Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Fugus]

So you admit to casting an *actual* spoiler vote rather than an implicit spoiler vote by nonvoting.

That's not better, dude. Get your ass in that chair.

Actually it is, I still voted for every other position but that, the alternative was to stay home like you describe which would be laying out.

[starlord]

Wrong, I voted in 2016, I voted in 2018, I voted in our NC special election, I plan to vote again. You can sit down on that.

All I did was write someone elses name in for president as I refused to vote for Clinton after what she pulled.

- - - Updated - - -



My "Poaching" is under the presumption that Warren's voters would typically go to the candidate most similar to her overall. There would be some dividing but it would not be an equal divide.

This isn't some new found concept or idea, it has been pretty well fleshed out and why ranked choice voting exists to prevent it.

- - - Updated - - -

Then, what do you describe poaching votes as?

I typically define it as taking votes from the candidate most like you or having it done to you where it splits the votes so neither of you win and it goes to the less popular candidate because of it.

then thats the way the cookie crumbles if a candidate in particular can't get enough support to become the majority. thats how primaries work.
nothing stops people from writing in warren for president either.

[Edge-]

Then, what do you describe poaching votes as?

"Winning votes by convincing voters."

This is literally the point of a primary. Everyone has their initial supporters, the campaign is to draw in new folks and try to pull supporters from others.

I typically define it as taking votes from the candidate most like you or having it done to you where it splits the votes so neither of you win and it goes to the less popular and less electable candidate because of it.

That's a hyper specific definition that doesn't jive with standing definitions, and it's sorta nonsense because it equates the exact same behavior (trying to win over supporters for other candidates) different based on if they're from someone you're "splitting votes" with or not.

This is, literally, just campaign politics. That's. It.

[Elegiac]

Actually it is, I still voted for every other position but that, the alternative was to stay home like you describe which would be laying out.

It's still literally a spoiler vote, which you willingly chose to do, and now you're complaining because other people are doing the same and it's negatively impacting your candidate.

Just like y'all lecturing others about "how American elections work" when y'all have been repeatedly bitching at Perez and the DNC for how Iowa went down despite them having no hand in the process.

[Theodarzna]

My "Poaching" is under the presumption that Warren's voters would typically go to the candidate most similar to her overall. There would be some dividing but it would not be an equal divide.

This isn't some new found concept or idea, it has been pretty well fleshed out and why ranked choice voting exists to prevent it.

Warren isn't going to drop, unless she gets zero delegates after awhile. She isn't in this to win the primary, she is seeking a dowry from the DNC. Basically the strategy now is a brokered convention and for her to either get the nomination for being a good loyal servant against the Sanders campaign and playing some small role in ensuring a brokered convention. Or at least she will get some admin position in the Buttigieg or Bloomberg White House which the party will pick if they can. And by get I mean promised before Buttigieg or Bloomberg gets eviscerated by a Trump campaign. Warren would flame out too if they picked her, but still that is IMHO her angle. She is staying in to pull off the P.M.C Radlibs, the HR workers and tenured college professors who have too high a standard for being Buttigieg or Bloomberg voters.

[Fugus]

then thats the way the cookie crumbles if a candidate in particular can't get enough support to become the majority. thats how primaries work.
nothing stops people from writing in warren for president either.

You keep ignoring the entire point of why ranked choice is better. If Sanders is the most popular, Warren is the second most, and Biden was the 3rd most. Biden can win being the least supported, least liked, and least electable choice because Sanders and Warren both split the votes.

And last thing I want is another 4 years of Trump because the least electable candidate winning because the more electable ones splitting the votes.

[kaid]

You keep trying to pick this fight with me, and you are wrong at every point, every time.

And again, I said about Warren keeping in when she knows she has no chance and poaching votes from Sanders in the process. I would say the same if it was Sanders holding on against Warren if the cards were reversed.

You keep trying to make justification when I already included the qualifier that "If shes sees a path to victory" which completely removes any handwaving your justifications create.

As I said, if she sees a path, have at it, if she hangs on till the point she costs the one most like her to fail due to poached votes thanks to our lack of a ranked choice voting method, thats on her.

