|
Alright so I woke up and see that Biden is likely the winner once all the mail-ins and urban votes flood in, but Christ, this is even messier than the scenario I envisioned. I can't wait for the lawsuits and inevitable SCOTUS decision on all these states.
|
On November 04 2020 22:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. Why can’t the primaries work like most other elections and be held on one day of voting? Momentum feeding into talk of electability seems massively exacerbated by quirks of the order of states, and rather distorts things when we factor in that some states aren’t even in play for a blue vote. A few statement victories benefitted Sanders in terms of that building of momentum as well.
Can you imagine how much harder that would be when it comes to helping dictate which candidate you want to win?
Nah, this process is exactly as intended by Democrats. They may not be outright cheaters imo, but they want to keep their ability to hold their boot on the scale.
|
On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking.
This doesn't really follow.
Younger voters heavily favor the Democratic party, which is contradictory to your theory.
|
On November 04 2020 22:35 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:34 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. Why can’t the primaries work like most other elections and be held on one day of voting? Momentum feeding into talk of electability seems massively exacerbated by quirks of the order of states, and rather distorts things when we factor in that some states aren’t even in play for a blue vote. A few statement victories benefitted Sanders in terms of that building of momentum as well. Can you imagine how much harder that would be when it comes to helping dictate which candidate you want to win? Nah, this process is exactly as intended by Democrats. They may not be outright cheaters imo, but they want to keep their ability to hold their boot on the scale.
It's actually the opposite-if primaries were on one day, it would be a wet dream for the DNC from a crowning their own candidate perspective. Nobody gets anywhere near a majority, all the moderates guaranteed to wheel and deal amongst themselves. Phased primaries are the only reason the non-party choice ever wins.
Without phased primaries, Sanders would have been a joke in 2016 and been even farther behind in 2020, and Clinton would have almost certainly won in 2008.
|
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall apparently.
|
On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking.
Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asp
https://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=en
Real education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted
|
On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate?
Look to Obama.
He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways.
He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it.
Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change.
They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other.
|
I think it's a mistake to suppose that progressivism and conservatism are hard coded into people's positions on political issues. At the end of the day, consensus building is about persuasion and selling ideas, neither of which Democrats are good at save for the occasional Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
|
On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But that's my point. If someone as god awful as Trump doesn't make voters run away from him to literally any other candidate, does the candidate matter?
I'm not saying the Democrats are without fault, at all. Nor am I claiming that Biden makes you enthusiastic to vote, but he shouldn't even have to. To me Trump not driving people away is more telling about the US voters then Biden not attracting them.
There is no way to know but I would love to be able to dive into an alternate reality where Obama ran yesterday, I could see him no better then Biden.
|
On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently.
Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly.
|
On November 04 2020 22:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:35 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:34 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. Why can’t the primaries work like most other elections and be held on one day of voting? Momentum feeding into talk of electability seems massively exacerbated by quirks of the order of states, and rather distorts things when we factor in that some states aren’t even in play for a blue vote. A few statement victories benefitted Sanders in terms of that building of momentum as well. Can you imagine how much harder that would be when it comes to helping dictate which candidate you want to win? Nah, this process is exactly as intended by Democrats. They may not be outright cheaters imo, but they want to keep their ability to hold their boot on the scale. It's actually the opposite-if primaries were on one day, it would be a wet dream for the DNC from a crowning their own candidate perspective. Nobody gets anywhere near a majority, all the moderates guaranteed to wheel and deal amongst themselves. Phased primaries are the only reason the non-party choice ever wins. Without phased primaries, Sanders would have been a joke in 2016 and been even farther behind in 2020, and Clinton would have almost certainly won in 2008.
True, I forgot that it requires a majority to win and not just the most votes,
|
On November 04 2020 22:34 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 21:50 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 21:39 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 21:29 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 21:25 farvacola wrote:
For those interested in shifting the Democrats towards the left, these results are fairly good in the sense that there is clearly very little credence to the crossover appeal tack of folks like Biden. It's gonna take something else, like actually offering a compelling and contrasting vision of how government works. I don't think Biden won the primary because of crossover appeal with Republicans. But because the Democratic party simply has less people further to the left (Bernie) then they have voters who are more centralist. The mistake progressives seem to keep making is thinking they are a majority and its only through tricks and cheats that the centralist keep them out of power. But if you do polls on policies that the progressives support like universal healthcare, ending student loan debt, not doing wars, etc, they are overwhelmingly popular, so there is some truth in them actually being a majority but hidden by the media. Yes progress policies are very popular but progress candidates often lose and people still vote Republican in elections. Looks like those policies are not what people are basing their vote on. There is a world of difference between what a person agrees with when he sits at home and what he cares about when he is standing in the voting booth as evident by people not voting based on these popular policies. This is kind of what I mean when I say progressives mistakenly think they are a majority. Yes their beliefs often poll at a majority approval, but people aren't voting based on that, as evident by the fact they aren't the primary or general election. (I don't know enough about down ballot votes to comment if the same trend is active there). I'd say that the two data points of people supporting the policies, but not voting for the candidates is pointing to the need to spread more information about who is for what policies. A giant opputunity to get better att getting the message out basically. And I say the American voters don't care about your message on policy. Its not what they think about when they vote, apparently.
|
On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate?
I'm not arguing for a progressive candidate, I'm criticizing the approach the Dems have taken. No simple eye catching policy for people to talk about (I disagree with the idea that the public don't care about policy), just 'not Trump.'
I don't know whether a progressive would win against Trump, but the Dems should have won convincingly with Biden.
|
They care about policy insofar as they can digest it. Americans won’t read your in depth policy proposals, it has to be distilled in such a way that they can understand it. You don’t sell a game based on its unique shader technology, you sell games based on their flashy fun understandable aspects.
|
On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly.
Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway?
|
yeah they need things like "yes we can" or "make america great again"
|
On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other.
I think your admiration of Obama fails to take into account that Obama's first election was
1) Not against an incumbent (who historically has a significant boon to his re-election chances)
2) Was after Bush's War on Terror became deeply unpopular and was also in the midst of the Great Recession.
Obama had some incredibly favorable territory to run on. While there are some comparisons (pandemic to recession), there are a lot of cultural differences, e.g. the best ways to fight the pandemic are highly polarizing and economically painful, and the American public is much more openly racist and is much less amenable to facts and reality.
Again, I am all on board with the progressive train, I am just extremely skeptical of their chances of success, mostly because I think Americans are just terrible people at this point.
|
On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly.
I'm mostly just perplexed at what the actual legal challenges will look like in WI/MI/AZ, if those really all go for Biden. I don't envy whatever lawyers have to surgically target counties they want thrown out at Trump's whims.
|
On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other.
Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house.
|
On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? By changing the actual votes (throwing out ballots, particularly mail-ins) and therefor who wins the state gets how many electoral votes, not the electoral collage itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
