Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Sunseeker]

Are you incapable of reading?

I voted Sanders/Clinton in 2016, and will be voting Biden in 2020. My state's primary was rescheduled from March to July so I didn't even vote because Bernie had already conceded the nomination.

People in this thread are bickering about whether Bernie would have been the better candidate.

Group A: But Bernie drives voter turnout among atypical voters!
Group B: But he couldn't improve turnout in the primary!
Me: Primaries and generals are very different electorates, so performance in one is not necessarily indicative of performance in the other. Also, we have no reliable data to suggest how the unaffiliated electorate might have voted in the general, because it is notoriously difficult to sample that electorate when polling.

But sure, I'm a whiny Bernie voter whose just yelling "you can't predict the future!".

And the sad part is that their claim is false. Bernie really improved turnout in the primary. The guy went from a nobody 2 election cycles ago, to 5% in 2016, to 30% in 2020. If that isn't improving voter turnout, I don't know what the fuck you'd call it. Heck, people were starting to wonder if Biden was going to pull it out until the eastern, older, black vote really hit.

Would Bernie have done well in the general? Maybe. It's not like Trump and Biden are really going head to head right now, they're both circling their own wagons and shoring up internal support and we're a little over a month out from election day. It's kinda a weird election cycle in that regard.

Bernie has very aggressive rhetoric, personally, I think a lot of people are tired of that from Trump, and it wouldn't serve Bernie well. However, their choice would still remain: Trump or *blue guy*. Biden is very much a "lets pretend the 2016 election didn't happen and turn back the clock" candidate. Which I think is unhealthy for our country but clearly what people want. *insert argument about what people want not being what they need*.

I expect Biden to get very little done, but not because of Republican blockage, but because his platform is not heavy on "doing things". More of a "hold down the fort" and "new coat of paint" platform.

Bernies was clearly more of a "we need to do some serious heavy lifting", and the level of voter fatigue at this point is too high to really get people motivated for that kind of work. And it would be work. Hard work. Needed work, but still work. And too many people are just too damn tired. That doesn't mean the work doesn't need to be done, it just means we need a mental health day. Which is fine, provided we don't allow ourselves to forget that the work still needs to be done.

In the end, I think Bernie would not have done as well in the election, not because he can't motivate people to vote, he certainly can, and moderates, like progressives, would still be left with the choice of Trump or *blue guy*. But because he's not offering people a hug and a cup of coco. He's whipping their backs to stop being a bunch of lazy fucks and fix the country. And people are tired.

And that remains, ultimately, my biggest concern with Biden: will Biden allow people(either through intent or inaction) to forget that the work still needs to be done?

[DingDongKing]

As an aside, I’d be really excited if Bernie had that record plus he was 59, since it would give him a long run to build even more support. But as it stands, this was his last shot at the Presidency. If someone like AOC can pull the same support over time, it’ll be a great win for progressivism.

[Bodakane]

What is your indicator that Bernie would have beaten Trump?... in other words... what makes you think he would have won?

Remember, your argument now, is that independents are all over the map, not concentrated Bernie voters.

- - - Updated - - -



Never! These Bernie supporters are not about issues... just reactionaries.

- - - Updated - - -



It’s literally better than the nothing you presented. It is an indicator and those that do treat it as empirical, are still more justified than ‘social media changes things’.



There are only 9 states out of 50 that have closed primaries, 7 more have partially closed primaries:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/electi...ary-types.aspx

Bernie won Nevada, a closed state.
Bernie won Utah, a partially closed state.
Bernie won Connecticut, a closed state.

Half of Bernie’s won states came from the very closed states or partially closed states, that require registration to a political party. Bernie won 3 of the 16 states with closed/partially closed elections and 3 of 34 that were open. As in, Bernie had a better, not worse, chance to win in closed elections.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/pr...s-and-caucuses

Edit: Something else that’s fun... Bernie won WA primaries in 2016, when they were closed, but lost to Biden when they were open in 2020.

