I donβt know who Tom Pool is, but Iβd stop listening to him if I were you. Heβs an idiot, a crackpot or (most likely) both.
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
I know him, and you are indeed correct: He's both, as well as other traits common in the right-wing shitmosphere.
Tim Pool is a moron. https://youtu.be/c8g7W9zEOXA?si=XVb0Ag6vtattHiRH
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/c8g7W9zEOXA?si=XVb0Ag6vtattHiRH
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
hey I got home from work and watch that video and it's very good. I'm going to subscribe.
RM is great at using absurdity to expose grifters.
If you want to see a great analysis of Tim Pool see Timbah.On.Toast Tim Pool: Fence Sitter
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
do you know of anyone that's good at finding action, doing succinct analysis, and also maybe not dwelling on interviews? unicorn riot does the first one well, but id rather just have a media personality delivered the narrative than someone neck deep in the action.
he's a dummy. i never meant to suggest he isn't. but he used to be able to at least find real stories i cared about.
Lol that's never going to happen
Might be better than trump, in that she hasn't pledged state sponsored political retribution and throwing out The Constitution, but Haley is still a Republican through and through and there is zero chance of a rational dem voting for her over Biden.
I think the idea is that they vote for her in the Republican primaries, not the general.
If I thought she was an actual reasonable human being I might vote for her. Of course no one gets the nomination by being reasonable though.
only actual answer so far. thank you.
Tim "gets his philosophy from Marvel movies" Pool doesn't know shit about anything.
thanks
Stop listening to Tim Pool, or any of the other right wing grifters.
I'm wondering if there is a bit of misunderstanding or miscommunication going on here? I don't know the statement or the context, but my interpretation based on OPs title is that this person is implying ...
Registered Democrats will switch their party affiliation so that they can vote for Haley to be the Republican nominee for president.
The implication that enough Democrats will do this that it will affect the outcome is, how shall I put this nicely, wholly unsupported by data or reality. On the other hand, the intellectually dishonest types will actively seek examples of people doing this (or claiming to do it) and use that as "evidence" that it is happening on a wide scale.
The fact that some number of people will switch parties to vote in a primary is inevitable and happens every presidential election cycle and is not a tool used only by members of one party. You might as well predict that someone will get into a car accident in the USA in the next 24 hours.
I have read about individuals doing this, but to my knowledge it has never happened in any sufficient numbers to tilt a primary in any state.
Some states run open primaries, so that any person can vote in any (but only one) primary. Other states run closed primaries, such that any voter who has registered as a member of that party can vote in that particular partyβs primary. Yet others (eg, California last time I checked) have mixed modes. I believe the CA GOP primary is closed by the Democratic primary is open.
You can tell relatively easily by the number of votes in any given primary election whether theyβre consistent in terms of turnout with previous years. As far as Iβve ever read, they tend to be year over year consistent. The one trend that has been noted in recent years is a small but as far as I know steady increase in independent voters (who as stated may or may not be able to vote in primaries depending on their state, but based on number of votes cast do not seem to have been a deciding factor in primary votes).
I generally have suspected that the idea of people switching parties to act as primary spoilers is largely just projection, as we tend to expect malfeasance of the Other, but the hard truth is that you can barely get large numbers of people to vote in actual elections, much less in something like a primary.
So, it varies by state because everything is a certain degree of a shit-show here. In my state, you show up at the primary election site and you ask for one of two ballots. That's enough to "register" you as a Dem or Rep. It's pretty meaningless.
I know of one coworker who voted for Trump in the 2015 primary to "take down the Republican party from the inside." Great strategy, Steve. I'm guessing that some similar idiocy is what's being talked about here.
thank you.
Why would you ever believe anything from Tim Pool? He does nothing but spout bs for engagement revenue.
He does nothing but spout bs for engagement revenue.
lately. once, he went fact-finding. but that was so long ago, most probably can't remember.
okβ¦ what he did once doesnβt matter, what he does lately is relevant to something he just suggested.
i was a bit incredulous, that's why i asked here.
Yeah, any suggestion that Dems would switch their party to GOP just to get a more favorable candidate to probably vote against is likely nonsense. Itβs difficult to believe a significant number of Dems would vote for her considering her laughable stances on historical racism and slavery.
Obama? What? Is that something else some dimwitted right wing grifter said?
No, no and no!
Nikki Haley would likely win against Biden.
She's (relatively) young, she's a woman, she was born to immigrant parents, she's taken a tough stance on Russia, she's not obviously nuts.
If anything, the democratic establishment wants Trump to be the candidate. It'll make a Biden re-election easier.
none of this really answers my questions. iguess the suggestion she would beat biden implies that democrats wouldn't really want to nominate her, but who can say?
It does.
Democrats want Biden to win the election. Haley being nominated makes that harder.
If they don't want her to be nominated, they're not going to help her get nominated, are they?
5 second google:
A POLITICO analysis shows the former South Carolina governor is winning swaths of moderate voters whoβd pick Joe Biden if Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/09/haley-electability-trump-biden-polls-00130926
GOPβs Haley attracts non-Republicans ... also regularly attracts swing voters who backed President Biden in 2020 ... Leaning into her appeal to the political middle on the trail, Haley highlights surveys that show her leading Biden by double digits β 17 percentage points in one recent Wall Street Journal survey
43 percent of Haley backers in the state said they would vote for Biden if Trump is the GOP nominee ...
Democrats acknowledge Haley could pose more of a threat to Biden than Trump, so they are tying her to the former president on virtually every issue ... Democrats privately acknowledge that she would likely represent a worrisome opponent for Biden, citing polling that shows the former governor as the best-positioned candidate to unseat the sitting president in the general election.