the VP job an attractive position.

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Additionally, it's a stepping stone to the presidency.

Not since 1988.

[amphibian]

The vast majority of Dem/Repub higher-ups who want to run for President do not want the VP slot because it is nearly 4 years of being "off the table" in terms of donors, establishing legislation/agendas/building cred, and being in the public eye.

I theorize that one of the lesser reasons Hilary made the deal with Obama in 2008 is because he took Biden as VP. Biden was the next most credible candidate the Dems could run in 2012 or 2016. Biden could have overcome this by an early declaration, but as we now know, a few life events and Hilary's vacuum early on made that a no-go.

[Vengeance]

Terez, on 29 January 2016 - 09:11 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

But, Terez, it does show the potential power a VP can have.

Assuming that the president chooses to give it to you. This is incredibly rare.

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Further, how about President Palin?

This is also rare (VP taking over for dead/resigned president). It happens often enough that a presidential candidate should want to choose someone who is capable of the job, but not often enough that it makes the VP job an attractive position.

HoosierDaddy, on 29 January 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Additionally, it's a stepping stone to the presidency.

Not since 1988.

Technically Gore won the popular vote in 2000.