Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Adam Jensen]

theres probably going to be messy scenes next weekend. I think some rittenhouse formalities are on the 25th and then the proud boys are heading to portland on the weekend to have a tear up.

You know . . . who names a militia group "proud boys?"

[jonnysensible]

You know . . . who names a militia group "proud boys?"

a neofascist canadian?

[cubby]

It’s not patently false. Primaries, especially democrat ones aren’t indicative of actual elections. Dems, by and large, vote in primaries not based on who best aligns with their values but who they think will win.

Beyond that, presidential elections are won by people who don’t vote in primaries.

You're mixing up two issues into one. You argued that Bernie would "bring out the vote" or whatever, and he didn't, period, during the primaries. Yes, different people vote during primaries and elections, but that's irrelevant to my point. During the primaries, whomever was supposed to come out, didn't, and those numbers are indicative of the fallacy that Bernie WON'T bring out the voters in a general election.

[Bodakane]

You're mixing up two issues into one. You argued that Bernie would "bring out the vote" or whatever, and he didn't, period, during the primaries. Yes, different people vote during primaries and elections, but that's irrelevant to my point. During the primaries, whomever was supposed to come out, didn't, and those numbers are indicative of the fallacy that Bernie WON'T bring out the voters in a general election.

I’m not mixing anything. I said Warren or Bernie would bring out the vote in the actual election. You are mixing primary performance with election performance and acting as if they are interchangeable. They aren’t.

Once again, Dems don’t vote on ideals in primaries they vote for who they think will win. Voting for ideals is not the same thing as voting for who you’ll think will beat the repub. you are struggling very hard with that concept.

Most Dem primary voters are diehards playing a strategic game instead of voting for who best represents liberal ideals. Die hards are going to vote for whoever gets the Dem nom so their opinion is the LEAST important, the issue at hand is getting the non die hards to vote. Without COVID I don’t think Biden was a liberally exciting enough pick to do that, just like Hillary wasn’t either.

[eschatological]

But wasn't the point of Bernie's campaign that he was bringing out the "non-diehards," the everyday people who just wanted shit to be better?

[Bodakane]

But wasn't the point of Bernie's campaign that he was bringing out the "non-diehards," the everyday people who just wanted shit to be better?

Yes, but that doesn’t mean the primaries.

[eschatological]

Yes, but that doesn’t mean the primaries.

...if he can't drive interest in the primaries, what makes you think he can get normal people to come out in the general? Something something "the fierce urgency of now?"

[DingDongKing]

This election is going to go so well. The last few months of garbage from Trump already working wonders.

Wouldn't let this put me off voting, though.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFTXq9BHi2r/

AOC telling it like it is. Vote. Just bloody vote.

[cubby]

I’m not mixing anything. I said Warren or Bernie would bring out the vote in the actual election. You are mixing primary performance with election performance and acting as if they are interchangeable. They aren’t.

I'm not - you're failing to see the empiracal data from the primary elections. You believe your "feels" outweigh what actually happened. Regardless of who comes out to vote, Bernie didn't bring about an objective increase in any category. Period. So your thesis that Bernie would have brought out more voters in the general election is false, given the objective data we have before us.

Once again, Dems don’t vote on ideals in primaries they vote for who they think will win. Voting for ideals is not the same thing as voting for who you’ll think will beat the repub. you are struggling very hard with that concept.

You don't have to get rude here, we're having a conversation. Can we please keep it above board?

The issue of ideas or who will win isn't relevant here. We're looking at whether Bernie actually brought out the vote - he emphatically did not. It doesn't matter in this why they were coming out or not, they simply did not.

You're conflating two concepts into one, and then arguing that I'm not seeing the difference. When there is NOT a difference in objective numbers. Looking at the various constituent groups who voted in the primaries, no one group was increased because Bernie was there. So suggesting that Bernie would some how magically bring out more people in a general election, because different groups vote in primaries compared to elections, isn't logical, because we're still coming from the basic point that Bernie didn't bring out more of any group of people when he was on the primary ballot.

Most Dem primary voters are diehards playing a strategic game instead of voting for who best represents liberal ideals. Die hards are going to vote for whoever gets the Dem nom so their opinion is the LEAST important, the issue at hand is getting the non die hards to vote. Without COVID I don’t think Biden was a liberally exciting enough pick to do that, just like Hillary wasn’t either.