Edit 2: Just to undercut the possible reaction to the above... If you claim that Trump supporters voted Biden in open elections, I have a shit ton of Trump quotes telling his supporters to do exactly that... but... for Bernie, not Biden. It doesn’t look like it worked in any direction...

I'm going to explain this one last time for you. Please read it slowly, get an adult close to you to help if necessary, because I'm pretty sick of you willfully misconstruing my stance.

Part 1: Independents are not moderate.
I say this because if they were moderate they would NOT have voted for Trump in 2016. He was an extreme right candidate espousing extreme right ideals. He didn't even moderately grab someone by the pussy. Hillary on the other hand, is the walking embodiment of moderate. So, if these moderates are just so moderate why did they not vote the very moderate moderate into office?

This clearly shows that the independents that flipped the 2016 are either.....far right which is not moderate or over the status quo (which Hillary also perfectly embodied) which is also, get this....not moderate. Sure, I'm letting hope tell me they were just over the status quo and not far right shitbags, but its hope based in reality and logic. Either way, they very clearly were not moderate.

(Don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 1. Maybe take a quiz?)

Part 2: People are fatigued with the status quo, due in large part to social media and information overload.
Most people are not that invested in politics. They care enough to vote in the general but not enough to follow it before then. To them it is an unknowable quagmire filled with instances where there's no clear right and wrong. Social media and the internet giving platforms for all the angry voices just further exacerbates that issue. They thought, leading up to 2016, that both sides were basically the same, like two football teams in a game and the people arguing over it were no different than those teams fans. They aren't happy with the economy or the derision or just the overall state of things. They don't feel like their choice matters, as it seemed it was likely going to come down to Typical Politician A vs. Typical Politician B. Then came Trump and they and we laughed. Then came Hillary, Typical Politician A. Then they saw it was Typical Politician A vs. Not Typical Politician B. Then they said fuck it, and voted Not Typical Politician B. (Or you know your explanation, where they just decided to vote for Nazis because they are moderate or some shit that makes sense to only you.....)

(Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 2. Maybe use flash cards?)

Part 3: Trump's massive Covid failure gives Biden a chance.
Before Covid, the average person wasn't really noticing a massive change in their life. Their quality of life hadn't;t really changed all that much. The political discourse grew across all media though which would only further the fatigue they felt in 2016. So after 2016, when the independents gave Trump a victory due to not being the same old same old.....Dems decided to nominate....Typical Politician C, thereby completely missing the lesson they should have learned 4 years prior. So these fatigued independents whose live wasn't all that different from 2016 to pre covid 2020, are staring at Dems who just made the same decision they made before...why would these independents vote any differently at that point? They likely wouldn't have. But then came covid, and the death tolls and economy point to a fucking apocalypse. That changes minds....hopefully.

(Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 3. Maybe get a second tutor?)

Part 4: Bernie or my actual choice overall Warren, could beat Trump but Dems voted safe in the primaries.
Dems are notoriously cowards politically. Most dems actually wanted Berni/Warren level plans and programs but voted Biden because they, like you, stupidly think dependents still equal moderate. But if one of them or even Pete had gotten the nom, then this election would be about Not Typical Politician A Whose A Functioning Adult vs. Not Typical Politician B Whose Not A Functioning Adult. By going this route, Trump's incompetence comes into play because these independents weren't going further down the list then Question #1: Is this candidate a typical politician?


(Don't respond until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Parts 1-4. Maybe increase blood flow to your thinking bone?)

FTR: Just so you and Cubby know, I'm voting Biden without hesitation or compunction. I actually wanted Biden over Obama in their 2008 primary because Biden is actually an excellent strategist with foreign affairs and I knew little of Obama.

[Infraction]

[omerome]

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1307491919384260609

I approve of this.

[cubby]

Saying they are different means little when basing your entire argument on the fact that the results of one will match the other.

