Nevada Caucus 2020 - MegaThread

[eschatological]

You didn't. You dismissed it/ignored it with rhetoric.

You wanted facts. I posted facts. Wisconsin = won by Bernie in 2016

/drop mic

Realism, bitch. ;P

FWIW, winning the Democratic Primary in Wisconsin in 2016 isn't an indicator of how Wisconsin would go in a General. There are a lot more Republican-minded people in Wisconsin than Democratic. This is a shift from traditional blue collar workers fleeing the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.....not strictly for economic reasons, but for cultural/social reasons, combined with the short term economic gains to be had from a Republican agenda via nonsense tax cuts.

[Telogrus]

Lol still using the "Berniebro" nonsense. Did you not see the demographics of the Nevada win? Seems weird that you vote based on a minority of people that vote for a candidate rather than the candidate himself. You've probably been watching a lot of MSNBC right?

These woke liberals need to stop using “Bernie Bros” when a majority of Bernie’s supporters are actually female.

They should start saying “Sanders Sluts” instead.

[mvaliz]

This is just the political equivalent of appealing to some sort of authority granted you by the righteousness of money spent.

It's also a flat-out Ad-Hominem. Which, if you notice, he resorts to ALOT last night... including dismissing watching a clip because it was from "Kung Fu Panda" instead of actually watching the clip and learning something about perspective.

One of my pet theories I've had for a while now is that Skroe's hatred for Dump stems from more than just him being a belligerent racist idiot - but also because a slight bit of jealousy. He'll berate Dump on EVERY issue about him... except for some reason he never seems to discuss or even acknowledge Dump's rampant narcissism.

Given Skroe's propensity to brag about his so-called "Achievements" makes me feel like, deep down, he additionally doesn't like Dump because he's staring into a mirror... albeit an orange-tinted circus mirror, but a mirror nontheless. :P

[Ivanstone]

It was bullshit of course. Trump won in 2016 not on the back of hardcore Republicans turning out, but by expanding his voting base to include a large number of cross-over voters. Trump won because he did precisely the opposite of what the Tea Party prescribed for their candidate AND what you prescribe for Democrats.

Trump didn't expand the GOP's voting base. He got a few extra votes from hardcore Republicans who didn't want to vote for the NotARealChristian and those who were too ashamed to vote in 2008. The GOP could've ran a toaster and got the same result.

Edit: Trump beat McCain by 5%. The US population grew by 6-7% in the subsequent years. Did he even keep pace with population growth?

[Sunseeker]

I'll humble accept your agreement.

And true, the current decrepit edifice of the GOP is going to be tough, as is the Democrats whom really are the same thing on the core material issues of the day. I mean one can say threaten to flood their districts with refugee's as president and only avoid doing that if they consent to a NHS; a tactic I endorse and know the GOP people will struggle to rebuke. Debt cancellation can likely be achieved without the Senate.

A major other difference I see is that Sanders isn't conciliatory, he will not seek to do as Obama did a kvetch for Republicans. Sanders will call "Cocaine Mitch" a POS and a bastard instead.

To that I definitely agree. Most of the other candidates will happily concede important liberal policy points in order to pass bills with "bipartisan support", because as wealthy white privileged males like Skroe, they don't really stand to lose anything from doing so. And they've already been elected so what the worst that can happen? The Democrats will sit silently while it happens because they've decided, like Skroe, sitting on the throne is more important than wielding that power to do anything of value.

But again, I don't see the point in electing someone who'll be friendly with folks who clearly don't want to be our friends. Maybe Bernie will spent 4 years in a cat-fight with McConnell. It's not like that'll be much greater of an accomplishment than spending 4 years pretending to not get along only to be caught at some private event saying "I hope Mitch keeps his job, I really enjoy working with him."

[Omega10]

I remain loathe to express agreement to anything you write but goddamnit this is really spot on.

Theo has always been an impactful poster to me. And lately, Theo has stopped writing as many stream of conscience posts that were hard to figure out, and replaced them with powerful well written compositions with maybe a few random bits thrown in.

Thank you Theo

[alexw]

FWIW, winning the Democratic Primary in Wisconsin in 2016 isn't an indicator of how Wisconsin would go in a General. There are a lot more Republican-minded people in Wisconsin than Democratic. This is a shift from traditional blue collar workers fleeing the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.....not strictly for economic reasons, but for cultural/social reasons, combined with the short term economic gains to be had from a Republican agenda via nonsense tax cuts.

I do wonder what Sanders path to the presidency will be without Wisconsin. Perhaps Arizona or Georgia?

[mvaliz]

FWIW, winning the Democratic Primary in Wisconsin in 2016 isn't an indicator of how Wisconsin would go in a General. There are a lot more Republican-minded people in Wisconsin than Democratic. This is a shift from traditional blue collar workers fleeing the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.....not strictly for economic reasons, but for cultural/social reasons, combined with the short term economic gains to be had from a Republican agenda via nonsense tax cuts.

