Jump to content
UnevenEdge
wacky1980

2020 Presidential Elections mega-thread

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, scoobdog said:

I still believe Sanders would have beat Trump, simply because Trump so thoroughly imploded.

He didn't subjectively implode enough to his voters though.

It seemed like it should have been the easiest win, but polls (even Republican polls) undercounted segments of the GOP coalition, and in hindsight it looked more like his party had all the benefits of an incumbent reelection year: his party picked up millions of votes, they regained a number of seats they lost in the midterm and held onto vulnerable incumbents, and he only lost because of a coalition between progressives, partisan Ds, and nevertrumpers driven by personal animus.

Pull one leg out of that stool and he's the fourth 2-termer in a row.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Poof said:

Oh, so the numbers dropped when they framed prioritizing off need as "delays" cause by "government-run" insurers?

Who would have thought loaded questions would make lower opinions?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, naraku360 said:

How many times are people going to bring up primary results when those very primaries had M4A consistenly getting favorable results on exit polls even in places Sanders lost and among republicans, but despite that show complete contempt for any discussion of why progressives are inherently disadvantaged duribg primaries?

How many times do we have to go over this fucking point only to be told that even though my point was unambiguously about the primaries when any explanation of primaries which is directly related to the point will be met with "well ACKTUALLY responding to my point is irrelevant!"?

We've gone over thid. You've agreed with the basis of progressives have direct disadvantages in the primary that are not in the general, not to mention the DNC itself openly opposing progressives.

All of you need to stop bringing this shit up if you won't acknowledge any of the actual discussions on the primaries.

Where, at all, did they mention primary results in the post you quoted?  They were talking about the general election, where Sanders would have likely lost for the reasons they pointed out.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MrD1718 said:

Where, at all, did they mention primary results in the post you quoted?  They were talking about the general election, where Sanders would have likely lost for the reasons they pointed out.  

The part where they asked why voters go for candidates who oppose the policies that are popular. I can't say whether or not Sanders would have won more or won at all. My point is that, even if we start from the center by American standards, both parties are extremists. Only difference is one is sort of less socially conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

Oh, so the numbers dropped when they framed prioritizing off need as "delays" cause by "government-run" insurers?

Who would have thought loaded questions would make lower opinions?!

image.png.57b4dd6290a8e25f84796419cad436ac.png

Aka Bernie's plan vs Biden's plan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Poof said:

image.png.57b4dd6290a8e25f84796419cad436ac.png

Aka Bernie's plan vs Biden's plan

 

Statistics aren't as important as methofology. If the framing is loaded, the response is going to be for a loaded question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Statistics aren't as important as methofology. If the framing is loaded, the response is going to be for a loaded question.

Pay more attention. This is the other poll.

And in the poll that you're referring to, the different ways of asking the question are relevant. 

Edited by Poof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 8:48 AM, naraku360 said:

I'll concede on most of this except 1 thing:

"Alt-left," "Stalinist," etc. are what I explicitly specified as being irresponsible criticism because they tie the Democrat party to things they plainly are not tied to, such as alt-right and authoritarian regimes.

I have no issue calling a Stalinist for what they are, to be clear. I take more issue with "alt-left". Alt-left is literally just a right-wing smear deliberately designed to associate dems with the alt-right, whether you want it to or not. I'm talking criticism that pressures politicians into action. Not an amorphous term created to brand dems as white supremacists. Perhaps you aren't using it that way. Ultimately, how you're using it is irrelevant to the negative impact it has on the party you want to protect, and I at very least would like to beat the GOP.

Alt-left is unambiguously Trump's attempt at both-sidesing white supremacy onto the democrats. Do you think that's helpful to the party?

No I'm calling you a radical extremist. All you guys keep proving horseshoe theory true anyway. Now you're doing the alt-right thing where you accuse the other person of what you just got accused of. You're calling the dems and Biden extremists (as if that makes sense somehow).

Your arguments are not based on facts. When I bring up facts to refute your argument, you say "well it doesn't matter anyway, I'm just right." Or you present another lie/fantasy/misrepresentation/misinformation (idk what to call it really) to try and create this reality where we have to be socialist bc the dems are evil. In fact, everyone is evil and extreme except socialists.

I call you a Stalinist bc it's either join the revolution or face character assassination based on lies and the fact that you're not socialist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Poof said:

No I'm calling you a radical extremist. All you guys keep proving horseshoe theory true anyway. Now you're doing the alt-right thing where you accuse the other person of what you just got accused of. You're calling the dems and Biden extremists (as if that makes sense somehow).