You have gotten it in your head that getting voters to turn out to vote once in the general is the same as getting people registering with a specific party, following the primaries, and going out to vote in the primaries during a pandemic.

Yes, I have, so has everyone else. Because it's true. It's straightforward logic. If a candidate generates enthusiasm, you will see it in the Primary, regardless of differing processes - either with different primary votes or the General. We didn't with Bernie - so claiming it would happen in the General doesn't follow any reasonable argument.

You have yet to post any reasoning aside from "Primary elections are different from General elections, therefore what I say is true!", which has no basis in this conversation. Different or not, enthusiasm transcends the processes and groups of people.

Your original claim that "Bernie would bring out the vote" is entirely unfounded, by your own standards, and we saw that in this years Primary ballots. The claim is unfounded because Bernie did not bring out the vote.

If you have something to add that you haven't yet, please do - I would be delighted to see numbers or hear a separate argument other than the "they are different" position. Otherwise, I'll assume we're done here.

[omerome]

This and the replies following it are funnier than they should be.

Someone, please, tell me again how people like this totally care about the country and the people in it.

People like those literally and sadly, I do mean literally wouldn't mind watching the world burn. I don't understand how they can think. Biden isn't many of our #1s, but he's the only one who can start the process to give us the things we do want. Cause we sure as hell ain't getting it with four more years of the resident in the White House.

This is what happens if Biden isn't elected:

M4A? Hah!
Education reform? With a man who can't spell or thinks we are going to Nars? And appointed a woman who wants to destroy Public Education funding? And has no experience in education herself? Think again.
Racial justice? The administration who refuses to even say that Black Lives Matter?!
A fair wage to workers? ROFL.

[Felya]

As an aside, I’d be really excited if Bernie had that record plus he was 59, since it would give him a long run to build even more support. But as it stands, this was his last shot at the Presidency. If someone like AOC can pull the same support over time, it’ll be a great win for progressivism.

GOP thinks there are 4 women in DNC that are the biggest threat to them... AOC is the biggest threat, if you judge by GOP action. They are building her to be their next Hillary.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1307491919384260609

I approve of this.

My god... that’s a solid tact... awesome!

Edit: Quoted the wrong one...

[Bodakane]

Yes, I have, so has everyone else. Because it's true. It's straightforward logic. If a candidate generates enthusiasm, you will see it in the Primary, regardless of differing processes - either with different primary votes or the General. We didn't with Bernie - so claiming it would happen in the General doesn't follow any reasonable argument.

You have yet to post any reasoning aside from "Primary elections are different from General elections, therefore what I say is true!", which has no basis in this conversation. Different or not, enthusiasm transcends the processes and groups of people.

Your original claim that "Bernie would bring out the vote" is entirely unfounded, by your own standards, and we saw that in this years Primary ballots. The claim is unfounded because Bernie did not bring out the vote.

If you have something to add that you haven't yet, please do - I would be delighted to see numbers or hear a separate argument other than the "they are different" position. Otherwise, I'll assume we're done here.

None of this is true.

Not your summation of my point. Not the recount of the arguments I've made. Not the reasoning behind your stance.

And you're doing all that while demanding I give more reasoning (which I have) while providing literally nothing more than, "they are the same just trust me". You have not in any size shape or form explained why they are indicative of the general. You've discounted every factual reasoning I've given, like the pool is diluted in the primaries to the strategy dems traditionally use to vote in primaries, to even the simple fact the enthusiasm Warren or Bernie would create would be from independents who don't vote in primaries with.....nothing. Not a single solitary fact, piece of logic, piece of reasoning, sliver of evidence...nothing. You think getting voter's to vote means they either participate in the whole entire process from debate to primary to general election or they don;t vote at all. You have no concept or will to conceit that that vast majority of people in this country don't pay attention to politics, and getting them to vote in the general is different then getting them to join a party and vote in the primaries. Its such an obvious and ridiculous blindspot for you, it must be intentional.