Oh, I get that idea - but if you want further metrics (here, @Skroe, here's more of your beloved "data") - how about we look at it from this via a mathematical angle?

2016 Wisconsin results:
Trump: 1,405,284 (47.2%)
Clinton: 1,382,536 (46.5%)

Hillary lost by a mere .7% - by only 22,478 people.

NOW... lets mathematically look at the Wisconsin Democratic Primary (again, that @Skroe claims to "tear up", which he's an ignorant fool for rejecting as I will now show why...)

Democratic 2016 Primary Wisconsin Results:
Hillary: 433,739 (43.1%)
Bernie: 570,192 (56.6%)

The mathematical difference (ie. I'm not even using the total # of Bernie voters) here is 136,453 people for bernie

Now, I'm not sure how @Skroe does math - but last I checked, 136,453 is far greater than 22,478 - in fact, its a mere 16.473% the size of the 13.5% DIFFERENCE between Hillary vs Bernie in Wisconsin.

What's the bottom line? If a mere 16.473% of the 13.5% of additional people who voted for Bernie in the primary would've pushed it over the edge. Given how rampant the "Bernie or Buster" mentality was going back then, it's no exaggeration at all to say that a percent of that percent was significantly likely that which cost Wisconsin the loss, not anything "Blue Collar" or whatever he's peddling...

EDIT: and this is in 2016... BEFORE people had a true 4-year taste of Dumbass Dump. BEFORE Bernie or Busters got a reality check.

Based purely on mathematics, a Bernie run with Wisconsin wouldn't just be likely a potential victory - but damn near almost a significantly solid lock-in for Bernie.

[Thepersona]

I do wonder what Sanders path to the presidency will be without Wisconsin. Perhaps Arizona or Georgia?

Probably AZ, since the ground is shaky for the GOP there right now.
But i hope that they force the fuckers to spend a ton of money in texas (even
If they win)

[JohnBrown1917]

I do wonder what Sanders path to the presidency will be without Wisconsin. Perhaps Arizona or Georgia?

Texas has a high latino population, does it not?

[alexw]

Texas has a high latino population, does it not?

It does, and its getting closer and closer to being a toss up state with each election cycle. Not sure its possible this time around though but a lot will depend on how good the democratic nominee would be at activating current non-voters.

[Ivanstone]

Theo has always been an impactful poster to me. And lately, Theo has stopped writing as many stream of conscience posts that were hard to figure out, and replaced them with powerful well written compositions with maybe a few random bits thrown in.

Thank you Theo

You know what separates Theo from the forum's other Bold Independent Thinkers? Big words and nothing more.

Honestly the only actual GOP type in this forum that I'll give actual credit for actual independent thinking is Skroe. I like to give him shit for under-estimating the GOP's sins since 1968 and I don't care for the right ward shift of the Dems that he thinks is necessary but at least he demonstrates actual flexible thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the bottom line? If a mere 16.473% of the 13.5% of additional people who voted for Bernie in the primary would've pushed it over the edge. Given how rampant the "Bernie or Buster" mentality was going back then, it's no exaggeration at all to say that a percent of that percent was significantly likely that which cost Wisconsin the loss, not anything "Blue Collar" or whatever he's peddling...

Hilary simply showing up in Wisconsin would've given her the victory there. It doesn't help that Scott Walker actively suppressed the vote in Democrat leaning districts.

[eschatological]

Oh, I get that idea - but if you want further metrics (here, @Skroe, here's more of your beloved "data") - how about we look at it from this via a mathematical angle?

2016 Wisconsin results:
Trump: 1,405,284 (47.2%)
Clinton: 1,382,536 (46.5%)

Hillary lost by a mere .7% - by only 22,478 people.

NOW... lets mathematically look at the Wisconsin Democratic Primary (again, that @Skroe claims to "tear up", which he's an ignorant fool for rejecting as I will now show why...)

Democratic 2016 Primary Wisconsin Results:
Hillary: 433,739 (43.1%)
Bernie: 570,192 (56.6%)

The mathematical difference (ie. I'm not even using the total # of Bernie voters) here is 136,453 people for bernie

Now, I'm not sure how @Skroe does math - but last I checked, 136,453 is far greater than 22,478 - in fact, its a mere 16.473% the size of the 13.5% DIFFERENCE between Hillary vs Bernie in Wisconsin.

What's the bottom line? If a mere 16.473% of the 13.5% of additional people who voted for Bernie in the primary would've pushed it over the edge. Given how rampant the "Bernie or Buster" mentality was going back then, it's no exaggeration at all to say that a percent of that percent was significantly likely that which cost Wisconsin the loss, not anything "Blue Collar" or whatever he's peddling...

