Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Bodakane]

The timing is simply wrong... democrats are playing defense, while progressive want an offensive. In the end, both progressives and conservatives are attacking them as an extreme version of their reflection. They want shouting matches and entertaining headlines, pushing ideological boundaries in government. While most people want everyone to shit the fuck up and get back to normal... it’s like I keep pointing out, we have progressives bitching that democrats don’t expand Medicare for All, while Trump is promising to defund social security and Medicare. There is a major disconnect here...

Dems are ALWAYS playing defensive. That's the point. They vote in primaries based on who they think will win predicated on an outdated strategy. independents aren't mostly moderate anymore and even if they are Warren and Bernie are closer to moderate than Trump.

[cubby]

It is not objective evidence. It is a primary. Primaries are as far from objective as you can get. In fact they are very much subjective. Its like assessing the effectiveness of a medical trial that didn't have a control group.

There is no reason to think a primary is indicative of anything that will happen in a general election, let alone a general election with an electoral college. I don't mean disrespect, but this is madness.

It's ok, you are objectively wrong, and at this point it's obvious you're grasping for whatever straws come your way. You haven't shown any proof of your claim outside your "feels" inregards to your point that somehow, someway, if a candidate doesn't increase turnout in a primary, then somehow they will in a General Election. Your stated reason is "because they are different".

Please provide some evidence of how enthusiasm vis a vis turnout is "different" between primaries and elections. And remember - we're not talking about groups of people, we're talking about increased numbers in any group of people.

Again, the voting is different, the audience is different, the thought process is different, the results are different......everything is different between a primary and a general other than the word vote.

Again - doesn't matter. We're talking about any of the subjective areas of primary voting vs general election voting - we're talking about turnout. Whomever turns out for the primaries, did not do so in larger numbers because Bernie was on the ballot. Objectively, if they aren't doing that for the primaries, there is no reason to think they will turn out for Bernie in the General Election.

Your reasoning for the opposing position continues to be "because they are different". But you continue to fail to apply that opinion with any objective facts.

Winning the POTUS is about winning the people who DO NOT vote in primaries so using primaries as a barometer is pointless. If Warren, Bernie, Pete, etc. won the nomination would you still be voting for them? Yes, of course. Now what about the small handful of people that actually won it for Trump in the swing states who vote for the "not same old same old" pick? Are they more likely to vote Biden or Warren? Bernie? Of course its not Biden, if they thought Biden was a sexy pick they would have thought Hillary was too. That's why covid just may save this election for Biden.

The point isn't relevant. See above.

[Felya]

Its not illogical. Social media absolutely changes things and its frankly batshit fcuking bananas to say it doesn't.

Oh it does... but, it appeals to extremes and those that are on it are too deep in to recognize it. Oh and leftist just royally suck at it...

Trump won his primary because republicans are easily duped. What does that have to do with anything?

It implies that democrats were not duped in voting Biden.............

This is what I'm saying, you guys keep pretending that primaries are the same as generals and you do it without explaining in what ways they are the same.

Strawman... everyone is saying it’s an indicator... there were two of them... your indication is social media. Do you really want me to argue that you think social media is an indicator of general elections? Where you around during the GDPR release on here? Do you remember how many proud Americans became “deleted”? That’s social media...

Your question is stupid. Half the primary winners win the POTUS.

Yes, a man who types the bold, is someone whose intellect is so great, that being called stupid is a mark I won’t wash off soon... Da faq? That’s your list of people who won the president, without primary? Fart noise...

[Bodakane]

It's ok, you are objectively wrong, and at this point it's obvious you're grasping for whatever straws come your way. You haven't shown any proof of your claim outside your "feels" inregards to your point that somehow, someway, if a candidate doesn't increase turnout in a primary, then somehow they will in a General Election. Your stated reason is "because they are different".

Please provide some evidence of how enthusiasm vis a vis turnout is "different" between primaries and elections. And remember - we're not talking about groups of people, we're talking about increased numbers in any group of people.




Again - doesn't matter. We're talking about any of the subjective areas of primary voting vs general election voting - we're talking about turnout. Whomever turns out for the primaries, did not do so in larger numbers because Bernie was on the ballot. Objectively, if they aren't doing that for the primaries, there is no reason to think they will turn out for Bernie in the General Election.

