1. #14701
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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.
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    -H.L. Mencken, 1920

  2. #14702
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    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?
    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


  3. #14703
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    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.
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    -H.L. Mencken, 1920

  4. #14704
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #14705
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    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.
    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


  6. #14706
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    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
    I believe more people voted for Bernie, because Biden didn’t support Medicare for all, than those that voted for Biden, because his healthcare can pass Congress. I don’t think Biden would have lost any votes if he supported Medicare for all, but Bernie would have lost a lot if he didn’t. In the primary, I mean...

    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).
    That’s the thing... Dem leaning, isn’t the issue. If they are dem leaning, they are not the extremes that wouldn’t vote for D.
    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.

  7. #14707
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    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.



    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.



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



    My argument is irrelevant to ideology...



    Indeed, I even pointed out when I did it, as a fallacy.
    1. Your 538 link doesn't support your contention. Unaffiliated does not imply moderate. Many moderates are likely to be unaffiliated. Many extremists are also likely to be unaffiliated. Nearly all apathetic people are likely to be unaffiliated. Unaffiliated voters are not more or less likely to hold any specific ideology, moderate or otherwise.

    2. The Overton window applies to mainstream major party politics, not independents and the fringe. The entire point of the Overton window is discussing what is acceptable and likely in mainstream politics. When you include the non-mainstream people, the window moves.

    3. There is no data to plot them in a map is my point. Find me a poll of unlikely voters, not registered voters (which necessarily includes both likely and unlikely voters), specifically unlikely voters, including eligible people not registered. You can't. It doesn't exist. There is no reliable way to capture the data. Internet polls can capture it, but they are in no way reliable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by pathora44 View Post
    Frogs are the real threat because they will kill us by drowning us just because we stabbed them with our poisonous stingers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    VOTE

  8. #14708
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    So much word salad.
    Would be insulting if you read it... lol

    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.
    After 4 years of Trump, they are still fatigued? That makes sense to you? You think moderates picked Trump? Trump ran as a moderate, pushing workers rights and acting like Hillary was a satanic extreme.

    Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Donald Trump
    https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/2067765...remism-penalty

    That sentence doesn't;t even make sense, try again.
    I can’t read your mind dude...

    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.
    It’s a strawman, because you are making it empirical. It is an indicator... no mater how much you hate it, it simply is. Arguing as if it’s empirical is an obvious strawman, because you know it’s bad indicator. How many times do I have to say it’s just an indicator, for you to stop? Is it enough, saying it’s obvious?

    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.
    Yeah, as an indicator... it would be a strawman, if I argued that you think social media means Bernie would win. I’m not doing that... unless you think I should?

    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.
    You can’t answer so you react, I’m not taking it personally.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Your 538 link doesn't support your contention. Unaffiliated does not imply moderate. Many moderates are likely to be unaffiliated. Many extremists are also likely to be unaffiliated. Nearly all apathetic people are likely to be unaffiliated. Unaffiliated voters are not more or less likely to hold any specific ideology, moderate or otherwise.
    This is irrelevant... The fact that they are unaffiliated is the point... this is math... pretty basic... it’s how groupings work...

    The Overton window applies to mainstream major party politics, not independents and the fringe.
    They shift... they don’t fall off the scale... that’s why what I’m saying is universally true... in any randomized data set. It’s why I highlighted the “all over the board”. The point is the amount of units that comprises the data set, not the density of the number set. The middle will always occupy more, because it’s bidirectional.

    There is no data to plot them in a map is my point. Find me a poll of unlikely voters, not registered voters (which necessarily includes both likely and unlikely voters), specifically unlikely voters, including eligible people not registered. You can't. It doesn't exist. There is no reliable way to capture the data. Internet polls can capture it, but they are in no way reliable.
    Maybe it’s why I linked the article doing exactly that?

    Edit: There is nothing to the left of extreme left and there is nothing to the right of extreme right. The center contains both, the center left and center right. The only way that the extreme could occupy more people, is if this isn’t random... the only way this is not correct, is if there is a significant lean to the left or right extreme.

    Edit 2: Just think about it being bidirectional. There will always be more people within the same distance of center, as there are on each extreme.

    Edit 3: I think I figured out how to explain... a moderate is both, moderate left and moderate right. Those combined, occupy the same distance on the scale, as both extreme left and extreme right combined. Unless there is an ideological concentration on an extreme, it’s illogical to believe that a random set of numbers, wouldn’t occupy the moderate... simply because it goes in both directions.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-20 at 02:38 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.

