Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[PACOX]

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.

[Felya]

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...

[D Luniz]

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/

[SirBeef]

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?

[Felya]

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.

[Bodakane]

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 - - -

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.

[Basileus]

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.

[SirBeef]

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.

[Bodakane]

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.

[Felya]

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?

[Bodakane]

Why do you believe that the general would be different?

Funny. /10chars

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Felya]

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 - - -

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?

[Bodakane]

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:

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.

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.

[Felya]

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 - - -

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.

[Bodakane]

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?

I think there's a misconception by establishment Dems that people who consider themselves independent means they are moderate. While that was the case 20 years ago, I don;t think that's the case anymore. I think with social media and the information blitz things have changed and the majority of the people that claim to be independent do so because they are fatigued, not moderate. They want something different to break what they believe is the crippling status quo. That's why they went Trump in 2016. It is why they'd go Warren or Bernie in 2020....but they won't vote in primaries.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

- - - Updated - - -



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.

No I did and it makes plenty of sense. What doens;t make sense is comparing a primary to general election.

[Antiganon]

Why do you believe that the general would be different?

Bernie couldn't get
A) Registered establishment Democrats to vote for a progressive outside
Or
B) Progressive outsiders to register as Democrats in order to vote for him in the primary.

His entire schtick was about appealing to unaffiliated and disaffected would-be-progressive voters, and winning then over to his cause. Without an appearance in the general, he has never had an opportunity to do so, and claiming he couldn't (or guaranteed would have, for that matter) is disingenuous as it has never been tested.

[Felya]

I think there's a misconception by establishment Dems that people who consider themselves independent means they are moderate.

No, that the majority of the independent will be moderate. Which is apt...

While that was the case 20 years ago, I don;t think that's the case anymore.

Why?

I think with social media and the information blitz things have changed and the majority of the people that claim to be independent do so because they are fatigued, not moderate. They want something different to break what they believe is the crippling status quo. That's why they went Trump in 2016. It is why they'd go Warren or Bernie in 2020....but they won't vote in primaries.

This is illogical... social media doesn’t change the nature of what extreme and moderate means. Trump won the GOP primaries in 2016... neither Warren or Bernie won DNC...

No I did and it makes plenty of sense. What doens;t make sense is comparing a primary to general election.

If they make sense, feel free to answer anything I asked. When was the last time a president won, without winning his primary?

[Bodakane]

No, that the majority of the independent will be moderate. Which is apt...



Why?



This is illogical... social media doesn’t change the nature of what extreme and moderate means. Trump won the GOP primaries in 2016... neither Warren or Bernie won DNC...



If they make sense, feel free to answer anything I asked. When was the last time a president won, without winning his primary?

Its not illogical. Social media absolutely changes things and its frankly batshit fcuking bananas to say it doesn't. Trump won his primary because republicans are easily duped. What does that have to do with anything?

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.

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

[Felya]

His entire schtick was about appealing to unaffiliated and disaffected would-be-progressive voters, and winning then over to his cause. Without an appearance in the general, he has never had an opportunity to do so, and claiming he couldn't (or guaranteed would have, for that matter) is disingenuous as it has never been tested.

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...