Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slayven

1000% Demon King
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
44,824
If he spent more time hiring outreach people and charismatic envoys of policy, rather than attack dogs, he'd have done much better.

I've said before and will say again, Bernie spent too much of his message focused on the negative. It's not hard to paint a picture of the benefits of his programs, but he spends more time talking about what's bad now rather than what the good future he proposes is.
It's like they didn't learn anything from 2016.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17
Tri-State
Do you prefer Trump to Biden? If not, then not voting for Biden (or not voting at all) makes zero sense. It's obviously your right to not vote if you don't want to, but not voting for Biden because he's not your ideal candidate is a decision against your own self interests.
Status quo for disability is not acceptable at all, biden doesn't have a plan for it at all, nor has changed the fact the if your disability you can legally be paid under minimum wage .
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,594
So now you're defending the Clarence Thomas hearings? How low can we go?
I'm not defending shit, I'm countering the point made that Biden would want a Thomas on the court. He voted against Thomas. And there's no sign he would appoint anyone vaguely conservative.

Please, feel free to change what we're talking about to justify your outrage, though.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
8,147
You know as I was typing, I was thinking the same thing. But I want to be factual. The fact they ran the same campaign with the only adition was to try to gamne a split field says it all. They went in wanting to lose less than everyone else.
Fair.
I'm actually surprised they went with a losing strategy and kept at it for the long haul.
Ahh yes, a popularity contest, the foundation of a healthy democracy.
I despise presidential elections.
the 1st one in the history of France was in the 2nd Republic,
the winner was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte who disbanded the Republic for another goddamn Empire.
He only won because his name included Napoleon while no one knew who the horde of nobodies were runing.
I can derail the thread even further if you want me to go in details about how it's currently fucking up democracy in France at a very deep level.
That doesn't mean it's not the current system we're playing in and we can't throw it away.
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
I despise presidential elections.
the 1st one in the history of France was in the 2nd Republic,
the winner was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte who disbanded the Republic for another goddamn Empire.
He only won because his name included Napoleon while no one knew who the horde of nobodies were runing.
I can derail the thread even further if you want me to go in details about how it's currently fucking up democracy in France at a very deep level.
That doesn't mean it's not the current system we're playing in and we can't throw it away.
No need to derail further, we're all in agreement here. It's just depressing is all.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,745
The "voltron" Democratic establishment literally giving everything to Biden is kind of the thing that made Biden win considering Bernie was outperforming him in 1 on 1 match-ups in the time leading up to the collective Democratic kitchen sink being thrown at him. That's relevant, and much like Howard Dean, there was absolutely a coordinated effort to stop Sanders from receiving the nomination and to play with what the party thought was the "safe route." Voters in this election are overwhelmingly not voting on ideological grounds and only against Trump which you also just conveniently ignore every time people bring this stuff up there because its convenient to point out Biden had an even lower ceiling in the grand scheme of things because, as I've pointed out specifically many times, people aren't voting based upon candidate preferences or ideological preference beyond "Please let's get Trump out of office." Most candidates in general don't have particularly high ceilings anyway, not to mention Bernie did outperform that ceiling several times but his "ceiling is 30% always." The margins that are winning Biden this nomination are the ones that were absolutely undecided until "Biden is electable" got spun constantly and then became a self-fulfilling prophecy in South Carolina and beyond to the multiple Super Tuesday states.

Sanders vs Biden being better for the Senate elections in November was literally a narrative created before the vast majority of the people voted and was fearmongering the whole way up until Super Tuesday once it looked like Sanders actually had a very real shot. You cannot just retroactively apply the results to a stance that was created without data prior to an absolutely tectonic shift in the Democratic political world that favored Biden.
Bernie was "outperforming him" because those ended up being a reflection of "electability" which in turn is just driven by "who's winning right now". And, as it turns out, the actual race looked quite different once it came down to two options. Where everything I had personally been warning about w/ Sanders' crosstabs showing red flags about his campaign's nonexistent outreach w/ voters outside his 2016 base and it's mass bleed of its 2016 white electorate turned out to put a hard ceiling on his campaign the moment it became a 1v1 vs the candidate he matched up worst against (because Biden would be uniquely attractive to 2016 anti-Hillary voters.)