Your reasoning for the opposing position continues to be "because they are different".




The point isn't relevant. See above.

Oh bullshit. I'm providing logic you guys are providing feels. Why are the same? Please explain why the vastly different processes of primary and general elections are same other than your guys bullshit feelings?

[Antiganon]

The timing is simply wrong... democrats are playing defense, while progressive want an offensive. In the end, both progressives and conservatives are attacking them as an extreme version of their reflection. They want shouting matches and entertaining headlines, pushing ideological boundaries in government. While most people want everyone to shit the fuck up and get back to normal... it’s like I keep pointing out, we have progressives bitching that democrats don’t expand Medicare for All, while Trump is promising to defund social security and Medicare. There is a major disconnect here...

I don't understand what you are on about.

Bernie appeals to Progressives. Progressives by and large don't vote in Democratic primaries. Thus Bernie's base is unable to secure him a Democratic primary victory.

That is the beginning and the end of relevant commentary on his ability to turn out voters.

[Felya]

Dems are ALWAYS playing defensive. That's the point. They vote in primaries based on who they think will win predicated on an outdated strategy. independents aren't mostly moderate anymore and even if they are Warren and Bernie are closer to moderate than Trump.

That’s illogical... the majority of independents are moderate... that’s basic logic. If your argument is that the left extreme has splintered off from democrats, to the point they don’t vote democrats in the general election... then expect democrats to keep pushing for more reliable voters. Not that it matters... the left not voting for democrats, is the reason why Trump’s initial reaction to Bernie dropping out, was to tell leftists that democrats don’t represent them... while telling his supporters, far leftists are the evil controlling moderate democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh bullshit. I'm providing logic you guys are providing feels. Why are the same? Please explain why the vastly different processes of primary and general elections are same other than your guys bullshit feelings?

Your logic is the feeling you get from social media.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand what you are on about.

Bernie appeals to Progressives. Progressives by and large don't vote in Democratic primaries. Thus Bernie's base is unable to secure him a Democratic primary victory.

That is the beginning and the end of relevant commentary on his ability to turn out voters.

The point being, that there is no magical left that will replace the moderate independent. It’s why Trump is using the idea of the magical extreme left puppeteering moderate Democrats. It’s burning a candle from both ends...

Edit: Just to make it clear, I do agree that democrats decorum bullshit is frustrating. I’m not a regular watcher, so don’t give me too much shit, but he is right:

[Bodakane]

Oh it does... but, it appeals to extremes and those that are on it are too deep in to recognize it. Oh and leftist just royally suck at it...

And? Are you really saying many non democratic or republican diehards aren't fatigued? Really?

It implies that democrats were not duped in voting Biden.............

Again and? I didn't argue that they were. You're the fool that thought Trump winning his primary was relevant to my point. Dems didn't;t vote for Biden because they thought he best represented liberal values or plans they voted for him because they thought independents = moderate and being moderate he;'d have the best chance to beat Trump.

Strawman... everyone is saying it’s an indicator... there were two of them... your indication is social media. Do you really want me to argue that you think social media is an indicator of general elections? Where you around during the GDPR release on here? Do you remember how many proud Americans became “deleted”? That’s social media...

Its not a strawman at all. Saying turnout in a primary is an indicator of turnout in the general is the straw man since they aren't fucking related and none of you sanctimonious sycophants have explained why they believe its an indicator. Especially when independents don't fucking vote in primaries. Jesus Christ.

And no i don;t want to argue that social media is an indicator of election, which is why I never made that point. But thanks anyway.

Yes, a man who types the bold, is someone whose intellect is so great, that being called stupid is a mark I won’t wash off soon... Da faq? That’s your list of people who won the president, without primary? Fart noise...

There's two primaries in every election. Only half the ones that win their respective primaries win the election. its a stupid, stupid, stupid fucking point that means nothing. So stupid you don;t really have the footing to belittle anyone else's intelligence.