EDIT: and this is in 2016... BEFORE people had a true 4-year taste of Dumbass Dump. BEFORE Bernie or Busters got a reality check.

Based purely on mathematics, a Bernie run with Wisconsin wouldn't just be likely a potential victory - but damn near almost a significantly solid lock-in for Bernie.

Your math is goddamn farcical. It assumes none of Bernie's people voted for Hillary, and thus if you subtract how many votes she got in the primary and then add back in Bernie's votes, he would have locked up Wisconsin.

Instead, you should look at your numbers, realize the people who voted for Clinton in the general was almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE than voted in the whole Dem primary in total, and recognize that it wasn't the case that Dems lost Bernie voters in Wisconsin, but lost moderate independents to Trump across the aisle. In fact, Hillary won about +400k voters from the Dem turnout, and Trump won about +300k from the Republican primary turnout (which was higher than the Dem turnout).

[mvaliz]

Your math is goddamn farcical. It assumes none of Bernie's people voted for Hillary, and thus if you subtract how many votes she got in the primary and then add back in Bernie's votes, he would have locked up Wisconsin.

Ummm.... read it again? Because you clearly missed something... I was literally talking about the 16% of the 13.5% difference that didn't vote for Hillary. Never anywhere did I "assume" none of Bernie's supporters voted for Hillary in the main election. In fact, my assumption was the opposite - My math is allowing into consideration the assumption that at least 86.5%-97.84% of the Bernie primary supporters DID vote for her in the main election! FUCK, I even said RIGHT THERE that "I'm not even using the total # of Bernie voters". How did you miss that!? My whole argument kinda hinges on that. :P

Again, go back and read it - you'll see what my math is purely focused on the 13.5% who didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, and of that I suggested that only 16% of that 13.5% (ie. A mere 2.22% of total Bernie Votes in the primary) could've been Abstaining votes... enough to throw off the election.

My math is equating only the small fraction that didn't vote for her in the primary. of a percent difference to shore up that 23k vote needed to produce a victory, not the Bernie voters number total as a whole.

[Grapemask]

But again, I don't see the point in electing someone who'll be friendly with folks who clearly don't want to be our friends. Maybe Bernie will spent 4 years in a cat-fight with McConnell. It's not like that'll be much greater of an accomplishment than spending 4 years pretending to not get along only to be caught at some private event saying "I hope Mitch keeps his job, I really enjoy working with him."

This is the problem with democrats in general, and why we've ended up where we are. Democrats capitulate while Republicans stand firm. Our overton window has shifted to the point that if you take Sanders and Warren out of the picture, our entire political spectrum is a blob on the furthest right of the map. We have to give Republicans what they want or we're being unreasonable. And if we don't, they're justified in sitting on the bills, sitting on the nominations, sitting on everything until they get someone who will give them everything they want. Theo, while streaming all of the scripts fed in from 4chan, rages about the liberals who just won't capitulate. Skroe writes small novels about the liberals who just keep trying to do stuff now instead of waiting 5 or 10 or however many years it takes for us to just give up on it.

What Martin Luther King Jr. said about white moderates is becoming more and more applicable to so-called moderates in politics.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Fuck 'em.

[Ivanstone]

Your math is goddamn farcical. It assumes none of Bernie's people voted for Hillary, and thus if you subtract how many votes she got in the primary and then add back in Bernie's votes, he would have locked up Wisconsin.

Instead, you should look at your numbers, realize the people who voted for Clinton in the general was almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE than voted in the whole Dem primary in total, and recognize that it wasn't the case that Dems lost Bernie voters in Wisconsin, but lost moderate independents to Trump across the aisle. In fact, Hillary won about +400k voters from the Dem turnout, and Trump won about +300k from the Republican primary turnout (which was higher than the Dem turnout).

The Dems lost no voters to the GOP. Trump actually had less votes than Romney did. The Dems simply lost 240K votes. Some of that was because of voter turnout (70% in 2012, 67% in 2016). Third party was also a factor (1.25% total in 2012, 6% in 2016(mostly Gary Johnson)). Hilary's laziness combined with Walker's voter suppression gave Trump the victory.

If Trump wins again in Wisconsin it will because of the Dem's campaigning poorly in Wisconsin and the lingering aftereffects of Walker's voter suppression. The Dem candidate is completely irrelevant. Only their ground game matters.

[mvaliz]

Instead, you should look at your numbers, realize the people who voted for Clinton in the general was almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE than voted in the whole Dem primary in total, and recognize that it wasn't the case that Dems lost Bernie voters in Wisconsin, but lost moderate independents to Trump across the aisle. In fact, Hillary won about +400k voters from the Dem turnout, and Trump won about +300k from the Republican primary turnout (which was higher than the Dem turnout).