Bernie Sanders is losing the nomination because Bernie Sanders is the living incarnation of this poster. He is a person utterly incapable of self-reflection and the ability to adapt to new situations when his previous attempts fail. Everything he messed up in the 2016 campaign, instead of being rectified, was doubled down on. He can never be at fault. It's always someone else to blame. He is political equivalent of "The Scrub" from 'Playing to Win'.
 
Aug 12, 2019
1,387
So Bernie has young voters, college educated leftists, and Latino voters as his coalition, while Biden has some white working class voters, old voters, suburban women, and black voters. (Feel free to argue I'm wrong about that grouping.) In that perspective, I would say that Bernie's voters would be the most anti-Trump voters through and through, while Biden's are less so. I would also say that Bernie's voters are less reliable to show up to vote, as you kind of pointed out with the fact that Bernie polled well in Maine and still lost.

I mean, it's all hypotheticals on how the primary is playing out compared to how the general would play out. If Bernie was repeating his wins in battleground states, I'd be more open to saying we should put Bernie at the top of the ticket. But he lost every county in Michigan, and we need Michigan. He's likely to lose Arizona, and that could be the one that we need to offset Wisconsin. He lost North Carolina, and we could really use that state to turn to help prevent a nail biter.

It makes the most sense to follow the hot hand in these elections. Biden and the "moderate" wing are the hot hand at the moment. Keep playing it?
Sure, at this point the results communicate Biden clearly winning as said hot hand and I do agree that Biden will probably perform a little better in NC than Bernie would have in a general.

But my point was, what happened in the lead-up to South Carolina? A very strong anti-Bernie narrative emerged with a focus on how he would impact other elections around the country while he was consistently polling quite well in places like MI, PA, and WI compared to Biden and he was doing very well in ME, CO, and AZ during that time period as well including beating Biden in match-ups. Now, the final votes, have come out a certain way and I'm not disputing this, but what I am taking issue with is people acting like Biden always had this clear advantage in attempting to reclaim the Senate and keep the House when outside of maybe Florida specifically, there wasn't much to support that. And specifically that narrative I think began to cost him a number of votes because it communicated such a lack of confidence in Sanders in the lead-up to Super Tuesday when so many people began to fearmonger about such additional elections. "Biden gives us a better chance to win the Senate" was a narrative that emerged in the lead-up to and with SC's win when there wasn't really those indicators from much of anything and the data was actually showing Bernie doing quite well in these many important states and swing states even in comparison to Biden in head to heads against Trump.
 

metalslimer

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
5,870
If sanders cant win on in 1v1 race then he never deserved the nomination. All this whining ignores the fact that had bernie won a fractured primary it would have not have been with the majority of dem party voters backing him.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,054
Oh, what's the "realistic conclusion"? Dismissing the Clarence Thomas hearings with "oh he voted against it"

Saying he voted against it isn't defending the hearings. Some of you have really lost the plot. Pay attention to what you're actually accusing people of.
 

Rael

Member
Oct 26, 2017
754
I'm not defending shit, I'm countering the point made that Biden would want a Thomas on the court. He voted against Thomas. And there's no sign he would appoint anyone vaguely conservative.

Please, feel free to change what we're talking about to justify your outrage, though.
Joe Biden was complete scum during the Clarence Thomas hearings. I don't give a shit what he voted, he did all he could to give him the best chance possible, voting against him isn't deserving of a gold star.
 

Slayven

1000% Demon King
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
44,824
Bernie was "outperforming him" because those ended up being a reflection of "electability" which in turn is just driven by "who's winning right now". And, as it turns out, the actual race looked quite different once it came down to two options. Where everything I had personally been warning about w/ Sanders' crosstabs showing red flags about his campaign's nonexistent outreach w/ voters outside his 2016 base and it's mass bleed of its 2016 white electorate turned out to put a hard ceiling on his campaign the moment it became a 1v1 vs the candidate he matched up worst against (because Biden would be uniquely attractive to 2016 anti-Hillary voters.)

Bernie Sanders is losing the nomination because Bernie Sanders is the living incarnation of this poster. He is a person utterly incapable of self-reflection and the ability to adapt to new situations when his previous attempts fail. Everything he messed up in the 2016 campaign, instead of being rectified, was doubled down on. He can never be at fault. It's always someone else to blame. He is political equivalent of "The Scrub" from 'Playing to Win'.
aka "Fuck Hillary" might have been the biggest independent voting block in history
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,054
Joe Biden was complete scum during the Clarence Thomas hearings. I don't give a shit what he voted, he did all he could to give him the best chance possible, voting against him isn't deserving of a gold star.