[Antiganon]

That’s illogical... the majority of independents are moderate... that’s basic logic. If your argument is that the left extreme has splintered off from democrats, to the point they don’t vote democrats in the general election... then expect democrats to keep pushing for more reliable voters. Not that it matters... the left not voting for democrats, is the reason why Trump’s initial reaction to Bernie dropping out, was to tell leftists that democrats don’t represent them... while telling his supporters, far leftists are the evil controlling moderate democrats.

- - - Updated - - -



Your logic is the feeling you get from social media.

Arguing that because one team is blue and the other is red, most of the people not affiliated with either team must be purple, is a fallacy.

They could be purple, or green, or ultraviolet, and you don't have verifiable data on them to know one way or the other.

The whole point was to appeal to unlikely voters, young people who have never voted before, people who haven't voted in decades, etc.

Arguing about what might have happened had Bernie win the primary is a fools errand. Could he have turned out independents disgusted with both major parties to oust Trump? Maybe. Could he have work as a socialist bogeyman for the Republicans, driving moderates into the arms of the far right? Also maybe. Could he have caused apathy among establishment Dems, who assume that a socialist can't beat the right wing, so they sit at home in election day? Also maybe
There is no way of knowing, and it's pointless to speculate at this stage.

[Bodakane]

That’s illogical... the majority of independents are moderate... that’s basic logic. If your argument is that the left extreme has splintered off from democrats, to the point they don’t vote democrats in the general election... then expect democrats to keep pushing for more reliable voters. Not that it matters... the left not voting for democrats, is the reason why Trump’s initial reaction to Bernie dropping out, was to tell leftists that democrats don’t represent them... while telling his supporters, far leftists are the evil controlling moderate democrats.

Its not illogical its how things work now. You fucking people are trying to tell me, with every bit of arrogance you can muster, that MODERATES preferred Trump over Hillary. Do you guys follow your own logic?

Your logic is the feeling you get from social media.

Dafuq are you even talking about?

[Antiganon]

The point being, that there is no magical left that will replace the moderate independent. It’s why Trump is using the idea of the magical extreme left puppeteering moderate Democrats. It’s burning a candle from both ends...

You can't know this, there is no data to support your claim.

Apathetic disaffected unaffiliated unlikely voters aren't captured in polling data. You and Bodakane are both engaging in pure speculation. You are saying "Well he lost here, he obviously would have lost there, because he lost". He is saying "Well he only lost here, he obviously would have won there, the rules are different".

The truth is that the rules ARE different, and no amount of arguing about it is going to make actual objective evidence appear to answer the question one way or another. It's an interesting thought experiment in abstract, and a fools errand when you start applying it to the current political climate.

[Gestopft]

Okay... let’s imagine some circles...

1... a circle that represents Biden supporters.
2... a circle that represents Bernie supporters.
3... a circle that represents everyone else.

How do you think these 3 circle, overlap?

Edit: It’s a paradox... the first circle is bigger than the second, the first completely overlaps the second, while the second has a sliver that doesn’t overlap. While the third faces a similar issue, but with the added bonus of convincing the largest circle of the 3, that the first two circles, are the same... the first is the puppet of the second.

1) I don't think that's very accurate. Biden is not a candidate that people get excited about. He's there because he is perceived as the one that can beat Trump. It's a fair bet that most if not nearly all Biden voters would also come out for Sanders. If Bernie was the nominee though, Sanders supporters wouldn't be spilling pages and pages of digital ink trying to convince Biden people to come out and vote against Trump the way that we've been trying to convince Sanders' supporters to come out for Biden. Because the Biden vote IS by and large an anti-Trump vote

2) The case for Sanders in a general versus primary had to do with the electorate that votes in each. Sanders does very well with Dem-leaning independents that are much less likely to participate in the primary process (and in many states, can't).

[cubby]

Oh bullshit. I'm providing logic you guys are providing feels. Why are the same? Please explain why the vastly different processes of primary and general elections are same other than your guys bullshit feelings?

I'm not arguing that point. Why do you think I am - I've never said that whatsoever. I agree that the Primary process is different from the General process. My point has always been that those differences are irrelevant when it comes to increased generic voter turnout. If a candidate is going to ignite voters, they will be ignited in the Primary. If they aren't, they certainly will not in the General.