And instead you should see the fact that she lost ONLY by 22+ k votes in the main election. this is in ADDITION to the +400k voters you're talking about.

All it takes is a very small 2.5% of the total Bernie Voters in the Primary to abstain from voting to equal 22+k votes required for Dump to win. That's arguably a VERY realistic and possible figure to abstain.

[eschatological]

Ummm.... read it again? Because you clearly missed something... I was literally talking about the 16% of the 13.5% difference that didn't vote for Hillary. Never anywhere did I "assume" none of Bernie's supporters voted for Hillary in the main election. In fact, my assumption was the opposite - My math is allowing into consideration the assumption that at least 86.5%-97.84% of the Bernie primary supporters DID vote for her in the main election! FUCK, I even said RIGHT THERE that "I'm not even using the total # of Bernie voters". How did you miss that!? My whole argument kinda hinges on that. :P

Again, go back and read it - you'll see what my math is purely focused on the 13.5% who didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, and of that I suggested that only 16% of that 13.5% (ie. 2.5% of total Bernie Votes in the primary) could've been Abstaining votes... enough to throw off the election.

My math is equating only the small fraction that didn't vote for her in the primary. of a percent difference to shore up that 23k vote needed to produce a victory, not the Bernie voters number total as a whole.

The point I'm trying to make is that Hillary lost far more moderate voters to Trump than Bernie voters who sat out. And your math is faulty in assuming that Bernie's 570k didn't already vote for Hillary. That's the point. That he beat her by 136k is no indication his 570k didn't vote for her. You're working on faulty assumptions.

Now, if you're making the argument that Bernie, as the nominee, wouldn't have neglected the Rust Belt, sure.

But white, suburban, union blue collar worker flight from the Democratic party is a real trend, and it's based on a mixture of social conservatism, and the shadow economic benefits of Republican Reaganomics, which hand out bread and circuses to distract from real problems. The latter is something we need to shift perspective on, but Republicans have been winning on it for 40 years at this point. The fact that most people int his country think Trump's handling of the economy is good to excellent is fucking horrific.

[Beefhammer]

The Dems lost no voters to the GOP. Trump actually had less votes than Romney did. The Dems simply lost 240K votes. Some of that was because of voter turnout (70% in 2012, 67% in 2016). Third party was also a factor (1.25% total in 2012, 6% in 2016(mostly Gary Johnson)). Hilary's laziness combined with Walker's voter suppression gave Trump the victory.

If Trump wins again in Wisconsin it will because of the Dem's campaigning poorly in Wisconsin and the lingering aftereffects of Walker's voter suppression. The Dem candidate is completely irrelevant. Only their ground game matters.

I'm almost certain no one who would be considered a Dem voter voted for Gary Johnson.

[mvaliz]

The point I'm trying to make is that Hillary lost far more moderate voters to Trump than Bernie voters who sat out. And your math is faulty in assuming that Bernie's 570k didn't already vote for Hillary. That's the point. That he beat her by 136k is no indication his 570k didn't vote for her. You're working on faulty assumptions.

/breathes in...

I DIDN"T DO THAT! READ MY DAMN POST!!!! I AM ASSUMING UP TO 98% OF THEM DID VOTE FOR HILLARY!!! READ IT, DAMNIT!

Look, I'll even show you/highlight directly the damn part in my post YOU FUCKING IGNORED!!!

Democratic 2016 Primary Wisconsin Results:
Hillary: 433,739 (43.1%)
Bernie: 570,192 (56.6%)

The mathematical difference (ie. I'm not even using the total # of Bernie voters) here is 136,453 people for bernie

Fuck me, how the hell are you a mod with such horrible reading comprehension skills!? Fuck me, my hands are shaking at how unbelievably ignorantly levels of stupid its taking me to convince you to simply go back and fucking read what I fucking wrote PROPERLY!!!! Christ on a fucking cross, MAN! >_<

My math is suggesting that it would ONLY TAKE 2.5% of the total Bernie voters in the primary to abstain to equal the 22k required for it. That's FAR more realisitic to assume that you only needed to appeal to an extra 22k people in rural countries.

This is, OF COURSE, assuming that 2016 will repeat and that all farmers (who fucking HATE trump right now, BTW) will vote for him again in 2016.

And why the Hell are you focusing on the extra +400k? We lost by only 22k!!! That's my whole POINT! Chances are if things were equal in 2020, it would ONLY take 2.5% of the possible Abstaining Bernie voters to vote to beat Dump - nevermind that the farmers right now are MORE LIKELY to vote AGAINST Dump after fucking them over.

You really think Bernie's going to just somehow lose +400k people!? What makes you think to lump them ALL in as "Bernie supporters"? Based on what metric are you pulling out of your arse for that one!? o_O