I agree with this. Biden's actions during the hearing were terrible.
 

Rael

Member
Oct 26, 2017
754
Saying he voted against it isn't defending the hearings. Some of you have really lost the plot. Pay attention to what you're actually accusing people of.
I'm gonna try to put it in the simplest terms, responding to a critique of Biden's involvement in the Clarence Thomas hearings with "Biden didn't vote for it" is absolutely dismissing his role in the nomination, even if the original poster may not have meant it like that.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,054
I'm gonna try to put it in the simplest terms, responding to a critique of Biden's involvement in the Clarence Thomas hearings with "Biden didn't vote for it" is absolutely dismissing his role in the nomination, even if the original poster may not have meant it like that.

In the simplest terms I think you should go with what a poster says instead of the exaggerated extreme conclusion you're inferring from it.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
8,147
I'm gonna try to put it in the simplest terms, responding to a critique of Biden's involvement in the Clarence Thomas hearings with "Biden didn't vote for it" is absolutely dismissing his role in the nomination, even if the original poster may not have meant it like that.
Does that mean he's gonna appoint conservative judges though?
He can be a piece of shit the size of mount Everest and STILL not appoint conservative judges.
Yes because we are using the phrase popularity contest literally here. Don't be so pedantic.
But they ARE literal popularity contest.
In the strictest sense of the word even.
A fucking booted poney could win an election (and in some case people chose to vote for dead people even).
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,594
Joe Biden was complete scum during the Clarence Thomas hearings. I don't give a shit what he voted, he did all he could to give him the best chance possible, voting against him isn't deserving of a gold star.
Nobody is giving him a gold star for his behavior at those hearings. Did you even read the post I was replying to, which was concern-trolling that Biden's idea of a SC nomination would be another Thomas? Because that is the start and end of why I posted that Biden voted against Thomas.

Do you honestly think that 2020 Biden would appoint somebody that even his less-evolved 1992 self would have voted against?
 

Terra Torment

Banned
Jan 4, 2020
286
Bernie was "outperforming him" because those ended up being a reflection of "electability" which in turn is just driven by "who's winning right now". And, as it turns out, the actual race looked quite different once it came down to two options. Where everything I had personally been warning about w/ Sanders' crosstabs showing red flags about his campaign's nonexistent outreach w/ voters outside his 2016 base and it's mass bleed of its 2016 white electorate turned out to put a hard ceiling on his campaign the moment it became a 1v1 vs the candidate he matched up worst against (because Biden would be uniquely attractive to 2016 anti-Hillary voters.)

Bernie Sanders is losing the nomination because Bernie Sanders is the living incarnation of this poster. He is a person utterly incapable of self-reflection and the ability to adapt to new situations when his previous attempts fail. Everything he messed up in the 2016 campaign, instead of being rectified, was doubled down on. He can never be at fault. It's always someone else to blame. He is political equivalent of "The Scrub" from 'Playing to Win'.
The constant MSNBC and CNN anti-bernie propaganda campaign wasn't nothing. Nor was the bias in the so called newspapers of record.
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
But they ARE literal popularity contest.
In the strictest sense of the word even.
A fucking booted poney could win an election (and in some case people chose to vote for dead people even).
The phrase popularity contest is colloquially used to refer to a contest that is devoid of substance. I can't think of any time I've used the phrase popularity contest to literally refer to a contest in which the most popular person wins.
 

Skiptastic

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,423
Sure, at this point the results communicate Biden clearly winning as said hot hand and I do agree that Biden will probably perform a little better in NC than Bernie would have in a general.

