-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
I mean, I'm right there with you, which is why this Hillary comparison is so weird to me.
Having a tougher view on homosexuality publicly than the view that you privately hold sucks. It's wrong. It's the craven part of politics. But I get it. I don't have to like it to get it.
So that HIllary held those views "longer" than Tulsi doesn't much matter to me. Tulsi was holding those views as a D congresswoman from Hawaii in 2015. So you can't even really use the "it's politics" angle in her case.
Just to be clear, I'm not absolving Tulsi of anything. She was a piece of shit for what she did, and I say that understanding that she came from a conservative home. My whole point is that I just don't see the use in saying that Hillary was less shitty.
In either case, I take their words at face value and appreciate what they've done in Congress to support the LGBTQ+ community.
With how much he has "degraded" compared to how he was in say 2012 I would say that even Biden wouldn't want to go through that.
There were times during the debates where he was completely unintelligible. I don't mean to sound ageist, but I feel like that in and of itself is nearly disqualifying for the office of the presidency.
20% is great for a well known candidate running for President or any politician. He's roughly as well liked and viewed as unfavourable, and known as Biden and there's no way you can argue that Biden is viewed negatively overall. Having a 1/8th unfavourable for a known politician is a fantastic ratio.
Here's what a candidate with high unfavourable polling looks like. Hilary Clinton only ever peaked at roughly 66% favourable throughout her career with low 'no opinion/don't know' and was underwater throughout the entirety of her 2016 run.
You can also see her consistent sub 40% with independents, and Candidates like Warren will see their unfavourables rise as more become aware of them.
For reference, the favorable ratings posted earlier was with the democratic party only, the favorable ratings you just posted are with the entire country.
Bernie's overall favorables are:
Don't get that confused, Bernie's already nearly underwater overall.
Alternatively:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx
There's a bit of a thing happening here. A lot of people seem to be cheering on a long, drawn out primary when it's been proven over time that everyone favorables drop the longer they're in a tough election. It's not to the party's benefit, it does not make the candidates stronger, but weaker, but it'll happen anyway.
Last edited:
I mean I guess whatever helps his campaign. I do feel it's important for him to hang around a bit so climate change is a serious topic.
For reference, the favorable ratings posted earlier was with the democratic party only, the favorable ratings you just posted are with the entire country.
Bernie's overall favorables are:
Don't get that confused, Bernie's already nearly underwater overall.
Alternatively:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx
There's a bit of a thing happening here. A lot of people seem to be cheering on a long, drawn out primary when it's been proven over time that everyone favorables drop the longer they're in a tough election. It's not to the party's benefit, it does not make the candidates stronger, but weaker, but it'll happen anyway.
Wow, Republican voters have really soured on Bernie!
This is awesome.
The debates gave me a newfound respect for Tulsi. Lots of progressives and center left are writing her off because of her past opinions. But Tulsi is absolutely needed in the next debates because her ideas need to be heard and discussed. Plus she helps expose establishment candidates like Harris.
That's some spin. Bernie's unfavorables with dems have been crawling up, too, but you can pretend it's just pubs. It wouldn't surprise me if half the candidates have nearly Trump level unfavorables by the end of this.
Huh? He goes from having the highest favorables among the Dem candidates to plummeting down to average when accounting for all voters. It's not the Dems bringing that number down.
I nearly forgot who he was, lol.
He has highest favorability within MOE of Biden among dems, other polls (some more recent) show it flipped because, well, it's within margin of error and those two have the highest name rec. His favorability used to be higher. His unfavorables with dems used to be much much lower. It's expected to have high favorables with dems in the end, but the lower it goes the worse. Even Clinton had good favorables with dem leans. On top of that, there are indenpendents. Why are you pretending -2 favorables overall are fine?
Huh?
Anyway, for reference, 2016:
Hillary was +49 with Dems, Sanders +53.
I was referring to people who tried to make it seem like he wasn't liked by most Dem voters.
I mean, I don't know what to tell you because I'm pretty sure most people aren't telling you that. Maybe this is what they're referring to, though:
Let me refer you to the following poll
He does have a ceiling. A rather low one (This should have been clear in 2016, but regardless). So does Biden, but it's 10 points higher.