  9. #14709
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Would be insulting if you read it... lol



    After 4 years of Trump, they are still fatigued? That makes sense to you? You think moderates picked Trump? Trump ran as a moderate, pushing workers rights and acting like Hillary was a satanic extreme.

    Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Donald Trump
    https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/2067765...remism-penalty



    I can’t read your mind dude...



    It’s a strawman, because you are making it empirical. It is an indicator... no mater how much you hate it, it simply is. Arguing as if it’s empirical is an obvious strawman, because you know it’s bad indicator. How many times do I have to say it’s just an indicator, for you to stop? Is it enough, saying it’s obvious?



    Yeah, as an indicator... it would be a strawman, if I argued that you think social media means Bernie would win. I’m not doing that... unless you think I should?



    You can’t answer so you react, I’m not taking it personally.
    I will say you've honed your "Russian bot like" argument tactics well.

    1. Before covid? yes they were still fatigued. That is why I've repeatedly said Biden has a chance to win because of how badly Trump shit the bed with the pandemic. Trump did not under any social or rational or factual way run as an moderate. He spouted far right dog whistles with uber capitalist pig arrogance. Another branch on your stupid as fuck tree.
    2. I don;t doubt that you cannot.
    3. You guys are making definitive conclusions based on the primaries. Bernie/Warren didn't win primaries therefore they wouldn't win the general is not using primary results as a possible indicator to maybe point in a direction. You are flat out saying if they can't win X they cannot win Y. It is the crux of your ridiculous argument. It is literally all there is to your ridiculous argument.
    4. No I didn't say social media was an indicator. Again that was you making shit up and making it my responsibility.
    5. I did answer it. Only 50% of primary winners win the general election. What about that answer is confusing to you?
    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


  10. #14710
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Would be insulting if you read it... lol



    After 4 years of Trump, they are still fatigued? That makes sense to you? You think moderates picked Trump? Trump ran as a moderate, pushing workers rights and acting like Hillary was a satanic extreme.

    Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from Donald Trump
    https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/2067765...remism-penalty



    I can’t read your mind dude...



    It’s a strawman, because you are making it empirical. It is an indicator... no mater how much you hate it, it simply is. Arguing as if it’s empirical is an obvious strawman, because you know it’s bad indicator. How many times do I have to say it’s just an indicator, for you to stop? Is it enough, saying it’s obvious?



    Yeah, as an indicator... it would be a strawman, if I argued that you think social media means Bernie would win. I’m not doing that... unless you think I should?



    You can’t answer so you react, I’m not taking it personally.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is irrelevant... The fact that they are unaffiliated is the point... this is math... pretty basic... it’s how groupings work...



    They shift... they don’t fall off the scale... that’s why what I’m saying is universally true... in any randomized data set. It’s why I highlighted the “all over the board”. The point is the amount of units that comprises the data set, not the density of the number set. The middle will always occupy more, because it’s bidirectional.



    Maybe it’s why I linked the article doing exactly that?

    Edit: There is nothing to the left of extreme left and there is nothing to the right of extreme right. The center contains both, the center left and center right. The only way that the extreme could occupy more people, is if this isn’t random... the only way this is not correct, is if there is a significant lean to the left or right extreme.

    Edit 2: Just think about it being bidirectional. There will always be more people within the same distance of center, as there are on each extreme.
    I've read the article. I've looked at the data. I looked at the source:

    The respondents we’re using answered these questions in YouGov survey conducted from November 2018 through January 2019 among 6,779 eligible voters.
    YouGov specialises in market research and opinion polling through online methods. The company's methodology involves obtaining responses from an invited group of Internet users, and then weighting these responses in line with demographic information.
    As I said above, online polls can capture the data, albeit unreliably - there is a higher margin of error, and polling is far from exact in the first place. I would absolutely trust 538 to aggregate the data better than most, but I don't think that's a dataset that can be considered reliable in the first place - even Drutman, the author of that article, includes some pretty big caveats:
    Independents come in two varieties: real and pretend. Approximately 40 percent of the electorate self-identifies as politically independent. But about three-quarters of these are pretend independents — they claim to be independent when asked for their partisan identity, but they consistently vote for one party or the other and respond to most survey questions like partisans. When pressed in a survey to reveal themselves as Democrats or Republicans, they usually do. For purposes of this analysis, I’m not including pretend independents in our independent bucket.
    Real Independents are those who refuse to divulge a preference for one party or the other, even when pressed. They are relatively rare — maybe about 10 percent of the electorate. But they are highly coveted because they potentially hold the balance of power in national elections. These are the voters we’re highlighting in our independent category. They make up 14.9 percent of the Voter Study Group sample. (This is high relative to other estimates, and probably still includes some fake independents, but it’s the best we can do with the data.
    The entire article is attempting to suss out the actual political leanings of people they readily admit may be lying about their affiliation, ideology, policy positions, and voting record, then says "well, even though there is likely bad data, this is the best we have".