If I'm understanding what you're getting at here, I think I agree. Biden isn't exciting - but he grabs at enough different groups of Democrats to bring them all in, for various reasons. My fear with Bernie was that while he would certainly galvanize the more-leftist Democrats, he would scare away the centrists and right-leaning. I mean, if they are trying to paint Biden as a socialist, Bernice is already doused in a rainbow of colors.

[Bodakane]

...if he can't drive interest in the primaries, what makes you think he can get normal people to come out in the general? Something something "the fierce urgency of now?"

I mean I've explained it already.

You guys think getting someone excited to vote means they are 100% all in with buttons and number stickers and yard signs and donating. That's not how elections are won. They are won by the people who are 51% in, voting in the actual election. Those are the people that want the exciting/interesting choice. That's how Trump won last time. The Russians understand this about Americans, and it is why their misinformation campaign worked. They went after the people that care just enough to vote but not enough to be all in like you, Cubby or me, and gave them an interesting pick. But again, you, Cubby and me will vote for whoever gets the Dem nom anyway.

Trump's criminal mishandling of covid is the only reason Biden has a real chance, because he is not the interesting pick to the 51%.

[DingDongKing]

Exactly. These people trying to get in the way are literally committing a crime, as I understand. You cannot block anyone from voting.

They're not going to do anything to anyone, they just aim to be an annoyance and make you decide to not go and deal with them, thus stopping your vote.

What she's saying is also a damning indictment of the so called progressives who are shitting on Biden and not voting to make a point.

If the point is that Trump will win without all progressive voting for Biden, then be careful what you wish for. 4 more years of Trump is RIP USA.

[Bodakane]

I'm not - you're failing to see the empiracal data from the primary elections. You believe your "feels" outweigh what actually happened. Regardless of who comes out to vote, Bernie didn't bring about an objective increase in any category. Period. So your thesis that Bernie would have brought out more voters in the general election is false, given the objective data we have before us.




You don't have to get rude here, we're having a conversation. Can we please keep it above board?

The issue of ideas or who will win isn't relevant here. We're looking at whether Bernie actually brought out the vote - he emphatically did not. It doesn't matter in this why they were coming out or not, they simply did not.

You're conflating two concepts into one, and then arguing that I'm not seeing the difference. When there is NOT a difference in objective numbers. Looking at the various constituent groups who voted in the primaries, no one group was increased because Bernie was there. So suggesting that Bernie would some how magically bring out more people in a general election, because different groups vote in primaries compared to elections, isn't logical, because we're still coming from the basic point that Bernie didn't bring out more of any group of people when he was on the primary ballot.




If I'm understanding what you're getting at here, I think I agree. Biden isn't exciting - but he grabs at enough different groups of Democrats to bring them all in, for various reasons. My fear with Bernie was that while he would certainly galvanize the more-leftist Democrats, he would scare away the centrists and right-leaning. I mean, if they are trying to paint Biden as a socialist, Bernice is already doused in a rainbow of colors.

I'm just frustrated, I legit don't mean to be rude to you.

Primary performance is not empirical data for the general election. It just isn't. They are not the same thing on any level. You are making a false equivalence and calling it fact.

1) Primaries are only open to people who register as one party. Those people do not decide an election.
2) Because all the choices in the primary are on the same technical side the choice can get more specific about specific things that aren't important in the general.
3) Think of it like the SuperBowl. If we applied your logic to the SB, then everyone that watches is a fan of either 2 teams and watched all the games leading up to the big game. SB ratings are made by bandwagoners and spectacle seekers.....so too, elections are won by people who aren't diehards for one party or the other.

[Benggaul]

Another battleground state extends their deadline for absentee ballots in a further effort to combat Trump's USPS fuckery.

Michigan judge extends deadline for absentee ballots by 2 weeks

[Rasulis]

Apparently Ginsberg passing away was a wake up call for SOME people. ActBlue raised a record-breaking 31M in the 12 hours following her passing, 6.1M within an hour after her passing.

[Draco-Onis]

Apparently Ginsberg passing away was a wake up call for SOME people. ActBlue raised a record-breaking 31M in the 12 hours following her passing, 6.1M within an hour after her passing.

That's more good news I frankly don't understand the freak out use this as fuel for the election.

[Felya]

That's more good news I frankly don't understand the freak out use this as fuel for the election.