Your arguments are not based on facts. When I bring up facts to refute your argument, you say "well it doesn't matter anyway, I'm just right." Or you present another lie/fantasy/misrepresentation/misinformation (idk what to call it really) to try and create this reality where we have to be socialist bc the dems are evil. In fact, everyone is evil and extreme except socialists.

I call you a Stalinist bc it's either join the revolution or face character assassination based on lies and the fact that you're not socialist

I don't mind being called a radical leftist, I probably align pretty closely with anarcho-syndicalism ideologically. But realistically speaking, I'm more interested in Scandinavian models.

If you think preferring Sanders over Biden and wanting to be critical of him when he does shitty things, and give props when he does good, makes people Satlinists, you're utterly insane.

But please, keep cherrypicking data from 2019 to rebute the exit polls in 2020. Whatever you say, Icarus. How much did it take to sellout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

The part where they asked why voters go for candidates who oppose the policies that are popular. I can't say whether or not Sanders would have won more or won at all. My point is that, even if we start from the center by American standards, both parties are extremists. Only difference is one is sort of less socially conservative.

Your definition of "extremist" is so absurdly skewed from the generally-accepted one that it's almost useless in an open discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

Your definition of "extremist" is so absurdly skewed from the generally-accepted one that it's almost useless in an open discussion.

I'm not sure what the contention with saying our federal government is largely made up of people viewed as highly extreme by most of contemporary society is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sawdamizer said:

Ouch.... Icarus? Damn.

The advocacy of being a total partisan hack reeks of shilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

I'm not sure what the contention with saying our federal government is largely made up of people viewed as highly extreme by most of contemporary society is.

...that is not remotely how most of contemporary society views them, at least not domestically.  At best you could argue that people tend to see those on the "other side" as "extremist," but certainly not those on their "own side."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

...that is not remotely how most of contemporary society views them, at least not domestically.  At best you could argue that people tend to see those on the "other side" as "extremist," but certainly not those on their "own side."

I did specify globally, so domestically, only 4% of the population, isn't the only thing being discussed. I don't know what part of "global" people don't seem to get.

At this point it really is just semantics, so can we end this already? I've been more than clear I'm talking about how the rest of the world looks at America's political structure as if it's absolutely insane. The system, not just one party. If that's too hard to understand, I really don't know what to tell you. It's not especially difficult to understand that we're behind the curb on almost every issue and the work to fix it is of lower priority to our leaders than corporate interests. You can have extremist oligarchs, or extremist capitalists, or whatever. We're run by corporatists, which I am against because I don't like something most people don't like: corrupt politicians.

Edited by naraku360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

He didn't subjectively implode enough to his voters though.

It seemed like it should have been the easiest win, but polls (even Republican polls) undercounted segments of the GOP coalition, and in hindsight it looked more like his party had all the benefits of an incumbent reelection year: his party picked up millions of votes, they regained a number of seats they lost in the midterm and held onto vulnerable incumbents, and he only lost because of a coalition between progressives, partisan Ds, and nevertrumpers driven by personal animus.

Pull one leg out of that stool and he's the fourth 2-termer in a row.

It wasn’t his base he needed, though.  You can almost directly tie his loss to the economic collapse caused by his mismanagement and subsequent flop on handling the pandemic emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

It wasn’t his base he needed, though.  You can almost directly tie his loss to the economic collapse caused by his mismanagement and subsequent flop on handling the pandemic emergency.

I guess I wasn't super clear on my point, and I'm not necessarily arguing against you. To the extent that he imploded, it wasn't anything like the 2008 or 1980 landslide that polls were predicting. It was enough that he lost, but not enough that it wasn't close in the electoral college or that it had significant, negative down-ballot implications for his party.

Trump lost AZ by less than 11K votes, GA by less than 13K votes, and WI by less than 21K votes. Flip those three states and the map ties (in which case the House elects for Trump). Despite the record-breaking turnout, the millions of new voters who participated, and the popular vote difference of more than 6 million votes, the election was decided by less than a 45K vote margin. For context, when Trump narrowly defeated Clinton in WI, MI, and PA, to win the Electoral College, his combined margin there was 77.6K votes.

That, with all the boosts in turnout and the arguably goosed libertarian numbers, Biden still only won by 45K votes and was entirely dependent on both split-tickets/never-Trumpers and progressives in those states, should be incredibly sobering for everyone. Hawkins wasn't even on the ballot in those states to pressure the Biden from the left. What should seemingly have been a slam dunk for anyone wasn't, and running a more progressive Sanders or Warren-style candidate would have lost those split-ticket vote. And given the unprecedented turnout, there's no real evidence that enough progressive voters in those states stayed home who could otherwise counter the loss of the split-ticket Republican voters. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

For me, the narrow margin is indicative a race based on a straight up or down referendum as opposed to a race between two distinct identities.  The thing to consider is that any race can be boosted by external factors, and how the race results only has context from how it’s presented.  Media from both sides tended to make this a referendum on Trump himself, either as a choice between Trumps insanity and a sane caretaker government, or choice between Trumps brand of independence and the political machine, the “swamp”, in Washington.