    It makes my point for me.
    Last edited by Antiganon; 2020-09-20 at 02:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by pathora44 View Post
    Frogs are the real threat because they will kill us by drowning us just because we stabbed them with our poisonous stingers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    VOTE

  11. #14711
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    As I said above, online polls can capture the data, albeit unreliably - there is a higher margin of error, and polling is far from exact in the first place. I would absolutely trust 538 to aggregate the data better than most, but I don't think that's a dataset that can be considered reliable in the first place - even Drutman, the author of that article, includes some pretty big caveats:
    But... it’s irrelevant... it’s simply how random data sets are mapped.
    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.

  12. #14712
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    But... it’s irrelevant... it’s simply how random data sets are mapped.
    How is whether an analysis is based in good or bad data irrelevant?

    The question was "Would Bernie have turned out more voters in 2016/2020 than Clinton/Biden had he won the primary?"

    The answer is "We all have no fucking idea, because we can't reliably capture data on the unlikely voters he was purporting to be able to turn out. Flip a coin if you want, it would be about as accurate."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by pathora44 View Post
    Frogs are the real threat because they will kill us by drowning us just because we stabbed them with our poisonous stingers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    VOTE

  13. #14713
    Saying the primary results are an indicator of the general results is like saying the winner of the Indy 500 is an indicator of the results in a footrace between that driver and the winner of the Daytona 500.
    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


  14. #14714
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I will say you've honed your "Russian bot like" argument tactics well.
    Suka blyat you got me...

    Before covid? yes they were still fatigued. That is why I've repeatedly said Biden has a chance to win because of how badly Trump shit the bed with the pandemic. Trump did not under any social or rational or factual way run as an moderate. He spouted far right dog whistles with uber capitalist pig arrogance. Another branch on your stupid as fuck tree.
    I’m a Russian bot, but you are now arguing that people want more Trump. Are you now arguing that covid saved democrats, while calling me a Russian bot? Stop being a reactionary...

    The article I linked made a solid case... your rebuttal, leaves a lot to be desired... /shrug

    @Shalker Suka... on nas uznal... begim at cyda...

    I don;t doubt that you cannot.
    You should read mine... *cat sound*

    You guys are making definitive conclusions based on the primaries. Bernie/Warren didn't win primaries therefore they wouldn't win the general is not using primary results as a possible indicator to maybe point in a direction. You are flat out saying if they can't win X they cannot win Y. It is the crux of your ridiculous argument. It is literally all there is to your ridiculous argument.
    Nope, but you are desperate to argue that I am. I think I’ve said it’s not empirical, but just an indicator... at least 3 times as many times as you called me stupid. /checkmate

    No I didn't say social media was an indicator. Again that was you making shit up and making it my responsibility.
    Oh, you misunderstood... you didn’t say you used it as an indicator, I said you used it as an indicator. I’m saying you used it as an indicator, you are denying it... for some reason...

    I did answer it. Only 50% of primary winners win the general election. What about that answer is confusing to you?
    The fact that it has nothing to do with what I asked? I asked to name ones that didn’t win the primary and won the election. I don’t actually think it’s 50% and if it is 50%, than I am right... the answer to my question, is 0. I really think you should google... it’s not 50%... there have been instances without a primary victor... I just don’t want to bother, since your argument proves my point, even if it’s wrong. lol

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    How is whether an analysis is based in good or bad data irrelevant?
    Is it random?
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-20 at 02:55 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.

  15. #14715
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    How is whether an analysis is based in good or bad data irrelevant?

    The question was "Would Bernie have turned out more voters in 2016/2020 than Clinton/Biden had he won the primary?"

    The answer is "We all have no fucking idea, because we can't reliably capture data on the unlikely voters he was purporting to be able to turn out. Flip a coin if you want, it would be about as accurate."
    Well, what we do know is that he wasn't able to turn them out in numbers sufficient to win the primary. You're welcome to use the technically correct but entirely weak argument that "we can't predict the future," but I for one am comfortable believing the system worked as intended and protected us from the less viable candidate.