[cubby]

I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

That being said...

Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

So Far
Collins
Murkowski

Possible for the 3rd Slot
Romney (Utah)
McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.

[Thekri]

I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

That being said...

Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

So Far
Collins
Murkowski

Possible for the 3rd Slot
Romney (Utah)
McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.

McSally already made it incredibly clear they will support it. Romney might go either way.

I think there is a decent chance that someone like Grassley will block it though. Not because Grassley is a good person, but because he really likes rules, and really doesn't like Mitch telling him what to do. He is basically lawful evil, he doesn't get along with chaotic evil all that well.

[cubby]

(putting in CAPS and red just to make requests clear - those obviously weren't your quotes)

None of this is true.

Not your summation of my point. Not the recount of the arguments I've made. Not the reasoning behind your stance.

And you're doing all that while demanding I give more reasoning (which I have) while providing literally nothing more than, "they are the same just trust me". You have not in any size shape or form explained why they are indicative of the general. You've discounted every factual reasoning I've given REPOST THOSE "FACTUAL REASONING[S] PLEASE - WE'VE ONLY SEEN YOUR FEELS, NOT "FACTS", like the pool is diluted in the primaries to the strategy dems traditionally use to vote in primaries, with.....nothing. Not a single solitary fact, piece of logic, piece of reasoning, sliver of evidence...nothing. WE POSTED THE FACTS AT THE BEGINNING - YOU MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN - BERNIE DIDN'T BRING OUT THE VOTE IN THE PRIMARY AS PEOPLE CLAIMED HE WOULD - GUESS YOU MISSED THAT FACT

We can't have a conversation if you refuse to face logic and reasoning.

Please provide the "more reasoning (which I have)" you've provided in responses to me. Because I haven't seen it. All you say in the end, is that a Primary is different from a General, and therefore what you feel is truth. While logic and objective evidence tells us your entirely wrong.

You say the "pool is diluted" - and I've agreed, over and over again - but enthusiasm transcends all of that. People are excited, period. You yet to argue against this basic, entirely logical and objectively factual point - please cut and paste this point and provide your reasoning if I've missed it. So far all I see you say is that "they are different so what I claim is true".

Have you linked any facts to show that enthusiasm doesn't transcend Primary vs General? Remember, the voters Bernie was supposed to bring out in the Primary never showed. Why are you struggling with providing evidence for you claims? Did you post a link that we missed? Please repost if you did - otherwise we'll assume you are arguing all of this from "feels" without any objective evidence or logic.

It's pretty clear you just can't admit when you're wrong, which is disappointing.

[Rasulis]

I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

That being said...

Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

So Far
Collins
Murkowski

Possible for the 3rd Slot
Romney (Utah)
McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.

It is what it is. For whatever reason, Democratic voters did not show up in 2016. Hopefully, this and the last 4 years remind them that there are consequences to elections.

[cubby]

McSally already made it incredibly clear they will support it. Romney might go either way.

I think there is a decent chance that someone like Grassley will block it though. Not because Grassley is a good person, but because he really likes rules, and really doesn't like Mitch telling him what to do. He is basically lawful evil, he doesn't get along with chaotic evil all that well.

It's still not enough (hear me out). Romeny saying "wait" is fine, but he also can be pushed around. Grassley might like the rules, but in the end, he'll want a conservative to replace RBG - I mean, who the fuck wouldn't on that side of the table.

I just don't see four GOP Senators being able and willing to say "wait".

[Bodakane]

We can't have a conversation if you refuse to face logic and reasoning.

It's entirely true, you just can't seem to face it.

Please provide the "more reasoning (which I have)" you've provided in responses to me. Because I haven't seen it. All you say in the end, is that a Primary is different from a General, and therefore what you feel is truth. While logic and objective evidence tells us your entirely wrong.