Unless you just want to make sure Sanders loses and don't care about anything else but to make that happen and will probably be one of the first people to mindlessly chirp "Fall in line behind the nominee" afterward. At which point you are not worth talking to because you wouldn't be debating in good faith.

Until we see the results of super tuesday everybody has a pahtway to victory given how uncertain the voters seem to be. The last second vote switching to the flavor of the hour has been pretty sharp in the last couple runs with bernie with a lead but still getting only 30ish or less percent of dem votes. I think after super tuesday we will be down to 2-4 viable candidates as the money just won't be there for much more than that. Probably be bernie, mayor pete warren and bloomberg. The only reason bloomberg will still be in it at all will just be due to vast amounts of money he is throwing around but I doubt he could ever win enough delegates to win himself but he could wind up with enough to be a kingmaker once it gets to the convention.

[Elegiac]

I'll say once again.

Of everyone on that stage, Warren would by FAR the most effective President for the time we're in to address the actual issues that got us Trump. Things a President could actually do. Of everyone on that stage, she gets it the most. Biden thinks Trump's an exception. Bernie evidently, sees Trump as a prototype for what he would be form the left. Mayor Pete just isn't equipped. Bloomberg - I admire a billionaire who spends $300 million in four months because he thinks Trump is dangerous. Truly, he is living the scenario of "what if I had billions of dollars and saw a great wrong?". Wouldn't be a good President, or even a good candidate. But I can't help admire him living a fantasy scenario many people have had at least once in their life.

And Democrats are going to need that money in the fall to compete against the Trump money juggernaut.

It's a fucking scandal Bernie Sander's is so far up his own ass to run as a 79 year old man on ideas that will never pass Congress.

Which is why I greatly appreciate Warren's switch in tack, particularly regarding healthcare.

Whatever you may think of her current healthcare policy, the contrast she drew between her and Bernie's approaches to healthcare - specifically, how Bernie's campaign attacks anyone who questions or asks for clarification on M4A - and painting herself as the "reasonable progressive" in the same breath as trashing the centrist health care "plans" was well executed.

Same thing with going on the offensive against Bloomberg. The media is going to treat her unfairly because she's a woman regardless, why not go for broke and do what she is most well known for and best at - exposing corruption and publicly humiliating affluent assholes?

That performance pretty much cemented my vote for her in the primary until the bitter end. I want to see her do to Trump what she did to Bloomberg.

[Fugus]

"Winning votes by convincing voters."

This is literally the point of a primary. Everyone has their initial supporters, the campaign is to draw in new folks and try to pull supporters from others.

Sorry, I don't consider that poached votes, I consider that actually winning votes. I always considered poaching where you take the votes from another ensuring they lose even if you don't either, effectively where you took the votes from a candidate just to ensure you both lose. Kinda like a kamikaze attack on them.

That is always why I put in the qualifier that they see no path to actually victory behind it.

That's a hyper specific definition that doesn't jive with standing definitions, and it's sorta nonsense because it equates the exact same behavior (trying to win over supporters for other candidates) different based on if they're from someone you're "splitting votes" with or not.

This is, literally, just campaign politics. That's. It.

Well, that is how I have always saw it is and that is what I am talking about.

I want Sanders to win, I would still vote for Warren but I would hate to see Warren take vote from Sanders to the point neither of them win and a less electable candidate gets the nomination because of it.

We can't afford another "Trump vs Not Trump" election. We already have the FBI and FEC blocked from looking into the next election and Trump cleared to cheat by the Senate. We don't want to have any tight races turned into a sure victory for Trump because of it.

[starlord]

You keep ignoring the entire point of why ranked choice is better. If Sanders is the most popular, Warren is the second most, and Biden was the 3rd most. Biden can win being the least supported, least liked, and least electable choice because Sanders and Warren both split the votes.

And last thing I want is another 4 years of Trump because the least electable candidate winning because the more electable ones splitting the votes.

well its not ranked choice. there was four years to try and change it to ranked choice. warren has a right to be in the race till she can't anymore. that has nothing to do with bernie.
not everything is a conspiracy against bernie.