It's a really interesting and detailed poll if you want to take the time to read it.
To answer the questions of why people support Biden, refer to the following:
I wasn't specifically talking about people talking to me about polls. I'm simply saying that, for many years now, I've observed a lot of fallacious political talking points on the internet, and one of them revolves around a sentiment that Bernie isn't well liked by dems. Another is that his supporters are mostly white and male. Basically, it was a casual comment, not an argument I'm trying to advance.
Biden to rich donors: "Nothing will fundamentally change"
Along with praise for the "civility" of racists, Biden assures donors "no one's standard of living will change"
Lol this guy.
Why is he still a Democrat? He is straight-up a Republican. Bootstrap logic and all. Joe Biden is atrocious.
That Biden's an obstacle against that change isn't a sign that he's wrong on that particular subject. Figure out a path through him or around him, but you can't ignore his presence blocking your agenda.
That's difficult to do when you have the remainder of an older generation who believes in old ways that no longer work for many people, but even so, Joe Biden could have helped the progressive wing in selling their ideology to the ignorant general public. Instead, he caters to rich donors and the generally well-off. That doesn't improve getting the message across. It enables centrist ideology for very slight incremental change to no change at all. When said change occurs, what happens when Republicans go back into power? They take what little change was added by centrists, and make things worse again. It's completely unproductive, and ultimately, it's a slow bleed for the average American people.
That's what every generation goes through. Part of that change us convincing more conservative people, like Biden, to switch sides or overcome them. There is no secret formula for getting around this easily. He's not sugar coating this to be your ally, however, even enemies can say things which are based on fact and Biden's right for once on this. When Republicans get into power they'll do the same with whatever the left does, too, since tearing down something is easier to do than building something. They're not going to disappear from politics you have to fight for very scrap of progress and maintain it, and the Republican might destroy it anyway. That's politics in the US.
Simply put: there is a boulder in your path, are you going to give up because moving it is difficult or move that boulder so you can change the world into a better one?
In a very morbid way its, for lack of a better term, fascinating seeing how each candidate composes his or her self in their response to this tragedy
I appreciate Pete putting the "Thoughts and Prayers" bullshit in the trash where it belongs.
Via the poll I just posted:
This is the breakdown. The poll is before the current debates, but by the polls afterward things haven't really changed. Sanders is nearly 50-50 male/female in a party that heavily leans female. He's been doing better on that split in the current primary than in 2016, mind. Granted, Biden isn't much better, but he's Biden. Warren is tracking most towards the party with women. Biden has the vast majority of black support and hispanic support, while Bernie is doing within margin of error equally well with white and black voters and doing 2nd best with hispanic voters.
couldn't even imagine how bad he would look and sound by then
Via the poll I just posted:
This is the breakdown. The poll is before the current debates, but by the polls afterward things haven't really changed. Sanders is nearly 50-50 male/female in a party that heavily leans female. He's been doing better on that split in the current primary than in 2016, mind. Granted, Biden isn't much better, but he's Biden. Warren is tracking most towards the party with women. Biden has the vast majority of black support and hispanic support, while Bernie is doing within margin of error equally well with white and black voters and doing 2nd best with hispanic voters.
I'm aware. Again, I was making a tangential reference to randos on the internet. I'm not disputing the data; the data is why I know those randos are full of shit.
I feel like he'd actually just be a one term president, honestly. He's really old, and didn't feel like doing this 4 years ago. He's only doing it now because, if we're being honest, he's the likeliest of the dems running to beat Trump based on polling so far.
Wooooooow the lines in that article holy shit. A hard fuck you to Biden for those words.
In all seriousness though, if Dems blow this election, the 2024 primary is totally gonna be Joe Kennedy vs Ocasio-Cortez.
For reference, the favorable ratings posted earlier was with the democratic party only, the favorable ratings you just posted are with the entire country.
Bernie's overall favorables are:
Don't get that confused, Bernie's already nearly underwater overall.
Alternatively:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx
There's a bit of a thing happening here. A lot of people seem to be cheering on a long, drawn out primary when it's been proven over time that everyone favorables drop the longer they're in a tough election. It's not to the party's benefit, it does not make the candidates stronger, but weaker, but it'll happen anyway.