You say the "pool is diluted" - and I've agreed, over and over again - but enthusiasm transcends all of that. People are excited, period. You yet to argue against this basic, entirely logical and objectively factual point - please cut and paste this point and provide your reasoning if I've missed it. So far all I see you say is that "they are different so what I claim is true".

Have you linked any facts to show that enthusiasm doesn't transcend Primary vs General? Remember, the voters Bernie was supposed to bring out in the Primary never showed. Why are you struggling with providing evidence for you claims? Did you post a link that we missed? Please repost if you did - otherwise we'll assume you are arguing all of this from "feels" without any objective evidence or logic.

It's pretty clear you just can't admit when you're wrong, which is disappointing.

You are saying they are the same, without providing any reasoning as to why. Scroll to the top of this page to read my laid out explanation. Where the fuck can I scroll to see why you keep acting like primary results are not different than general election results. You are literally saying if someone is enthusiastic about eating a meal then they'd be equally enthusiastic about cooking it. You keep talking about my feels, while providing no reasoning whatsoever for your stance at all. Give me a fact or some logic.

[cubby]

You are saying they are the same, without providing any reasoning as to why. Scroll to the top of this page to read my laid out explanation. Where the fuck can I scroll to see why you keep acting like primary results are not different than general election results. You are literally saying if someone is enthusiastic about eating a meal then they'd be equally enthusiastic about cooking it. You keep talking about my feels, while providing no reasoning whatsoever for your stance at all. Give me a fact or some logic.

Why would a candidate's enthusiasm not show up in the Primary election? Lay that out logically for us, with EVIDENCE, or we'll assume you're done with this conversation.

[Felya]

I'm going to explain this one last time for you. Please read it slowly, get an adult close to you to help if necessary, because I'm pretty sick of you willfully misconstruing my stance.

Dude... I’m 41...

Part 1: Independents are not moderate.
I say this because if they were moderate they would NOT have voted for Trump in 2016. He was an extreme right candidate espousing extreme right ideals. He didn't even moderately grab someone by the pussy. Hillary on the other hand, is the walking embodiment of moderate. So, if these moderates are just so moderate why did they not vote the very moderate moderate into office?

Again, that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. You keep going on about undefined independents, which lets me use math with a random data set. You are wrong, not because of political leaning defining independents, but because they are a random number set, which lets us use very basic math. As soon as you define independents as random, I get to apply math that applies to all random data sets.

Your political definitions means jack shit to math.

Also, I gave you a link that showed how Trump ran as a moderate. Basically, he ran as a populist against the elites... Alt right calls Trump a classic liberal. Half the country is not extreme right... read the article and tell me how either my summery, or something I missed, is wrong.

This clearly shows that the independents that flipped the 2016 are either.....far right which is not moderate or over the status quo (which Hillary also perfectly embodied) which is also, get this....not moderate. Sure, I'm letting hope tell me they were just over the status quo and not far right shitbags, but its hope based in reality and logic. Either way, they very clearly were not moderate.

My way doesn’t assume political leaning of independents. I have no interest in discussing why independents voted for either candidate. As I said, I don’t read minds.

(Don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 1. Maybe take a quiz?)

What do you think it makes you look like, when I don’t stoop to these levels? Think about it...

Part 2: People are fatigued with the status quo, due in large part to social media and information overload.

(Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 2. Maybe use flash cards?)

Nope... in fact, I cut it out, because it’s just rambling. Your argument that populace is fatigued on Trump, so you are arguing that Bernie would represent that, better than Biden... doesn’t make sense. You are just acting status quo the last 3 years was the same as 3 years ago... why should I bother? Trump is the incumbent... if you think the status quo now, is the same as it was before Trump, we are at an impasse that cannot be overcome. The reason I voting for Biden, is because of being fatigued with status quo of Trump.

Part 3: Trump's massive Covid failure gives Biden a chance.