What you are failing to see is that your entire premise is "elections are different". So show us - where has enthusiasm vis a vis voter turnout increased from a Primary to a General because the same person who lost the primary was in the General.

Do you now see how untenable your position is?

[Gestopft]

That’s illogical... the majority of independents are moderate... that’s basic logic.

This is factually untrue, however. Even self-described "moderates" are all over the map, too.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...dle-is-a-myth/

[Felya]

And? Are you really saying many non democratic or republican diehards aren't fatigued? Really?

Extremes are not the norm, it’s why they are extremes... fatigued from what? Extremes of Trump? The extremes that Trump keeps showing as representation of the far left? You think Biden isn’t selected because of this fatigue and the return to normalcy? You do remember I said just that in replying to you?

Again and? I didn't argue that they were. You're the fool that thought Trump winning his primary was relevant to my point. Dems didn't;t vote for Biden because they thought he best represented liberal values or plans they voted for him because they thought independents = moderate and being moderate he;'d have the best chance to beat Trump.

You asked... /facepalm... independents = majority are moderate... not independents = moderate... one of those is a strawman...

Its not a strawman at all. Saying turnout in a primary is an indicator of turnout in the general is the straw man since they aren't fucking related and none of you sanctimonious sycophants have explained why they believe its an indicator. Especially when independents don't fucking vote in primaries. Jesus Christ.

No, it isn’t... you saying that people are arguing that primaries is the same as elections, that’s a strawman. If you want to argue a fallacy, I used causation to imply correlation. Not that it matters... since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about and are just a reactionary.

And no i don;t want to argue that social media is an indicator of election, which is why I never made that point. But thanks anyway.

You keep bringing up social media because? Reactionary...

There's two primaries in every election. Only half the ones that win their respective primaries win the election. its a stupid, stupid, stupid fucking point that means nothing. So stupid you don;t really have the footing to belittle anyone else's intelligence.

No, this is a second nonsense reply, because you simply can’t google and don’t want to state your assumption... 0... stop being a reactionary. Edit: This is where you should scream fallacy... if you knew wtf you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

This is factually untrue, however. Even self-described "moderates" are all over the map, too.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...dle-is-a-myth/

I’m literally arguing against this:

These tropes conjure up a particular image: a pivotal bloc of reasonable “independent” voters sick of the two major parties, just waiting for a centrist candidate to embrace a “moderate” policy vision.

What does “being all over the map mean”? That more will reside closer to the center, than both edges? Think about it... I’m not arguing that they can form a single mind party... I’m arguing that majority are not extremes. If it’s randomly divided, the only way that the extremes rival what surrounds the middle, is if you combine both the right and left extremes of independent voters.

[Antiganon]

If a candidate is going to ignite voters, they will be ignited in the Primary. If they aren't, they certainly will not in the General.

That isn't necessarily true though. Many people who would support an outsider candidate in the general election are simply barred from participating in the primary process in the first place, as closed primaries are very common. This is true on both sides.

[Gestopft]

My point has always been that those differences are irrelevant when it comes to increased generic voter turnout. If a candidate is going to ignite voters, they will be ignited in the Primary. If they aren't, they certainly will not in the General.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Turnout for primaries is usually about half that of the general to begin with. Particularly independents, which may lean to one side or another but don't consider themselves part of a party and are less likely to participate in the primary (or can't). And then there's the people that don't tune into to politics until close to the election, so without some sort of numbers, I don't know if I can take this assumption outright.

[Bodakane]

I'm not arguing that point. Why do you think I am - I've never said that whatsoever. I agree that the Primary process is different from the General process. My point has always been that those differences are irrelevant when it comes to increased generic voter turnout. If a candidate is going to ignite voters, they will be ignited in the Primary. If they aren't, they certainly will not in the General.

What you are failing to see is that your entire premise is "elections are different". So show us - where has enthusiasm vis a vis voter turnout increased from a Primary to a General because the same person who lost the primary was in the General.

Do you now see how untenable your position is?

Gah. You are saying they are the same and I have shown you how they are different.

You are flat out saying if Candidate X can't increase turnout in the primary then they cannot increase turnout in the general. How is that not saying the they are same?