But my point was, what happened in the lead-up to South Carolina? A very strong anti-Bernie narrative emerged with a focus on how he would impact other elections around the country while he was consistently polling quite well in places like MI, PA, and WI compared to Biden and he was doing very well in ME, CO, and AZ during that time period as well including beating Biden in match-ups. Now, the final votes, have come out a certain way and I'm not disputing this, but what I am taking issue with is people acting like Biden always had this clear advantage in attempting to reclaim the Senate and keep the House when outside of maybe Florida specifically, there wasn't much to support that. And specifically that narrative I think began to cost him a number of votes because it communicated such a lack of confidence in Sanders in the lead-up to Super Tuesday when so many people began to fearmonger about such additional elections. "Biden gives us a better chance to win the Senate" was a narrative that emerged in the lead-up to and with SC's win when there wasn't really those indicators from much of anything and the data was actually showing Bernie doing quite well in these many important states and swing states even in comparison to Biden in head to heads against Trump.
I see where you're coming from now. I think my mind is jumbled about what narratives arrived before and after SC. I think the "Joe Biden gives us a better chance at the Senate" argument held water AFTER South Carolina because he looked strong. I don't think many people were giving him much credence at all before the Clyburn endorsement, and even then, only expected a modest victory in SC. After he absolutely wrecked SC, I think people's calculus changed and the narrative about the Senate started to creep in. But it's hard for me to determine how much that played into it versus all of Biden's moderate competition dropping out and supporting him.

Personally, all along, I have thought Bernie at the top of the ticket would be a harder road for the Senate unless he had demonstrated an ability to really bring out an untapped coalition of voters, the way Trump brought rural and working class white voters to the GOP in 2016. For example, if Latinos and the youth vote rose 25% or something, that would have shown me "oh shit, maybe Bernie could get people to vote that wouldn't have". When I look at the candidates likely to run in ME, CO, IA, etc., I figured they'd look more like a Joe Biden than a Bernie Sanders. And when you're running for Senate, it helps to have someone at the top of the ticket that aligns with your likely voting coalition.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just an armchair analyst lol.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
8,147
The phrase popularity contest is colloquially used to refer to a contest that is devoid of substance. I can't think of any time I've used the phrase popularity contest to literally refer to a contest in which the most popular person wins.
You just described presidential elections.
There's no substance to this and it's not about policy or anything like that.
If it was about policy or substance Sanders or Warren would be preparing for the general or we would be discussing GoP primaries right about now.
There's a very real chance that Sanders would have been a much better president but that's not who the electorate wants .
 

Rael

Member
Oct 26, 2017
754
Nobody is giving him a gold star for his behavior at those hearings. Did you even read the post I was replying to, which was concern-trolling that Biden's idea of a SC nomination would be another Thomas? Because that is the start and end of why I posted that Biden voted against Thomas.

Do you honestly think that 2020 Biden would appoint somebody that even his less-evolved 1992 self would have voted against?
I wouldn't say he's gonna put up a conservative, but I would say I don't trust his judgement considering he could have done so much more to stop him from getting on the court. Him talking about any kind of nomination doesn't give me any confidence because of that, but it's obvious no one cares about past choices in this primary, considering even on this forum you can read things like "he's a liar, but he said he's gonna do great things"
 

HipsterMorty

alt account
Banned
Jan 25, 2020
901
You just described presidential elections.
There's no substance to this and it's not about policy or anything like that.
If it was about policy or substance Sanders or Warren would be preparing for the general or we would be discussing GoP primaries right about now.
There's a very real chance that Sanders would have been a much better president but that's not who the electorate wants .
Yes, I agree with everything you're saying here. At this point we're just arguing semantics lol.
 

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,054
Just to head off any trouble as we discuss this, let's remember the threadmark.

Official Staff Communication
This has mostly died down now, but to be clear:

No, encouraging people to vote is not inherently dangerous. And no, the other side is not "endangering people" by not dropping out (this is true no matter which side you're on; we've seen you both make this point, explicitly or implicitly). COVID-19 is not an excuse to engage in transparent factional mudflinging. Going forward, attempting to concern troll about COVID regarding either candidate is against thread rules and will be moderated as such.
 

Primethius

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,841
User banned (1 week): Ignoring the staff post.
There's a pandemic. Bernie has no shot. He should drop out and just work behind the scenes to get his platform adopted rather than relitigate his stump speech.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,858
You know as I was typing, I was thinking the same thing. But I want to be factual. The fact they ran the same campaign with the only adition was to try to gamne a split field says it all. They went in wanting to lose less than everyone else.
Also wanted to win in the most divisive way possible.

I look forward to the inevitable tell all book about that campaign
 

Sou Da

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,836
There's a pandemic. Bernie has no shot. He should drop out and just work behind the scenes to get his platform adopted rather than relitigate his stump speech.
I agree, Bernie should do backroom deals so that he can get absolutely played when they follow through on none of it in addition to losing all credibility with his base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.