[Rukh]

No such thing as a spoiler vote. It is a Candidates Job to get votes that's the whole premise of democratic elections. Not (vote for this party no matter who).

Sure, great ideologically useless answer. In the real world, one of two candidates is going to win. The end, that's the game. You can sit there and tell everyone how woke you are and that they should have listened to you, but in the end, you made it harder for the person who shares some of your positions to win and easier for the person who will shit on literally everything you believe in. Congrats.

[Elegiac]

No such thing as a spoiler vote. It is a Candidates Job to get votes that's the whole premise of democratic elections. Not (vote for this party no matter who).

Okay, then will all of you shut up about how Warren is poaching Bernie's votes?

He's not entitled to my vote as a progressive.

[Fugus]

No such thing as a spoiler vote. It is a Candidates Job to get votes that's the whole premise of democratic elections. Not (vote for this party no matter who).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

[Fugus]

well its not ranked choice. there was four years to try and change it to ranked choice. warren has a right to be in the race till she can't anymore. that has nothing to do with bernie.
not everything is a conspiracy against bernie.

Dude, you really need to stop adding more than was said.

I said Warren has every right to stay in so long as she sees the path to victory, but not to stay in even when she sees none to the point it costs others a chance.

That is as stupid as those who keep talking about how Sanders should just run 3rd party.

[Fugus]

Okay, then will all of you shut up about how Warren is poaching Bernie's votes?

He's not entitled to my vote as a progressive.

Who said anything to him being entitled to anyone's votes? Clinton isn't in this election.

- - - Updated - - -

From that very same source



Not anything to worry about if you believe int the democratic process.

Tell that to the 1.5% in there.

[starlord]

Dude, you really need to stop adding more than was said.

I said Warren has every right to stay in so long as she sees the path to victory, but not to stay in even when she sees none to the point it costs others a chance.

That is as stupid as those who keep talking about how Sanders should just run 3rd party.

if she's incapable of continuing, she will drop out. thats how it's always worked, other candidates who weren't able to continue dropped, and yet you keep bringing up this hypothetical scenario in order to bash her.

[Elegiac]

Who said anything to him being entitled to anyone's votes? Clinton isn't in this election.

You're complaining that there are progressives who are not voting for Bernie.

Are you seriously being this dishonest, right now?

[Fugus]

if she's incapable of continuing, she will drop out. thats how it's always worked, other candidates who weren't able to continue dropped, and yet you keep bringing up this hypothetical scenario in order to bash her.

I keep bringing up a real possibility in the hopes that it doesn't happen. You keep turning it into some huge anti-bernie conspiracy when I am thinking more along the lines of her own ego causing her to hold on to the point she loses and takes down the one most like her in the process.

- - - Updated - - -

You're complaining that there are progressives who are not voting for Bernie.

Are you seriously being this dishonest, right now?

No, that is you lying and pretending I said something i never said. Try again.

[starlord]

I keep bringing up a real possibility in the hopes that it doesn't happen. You keep turning it into some huge anti-bernie conspiracy when I am thinking more along the lines of her own ego causing her to hold on to the point she loses and takes down the one most like her in the process.

- - - Updated - - -
No, that is you lying and pretending I said something i never said. Try again.

she can stay in as long as she's able to. same as every other candidate. how that benefits other candidates is irrelevant.

[Elegiac]

No, that is you lying and pretending I said something i never said. Try again.

Really?

If she is doing that bad, she needs to pack it in before Super Tuesday to keep from Sanders who most shares her votes. This isn't ranked choice where if one drops, it is just given to the next person.

If she actually sees a path that is great. but staying in just to stay in, that is a bit much. It isn't like she is staying in to keep her views on the table, they are on the table anyways without her.

Here's you complaining that Warren is acting as a spoiler.

And again, I said about Warren keeping in when she knows she has no chance and poaching votes from Sanders in the process. I would say the same if it was Sanders holding on against Warren if the cards were reversed.

And here's you lying, to boot, since you did no such thing when Warren was the frontrunner and Bernie had his heart attack. You literally just complained about Warren being a former Republican.