  16. #14716
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Saying the primary results are an indicator of the general results is like saying the winner of the Indy 500 is an indicator of the results in a footrace between that driver and the winner of the Daytona 500.
    You silly... that’s like saying two random things and then thinking you are clever. lol

    Edit: Misunderstanding.

    Edit 2: This is when I wish my iPad had a Russian keypad... I am fluent... lol
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-20 at 02:59 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.

  17. #14717
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    21,834
    Quote Originally Posted by SirBeef View Post
    It's not though. Where were these people when he needed them to vote?
    There's several posts talking about how people don't engage in primaries. And still you can't deny how many people he got to engage and how he even got the DNC to move left.

    Not sure how interested I am in a conversation with someone who can't realize the impact Bernie had. You don't have to like the man or his policies, it's a basic understanding of the way politics work.
    Last edited by PACOX; 2020-09-20 at 03:01 AM.

  18. #14718
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    26,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    You are saying that liberals are not as vindictive, to do the same thing as Bernie bros?
    I am? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you quoted someone else saying that.

    And I don't give two fucks what "Bernie Bros" these mythical neck-bearded under-the-bed boogie-men the Democrats invented to scare people off voting for Boring Biden, are doing.

    I'm voting Biden because I have no choice. Not because I like him. Not because I think he'll implement policies I want. Not because I think he'll really stick it to the Republicans like they deserve. But because Trump has a goddamned gun to my country's head and Joe doesn't.

    I expect nothing from the Democrats and will give them nothing beyond my vote. They don't have my sympathy. They don't have my praise. They don't have my tears. The current situation in the country is as much their fault as it is the Republicans. Sure the Democrats aren't actively burning the country to the ground, but they're sure not pulling out the fire hoses.

    So I have no choice. The argument works in reverse if Bernie had been the nominee. And anyone who would rather sit home and watch the country burn (literally in some places) or worse decide its better to throw gas on the fire rather than risk voting for an actual leftist can, as I sad a thousand pages ago, GET FUCKED.
    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!

  19. #14719
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,871
    @Bodakane there were 4, winning due to death of President:

    When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?
    https://www.npr.org/sections/politic...nominatio.html
    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.

  20. #14720
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Suka blyat you got me...



    I’m a Russian bot, but you are now arguing that people want more Trump. Are you now arguing that covid saved democrats, while calling me a Russian bot? Stop being a reactionary...

    The article I linked made a solid case... your rebuttal, leaves a lot to be desired... /shrug
    @Shalker Suka... on nas uznal... begim at cyda...



    You should read mine... *cat sound*



    Nope, but you are desperate to argue that I am. I think I’ve said it’s not empirical, but just an indicator... at least 3 times as many times as you called me stupid. /checkmate



    Oh, you misunderstood... you didn’t say that said used it as an indicator, I said you used it as an indicator. I’m saying you used it as an indicator, you are denying it... for some reason...



    The fact that it has nothing to do with what I asked? I asked to name ones that didn’t win the primary and won the election. I don’t actually think it’s 50% and if it is 50%, than I am right... the answer to my question, is 0. I really think you should google... it’s not 50%... there have been instances without a primary victor... I just don’t want to bother, since your argument proves my point, even if it’s wrong. lol

    - - - Updated - - -



    Is it random?
    2. Your reading comprehension is shit. I didn't say people NOW want more Trump. I said when faced with a choice between same old same old Biden and Trump before covid, that the independents likely make the same choice they already made. Again, you vastly overrate the typical person's ability to pay attention to politics. I think Bernie or Warren versus Trump pre or post covid, then those same independents that chose Trump in 2016 would choose them in 2020.
    3. No desire too.
    4. The discussion/argument I was having with Cubby was 100% about him telling me that Bernie or Warren objectively would not win the general because they didn't;t get the turnout in the primary. So you quoted a rebuttal to that specifically and tried to tell me I was wrong and now want to pretend you had a different point then the one I was arguing? lols
    5. Yes, i'm denying I said that, implied that, wrote it in smoke signals, sent it to you with carrier pigeons, whatever...because, get this now... I didn't.
    6. By pointing out to you that only 50% of primary winners win the election, you should be able to discern that it is a toothless point you are making. Besides, I've numerous times explained Dems vote the primaries by the person they think will win not by who they want, which further takes the bite out of your stupid point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    You silly... that’s like saying two random things and then thinking you are clever. lol

    Edit: Misunderstanding.

    Edit 2: This is when I wish my iPad had a Russian keypad... I am fluent... lol
    You're fluent in something.......

    It is as accurate as the primary being indicative of 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


Posting Permissions

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