1. #14661
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-19 at 09:10 PM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  2. #14662
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2020-09-19 at 09:58 PM.

  3. #14663
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    21,807
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    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.

  4. #14664
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    29,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.

  5. #14665
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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?

  6. #14666
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    21,807
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    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?
    Saying Bernie didn't get people interested and voting and flat out disingenuous. You can't argue against his impact on that election and politics as a whole. Hell, it's insane to say he had no impact. He even managed to pull the Democrats closer to the left and opened the door for some seats that were won since. He wasnt able to get the slam dunk, that's not to say he didn't do anything.

    Hell if you really want to pull hairs, Clinton couldn't get people to vote, with many voting in spite of her (using both definitions - voting against her or merely voting Democrat because of party affiliation/'against Trump). By flawed reasoning, Clinton failed, with Trump being the only effective candidate of 2016 - and we know that line of reasoning is asinine.

  7. #14667
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Saying Bernie didn't get people interested and voting and flat out disingenuous. You can't argue against his impact on that election and politics as a whole. Hell, it's insane to say he had no impact. He even managed to pull the Democrats closer to the left and opened the door for some seats that were won since. He wasnt able to get the slam dunk, that's not to say he didn't do anything.
    Your response is disingenuous... he didn’t say what you are responding to.

    Hell if you really want to pull hairs, Clinton couldn't get people to vote, with many voting in spite of her (using both definitions - voting against her or merely voting Democrat because of party affiliation/'against Trump). By flawed reasoning, Clinton failed, with Trump being the only effective candidate of 2016 - and we know that line of reasoning is asinine.
    That’s not pulling hairs... that’s doesn’t actually change what he said. Bernie lost to Clinton as well...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  8. #14668
    Warchief D Luniz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    The Coastal Plaguelands
    Posts
    2,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    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.
    Please, I dont trust a damn thing a republican says till its done
    till they vote on the record, I view them the same as John Faso
    will promise you to your face while your dying of cancer, then fuck you when the vote is up
    https://www.politifact.com/article/2...se-has-raised/
    "Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
    Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
    Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.

  9. #14669
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Saying Bernie didn't get people interested and voting and flat out disingenuous. You can't argue against his impact on that election and politics as a whole. Hell, it's insane to say he had no impact. He even managed to pull the Democrats closer to the left and opened the door for some seats that were won since. He wasnt able to get the slam dunk, that's not to say he didn't do anything.

    Hell if you really want to pull hairs, Clinton couldn't get people to vote, with many voting in spite of her (using both definitions - voting against her or merely voting Democrat because of party affiliation/'against Trump). By flawed reasoning, Clinton failed, with Trump being the only effective candidate of 2016 - and we know that line of reasoning is asinine.
    It's not though. Where were these people when he needed them to vote?

  10. #14670
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    It's not though. Where were these people when he needed them to vote?
    Complaining that Democrats are not far left enough, as GOP has redefined and build their entire coalition on redefining the far left as the greatest threat to the country.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  11. #14671
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.




    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.




    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    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?
    Not in primaries unless you're talking an Obama level event.

    Its not like Biden brought in huge numbers of people who wouldn't have in primaries before. Which is the point, primaries are for diehards and diehards would have voted for anyone on the Dem ticket come November, so who Dems think will beat Trump isn't important. What's important is who the people that don't care enough to vote in primaries will vote for.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  12. #14672
    The Patient Basileus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    291
    Can't wait until Trump wins and all this nonsense can be over and we can just have 4 years of bickering until it all happens again with a new set of people.

  13. #14673
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not in primaries unless you're talking an Obama level event.

    Its not like Biden brought in huge numbers of people who wouldn't have in primaries before. Which is the point, primaries are for diehards and diehards would have voted for anyone on the Dem ticket come November, so who Dems think will beat Trump isn't important. What's important is who the people that don't care enough to vote in primaries will vote for.
    Still. The whole notion that Bernie could get people to vote is nonesense. These mythical Bernie voters couldn't be assed to vote in a primary to get their guy elected. Doubt they even voted in the general, unless it to vote for Stein and fuck shit up.

  14. #14674
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    Still. The whole notion that Bernie could get people to vote is nonesense. These mythical Bernie voters couldn't be assed to vote in a primary to get their guy elected. Doubt they even voted in the general, unless it to vote for Stein and fuck shit up.
    No offense to you either but this is why I get frustrated.

    You Guys: Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    Me: Primaries and generals are completely different things and are not, in anyway like each other. Here are reasons A thru Z as to why.
    You Guys: Yeah but still Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    Me: Again, reasons A-Z.
    You Guys: Yeah no Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  15. #14675
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    No offense to you either but this is why I get frustrated.

    You Guys: Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    Me: Primaries and generals are completely different things and are not, in anyway like each other. Here are reasons A thru Z as to why.
    You Guys: Yeah but still Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    Me: Again, reasons A-Z.
    You Guys: Yeah no Bernie/Warren didn't;t get people to vote in primaries therefore he/she can't get people to vote in the general.
    Why do you believe that the general would be different?
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  16. #14676
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Why do you believe that the general would be different?
    Funny. /10chars
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  17. #14677
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    26,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Why do you believe that the general would be different?
    In part, because they have no choice.

    The same reason we lefties are voting for Biden, because we have no choice. If the argument works on us it works on everyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  18. #14678
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Funny. /10chars
    I’m asking you, why you think it would be different? Do you think Bernie would pull more independent and Republican voters?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    In part, because they have no choice.

    The same reason we lefties are voting for Biden, because we have no choice. If the argument works on us it works on everyone else.
    You are saying that liberals are not as vindictive, to do the same thing as Bernie bros?
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  19. #14679
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    I’m asking you, why you think it would be different? Do you think Bernie would pull more independent and Republican voters?
    I said funny because I had numerous walls of text explaining why on the last page:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Not in primaries unless you're talking an Obama level event.

    Its not like Biden brought in huge numbers of people who wouldn't have in primaries before. Which is the point, primaries are for diehards and diehards would have voted for anyone on the Dem ticket come November, so who Dems think will beat Trump isn't important. What's important is who the people that don't care enough to vote in primaries will vote for.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  20. #14680
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,747
    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.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I said funny because I had numerous walls of text explaining why on the last page:
    But, none of it really makes sense. If you think there is a greater pool of available voters outside democrats, to support Bernie, why is Trump still running against Bernie? You want to make an argument that Bernie, is a side choice for Biden? There are a lot of people who watch the Super Bowl for commercials............

    You are not actually listing any reasons, other than phantom Bernie voters, that were not registered democrats.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-20 at 01:05 AM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •