Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Felya]

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.

[Antiganon]

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.

[Felya]

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 - - -

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.

[Bodakane]

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?

[Antiganon]

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.

[Felya]

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.

[Antiganon]

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."

[Bodakane]

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.

[Felya]

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 - - -

How is whether an analysis is based in good or bad data irrelevant?

Is it random?

[Eviscero]

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.

[Felya]

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

[PACOX]

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.

[Sunseeker]

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.

[Felya]

@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

[Bodakane]

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 - - -

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.

[Felya]

I am? I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you quoted someone else saying that.

Seemed like it to me:

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.

It’s why I asked...

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.

Totally dude... these boogie man, that posy here regularly.

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.

Welcome to the club? So... what’s the conflict?

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.

Yeah, unless you cry while being angry, not something I expected.

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.

I’ll take that as no... equally vindictive... lol

[Felya]

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.

You literally quoted me saying exactly that. Reactionary, read the second sentence. “NOW” wtf?

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.

Am I supposed to respond to covid doesn’t mater or that it does? WTF?

No desire too.

That choice of words though... *cat sound*

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

Still do... because of these reactions. Every post confirms exactly what I’m saying.

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.

Which part of, I know, did you not understand? Wtf?

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.

Because that answer means nothing. It’s also not true... but, if it were, the answer you are afraid to say is 0. If it was a stupid point, you’d just say 0. You expect me to see you ever admit you are wrong? Please...

You're fluent in something.......

It is as accurate as the primary being indicative of the general.

Yeah, it’s cool... I get to see Russian news in Russian... you should be jealous.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they are. Show me a single person who lost the primary and then beat the person they lost to in the general. Now go look at primary turnout vs general turnout. People need to stop pretending the 2nd place team in the East would have won the championship if we let them play in it. That’s not how any of this works and you have no evidence to prove your guy would have done better if not for those meddling primary voters.

He is literally arguing that there is no indication that Bernie would win... because he dug him self a hole, where any indication is empirical.

Edit: Watch this...

@Bodakane is there any indication that Bernie would beat Trump?

[Antiganon]

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.

I'm using the argument of "His base was not eligible to vote in most Democratic primaries, because they are not registered as Democrats, and he didn't bring in the establishment primary voters he needed to". It has nothing to do with predicting the future, it's about apples and oranges.

[Felya]

@Felya Bernie had no chance of winning the general because he couldn’t win the primary.

You can’t say that... shit happens... the best you can do is show data points and indicators. Otherwise, well... quagmire you see before you.

[Gestopft]

@Felya Bernie had no chance of winning the general because he couldn’t win the primary.

They are different electorates. The general is usually twice as many voters, and has many, many more independent voters.

Guess which candidate was strongest among independents.

Something that flew under the radar during Super Tuesday was that while Biden was running up the score in the win column, someone else was winning independent voters in all but three states.