Based on people who are sick of the status quo, not voting against Trump, because shit is the same as it was 4 years ago? Absurd...

(Again don't read further until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Part 3. Maybe get a second tutor?)

What adult does this? What adult do you know, that posts like this? Trump?

Part 4: Bernie or my actual choice overall Warren, could beat Trump but Dems voted safe in the primaries.
Dems are notoriously cowards politically. Most dems actually wanted Berni/Warren level plans and programs but voted Biden because they, like you, stupidly think dependents still equal moderate. But if one of them or even Pete had gotten the nom, then this election would be about Not Typical Politician A Whose A Functioning Adult vs. Not Typical Politician B Whose Not A Functioning Adult. By going this route, Trump's incompetence comes into play because these independents weren't going further down the list then Question #1: Is this candidate a typical politician?

If they made the safe choice, everyone you are arguing against is 100% right. Your bullshit about independents is meant less. My guess... by the time you finally finished writing out your arguments, that’s exactly what you realized.

(Don't respond until you show the adult helping you, you that you've grasped what I'm saying in Parts 1-4. Maybe increase blood flow to your thinking bone?)

Figured out any adults that act like this yet? No?

FTR: Just so you and Cubby know, I'm voting Biden without hesitation or compunction. I actually wanted Biden over Obama in their 2008 primary because Biden is actually an excellent strategist with foreign affairs and I knew little of Obama.

Don’t care... due to WA rules at the time, public voting in primary was irrelevant for both, 2008 and 2016.

[muto]

I feel bad we closed the RBG thread because of the political spill-over from her replacement. She deserved better from us.

That being said...

Lisa Murkowski becomes second Republican senator to oppose taking up Supreme Court nomination before election.

I believe I'm seeing a strategy here. McConnell needs only 50 GOP Senators to vote for the SCOTUS nominee (Pence will break the tie). So, in the best intentions of Machiavellian statecraft, he might be seeing who can't afford to vote for it - and is allowing three GOP Senators "off the hook".

So Far
Collins
Murkowski

Possible for the 3rd Slot
Romney (Utah)
McSally (AZ) - unlikely though, she's a loser through and through (/knocks-wood-anyways)

Not sure who else. Really, it looks like the RBG replacement is going to happen. I don't see four GOP Senators who need to wait. Plus, everyone is talking "until the election", but everyone (not you guys - I mean out there) seems to forget there is no rule against filling a seat during a lame duck session. And of course McConnell would do that, just as a parting "fuck you" to the world.

Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.

[cubby]

It is what it is. For whatever reason, Democratic voters did not show up in 2016. Hopefully, this and the last 4 years remind them that there are consequences to elections.

I hope the Blue Wave from 2018 continues to build. This fuckery with the USPS is frightening.

(does Canada do dual citizenship? Asking for a friend....)

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.

I love that you think the Garland situation is the same as the RBG. And tell us again why McConnell's words/rules don't apply here? He's drowning in his own hypocrisy.

[Bodakane]

Why would a candidate's enthusiasm not show up in the Primary election?

Jesus.

There's more people to get enthused than the people that can vote in a primary.

Your argument is essentially saying, if a person doesn't vote in a primary they likely won't in the general and if they do then their vote isn't worth anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.

Yeah, we tried because it was never a really issue before then. Your side lost their shit and said it was wrong.

Now your side is going to do it and our side is merely asking you to play by the rules your side invented.

You cannot honestly not see the disgusting hypocrisy of your side.

[Felya]

Don’t for a minute pretend Democrats wouldn’t do the same thing if given the chance. In fact they tried in Obama’s last year with Merrick Garland. Maybe Ginsburg should have retired early on in Obama’s second term and this wouldn’t be an issue for Democrats.

Because GOP set as a precedent... Democrats doing the same, was just how it was, before GOP pulled this bullshit.

Edit: They made the rules to stop Obama... now they don’t like the rules... wtf?