It’s a bad sign... it means that prior to her passing, the ‘they are all the same’ and ‘both sides’ arguments were winning. People didn’t consider Trump becoming president as tangible, until her passing. Which... as you can see by the ridiculous post count I have in this thread... is not a feeling I shared. I’m guessing you are in a similar boat and have been bracing for this for a while...

Edit: I am a bit angrier than I like to be... working on it... fucking GameStop sent me a new game in one of their used cases... if it was used in an original case, I would just brush it off... but, it has giant “PREOWNED” written all over a case of a new game... that’s just insulting.

[Rasulis]

That's more good news I frankly don't understand the freak out use this as fuel for the election.

Collins is confirmed no. Despite McConnel caution for GOP Senators not to say anything until they talked with him. Still need 3 more.

ActBlue is up 46M since Ginsberg passing. Biden is projected to break his previous record of 364.5M in August.

[PACOX]

But wasn't the point of Bernie's campaign that he was bringing out the "non-diehards," the everyday people who just wanted shit to be better?

That's not exactly fair because a lot of people ignore the primaries even if they vote in general.

Either they don't understand the process, which varies state by state, party by party. Sometimes even county by county. For some people primaries fall too early or too late to really get to know a candidate.

Or they can't vote in the primary because it's closed. That would apply to a decent amount of people Bernie was trying get involved.

Or they going to vote along party lines and really don't care about the primary process.

[cubby]

I'm just frustrated, I legit don't mean to be rude to you.

Gotcha - I feel that frustration on my end as well. Let's chat but both stay strong and remember we're on the same side. I will also be taking my own advice, because, let's be honest, I can be a real asshole at times.

Primary performance is not empirical data for the general election. It just isn't. They are not the same thing on any level. You are making a false equivalence and calling it fact.

It is when we're talking about "bringing out the vote" - regardless of specific demographics. Bernie was touted as the man who will bring out the young vote - and he objectively did NOT. That fact is not in question - he failed at the one thing he was hailed to do. Given that, the only objective standard we have is that performance.

Now, you're saying that Primaries bring out different people that General Elections. Fine. Even assuming that's correct, the issue isn't who came out, it's the numbers of whomever did. Whoever was supposed to come out in the Primary DID NOT. Period. End of discussion.

With that objective evidence and empirical data, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that Bernie would not have brought out the vote in the General Election. You claiming otherwise is ignoring the only evidence we have - which patently shows your claim to be false.

1) Primaries are only open to people who register as one party. Those people do not decide an election.
2) Because all the choices in the primary are on the same technical side the choice can get more specific about specific things that aren't important in the general.
3) Think of it like the SuperBowl. If we applied your logic to the SB, then everyone that watches is a fan of either 2 teams and watched all the games leading up to the big game. SB ratings are made by bandwagoners and spectacle seekers.....so too, elections are won by people who aren't diehards for one party or the other.

Your analogy above doesn't work for the situation we're describing. We're talking about "whomever" comes out for whichever election - we can even stipulate that it will be different people, as you claim. Regardless of who comes out when, the issue is HOW MANY will come out. The claim is that Bernie will bring out more. And Bernie failed to do so during the Primary. Ergo, he would fail to do so in the General Election.

You claiming otherwise is ignoring the only objective evidence we have.

[SirBeef]

I mean I've explained it already.

You guys think getting someone excited to vote means they are 100% all in with buttons and number stickers and yard signs and donating. That's not how elections are won. They are won by the people who are 51% in, voting in the actual election. Those are the people that want the exciting/interesting choice. That's how Trump won last time. The Russians understand this about Americans, and it is why their misinformation campaign worked. They went after the people that care just enough to vote but not enough to be all in like you, Cubby or me, and gave them an interesting pick. But again, you, Cubby and me will vote for whoever gets the Dem nom anyway.

Trump's criminal mishandling of covid is the only reason Biden has a real chance, because he is not the interesting pick to the 51%.

No but getting people excited to vote means they would turn up an actually vote. Something that Bernie did not do. If he did he would have won the nomination in 2016 and been president or win the nomination in 2017 and have a rematch. But he didn't he couldn't get people to get out and vote. You can't feel your way through this. Facts are facts, Bernie couldn't get people to vote. You keep saying this 51% but Biden clearly is interesting to enough. Have you seen the polls of likely voters?