You keep demanding I explain how they are different and I've done that numerous times in numerous ways and you have yet to explain why primary turnout is indicative of general turnout other than....just because.

You guys need to explain:

1. Why primary results are analogous to general results when the entire point, pool and voting blocks are entirely different?
2. Why you think independent voters equal moderate voters, when just enough these supposed "moderate" voters gave the decidedly UNmoderate Trump win over the VERY moderate Hillary?
3. Why even if I'm wrong and independent = moderate, why Bernie ro Warren seem further from moderate than Donald 200,000 dead Trump?

[Gestopft]

What does “being all over the map mean”?

Well if you look at all of the charts, the ideological scatterplots for independents, undecideds, and "moderates" pretty much mirror the electorate as a whole.

[Felya]

Arguing that because one team is blue and the other is red, most of the people not affiliated with either team must be purple, is a fallacy.

It’s not:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...dle-is-a-myth/

It’s a fallacy if you argue they form a single party. It’s not a fallacy, but a logical dilemma. This is math... moderate of center, occupy the same distance on both sides of the scale. There is inherently more of them as a result. Because it includes moderates from both sides... not that they all rest on the center or even same part.

They could be purple, or green, or ultraviolet, and you don't have verifiable data on them to know one way or the other.

Indeed they can... but, the fact that that the distance from the center, to go get to each extreme, occupies a greater area, because it goes in both directions. Extremes are edges of both, but are complete different. In fact, it can’t be wrong, because the more the Overton window shifts to one side, the middle and thus the majority it encompasses, has to move for it to actually happen.

The whole point was to appeal to unlikely voters, young people who have never voted before, people who haven't voted in decades, etc.

Who are all over the political map? Do they stick to the edges?

Arguing about what might have happened had Bernie win the primary is a fools errand. Could he have turned out independents disgusted with both major parties to oust Trump? Maybe. Could he have work as a socialist bogeyman for the Republicans, driving moderates into the arms of the far right? Also maybe. Could he have caused apathy among establishment Dems, who assume that a socialist can't beat the right wing, so they sit at home in election day? Also maybe

My argument is irrelevant to ideology...

There is no way of knowing, and it's pointless to speculate at this stage.

Indeed, I even pointed out when I did it, as a fallacy.

[Bodakane]

Extremes are not the norm, it’s why they are extremes... fatigued from what? Extremes of Trump? The extremes that Trump keeps showing as representation of the far left? You think Biden isn’t selected because of this fatigue and the return to normalcy? You do remember I said just that in replying to you?



You asked... /facepalm... independents = majority are moderate... not independents = moderate... one of those is a strawman...



No, it isn’t... you saying that people are arguing that primaries is the same as elections, that’s a strawman. If you want to argue a fallacy, I used causation to imply correlation. Not that it matters... since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about and are just a reactionary.



You keep bringing up social media because? Reactionary...



No, this is a second nonsense reply, because you simply can’t google and don’t want to state your assumption... 0... stop being a reactionary. Edit: This is where you should scream fallacy... if you knew wtf you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



I’m literally arguing against this:



What does “being all over the map mean”? That more will reside closer to the center, than both edges? Think about it... I’m not arguing that they can form a single mind party... I’m arguing that majority are not extremes. If it’s randomly divided, the only way that the extremes rival what surrounds the middle, is if you combine both the right and left extremes of independent voters.

So much word salad.

1. Fatigued from the same old same old. Trump was voted in by the independents to throw a chaos grenade into the works because they are sick of the same old same old. Following your stupid ass logic, moderates looked at Hillary and Trump and picked Trump. Explain that.
2. That sentence doesn't;t even make sense, try again.
3. Its not a straw man. You guys are saying if Candidate X didn't;t get turn out in the primaries they won't get turnout in the general. That is saying, for the purpose of this discussion they are the same. Not sure why you're struggling with this.
4. I explained why I brought up social media. Go back and read it instead of making shit up and wanting me to defend the crap you made up.
5. It is not nonsense. You asked a stupid question thinking it was a gotcha and it wasn't. I did call it a fallacy because it is inherently stupid.