Almost underwater nationally is not the same as being consistency underwater though. I brought up Clinton to show what a candidate with a likability problem looks like, I could have brought up Trump for another example of that.
Thé earlier sampling was for Dems and Dem leaning Independents I mentioned Clintons (underwater) numbers with independents, and would have linked the breakdown by party affiliation, had I not been on my phone.
I was thinking someone would reply with this (valid!) line, but the point is and continues to be that
Sanders unfavourables are not high
Sanders does not have a likability problem within or without the party.
Averaging out to include Republicans is going to tank any DEM. Sanders remains a popular politician relative to his peers in like for like contexts.
The funniest bit is the edit to the dedicated OP to try and soften the blow, but the followup quotes in the article are even more damning XD
Last edited:
Averaging out to include republicans doesn't put every dem underwater or near underwater. Hillary's favorables at this point in the primary were positive. Bernie favorables at the end of the primary in 2016 were higher. The trajectory he's on he's been gain unfavorables within the democratic party and the greater electorate. It's pure spin to put between -2 and +2 favor-ability as a positive. Additionally, the definition of dem leaning independent are indis that consistently vote dem, not swing vote independants.
None of this has any baring on what I was disproving. You and I don't know the future and claiming to based on what you observe as a current trend (or overstating the degree to which a lean Dem is consistently a Dem voter) is spin.
What's there to extrapolate? The lowest Hillary got in gallup polling in 2016 was 39-40 in Gallup polling according to your own post. Bernie is currently 41 in gallup polling.
I'm curious if you think you're being totally objective and neutral in your framing of the data. Not for argument's sake, but just out of curiosity and to know how much self-awareness you perceive yourself to have.
I mean, the point I'm arguing against is that there's nothing wrong with a 41% approval rating that's it's all because "republicans". Like, are you trying to say you wouldn't be questioning a 41% approval rating from any other candidate? Really? Because that shows an outstanding lack of self-awareness itself. Of course, you're doing that thing where you don't actually want to deal with the actual subject matter of only 40% of dem primary voters even considering voting for Sanders, you'll just quote a part you can change the subject with like you did in a previous post. You don't want to consider the mere possibility that Sanders favorables have been falling steadily (As have Bidens! The longer a person is in the public eye on the campaign trail, the more their favorables fall if they're already well known! It's a thing that happens.) so instead you want to talk about my level of "objectivity".
Last edited:
Thanks for your [non] answer.
If you go back, you'll notice that you've been making a lot of assumptions about people's positions without really verifying if those are the positions that they hold.
As an example, you claim that I was spinning Bernie's numbers, but in order to reach that conclusion, you'd have to assume that I was making a defense for him in the first place (which I was not). When I mentioned Bernie tanking with the Republicans, it was genuine surprise. I actually don't think it's good that he's doing so bad with Republicans and it hurts his overall chances of beating Trump, so it's something that he needs to work on. Considering my actual take, your assumption that I think overall numbers are good shows that you're already working from a very subjective position and are trying to start your argument from that position, which isn't ideal for good faith argumentation.
Word of advice: try to confirm the positions of the person you're arguing with before you predicate arguments on arguments that don't exist. It'll spare everyone time and confusion in the long run.
I enjoy how candid he is here. Wish we'd see more of that in debates.
It was a non question. But really, my bias is that I think the majority of voters are absolute shit at the political process, don't pay attention, don't understand details and are completely superficial and I think that what a lot of the minority of people who actually follow politics in any detail think will get voters motivated won't do anything of the sort. Happy?
First, there's an assumption that Bernie only lost Republicans in his approval rating, when he'd have had to have lost independants to achieve a swing that large (do you really think he had high enough approval among republicans to bring him to negative approval in the first place?). It's more likely he lost no lean or republican lean independents. But, considering his unfavorables with dem/dem leans has gone up about 5% over the primary, he's also lost dems/dem leans.
It's precisely because of that assumption that your post sounded like a deflection.
Second, considering the posts you responded with you were both seeming to assume things yourself and referring to various strawman arguments.
- Status