Participation is almost always a factor of external pressures.  It’s oversimplified to say that people only participate when they have a problem, but, in general, an environment where people are forced to engage in civic function results in greater participation.  At the lowest level, or the lowest common denominator across party lines, it was a matter of people being engaged simply because they were isolated from their families.

 Of course Biden might well have won without COVID.  We can’t really know because he was forced to react as well, and there wasn’t a lot of time or conditions to allow him to stake out a more personable profile.  Thanks in large part to the early onset of the pandemic this year, it might well have leveled out the aisles of better candidates like Bernie, and made them less appealing to voters outside of the partisan ranks.

 Nonetheless, it would not have suppressed anyone enough to allow Trump to overcome the stark choice of his own making.  An electorate consumed by pandemic issues and a candidate who made too many relevant mistakes to ignore were enough to make this a choice between Trump and not Trump early enough to make the likely results favorable to his opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SwimModSponges said:

image.thumb.png.c71f89fea97d9bf467f879f58fca4e67.png

The 4-2 thing had me puzzled. Apparently this was a county board that voted for this.  People really cling hard to BS they don't understand.

Edited by MrD1718
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrD1718 said:

The 4-2 thing had me puzzled. Apparently this was a county board that voted for this.  People really cling hard to BS they don't understand.

They counted that high using both hands. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, scoobdog said:

Participation is almost always a factor of external pressures.  It’s oversimplified to say that people only participate when they have a problem, but, in general, an environment where people are forced to engage in civic function results in greater participation.  At the lowest level, or the lowest common denominator across party lines, it was a matter of people being engaged simply because they were isolated from their families.

 Of course Biden might well have won without COVID.  We can’t really know because he was forced to react as well, and there wasn’t a lot of time or conditions to allow him to stake out a more personable profile.  Thanks in large part to the early onset of the pandemic this year, it might well have leveled out the aisles of better candidates like Bernie, and made them less appealing to voters outside of the partisan ranks.

 Nonetheless, it would not have suppressed anyone enough to allow Trump to overcome the stark choice of his own making.  An electorate consumed by pandemic issues and a candidate who made too many relevant mistakes to ignore were enough to make this a choice between Trump and not Trump early enough to make the likely results favorable to his opponent.

I honestly am not following any of this. How are people being forced to engage/vote because they were isolated from their families? Where does that data point come from?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 4:31 PM, naraku360 said:

So the process for picking the candidate is irrelevant?

Sorry, this slipped through the cracks.

To the extent that AOC tweeted out a list or first-term Dem House members to distinguish the progressives who won reelection and the moderates who lost reelection as post-mortem evidence that the moderates could have won their races if only they had been more progressive (without distinguishing who were or weren't in competitive/safe general election districts) - yes, it is irrelevant given that all the candidates were incumbents and had won their initial primaries the year prior.

Which was my initial point before going on a Biden tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I honestly am not following any of this. How are people being forced to engage/vote because they were isolated from their families? Where does that data point come from?

There is no data point.  It's basic logic:  if you have a vested interest in something, you will be more engaged with it than something you do not have a vested interest.  It would be impossible to tabulate data on who would win an election after the election has already happened.  Logically speaking, the sequence of the pandemic lined up in such a way that the corresponding election had to primarily address it.  Trump's failure to handle the pandemic was presented as a factor both throught his open disagreements with infectious disease experts and in the corresponding crash of the markets,. Because the pandemic was a common factor for both the election and Trump's job performance, it stands to reason that the election was in part a referendum of his presidency.  Furthermore, because the pandemic andTrump' handling of it are of the few factors that are relevant to all people in the electorate, it also stands to reason that Trump's handling of the pandemic is a lowest common denominator, and as such, it can be stated that collectively the votes were a referendum on Trump while the individual votes may not have been.  Therefore, the election can be framed as Trump versus Not Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what anyone is talking about any more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best thing to happen all week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

I have no idea what anyone is talking about any more.

It's not just you, Scoobstalinist goes out of his way to be incoherent. 

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2020 at 7:45 PM, Quackers said:

the alt-left is destroying this forum

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

Furthermore, because the pandemic andTrump' handling of it are of the few factors that are relevant to all people in the electorate, it also stands to reason that Trump's handling of the pandemic is a lowest common denominator, and as such, it can be stated that collectively the votes were a referendum on Trump while the individual votes may not have been.  Therefore, the election can be framed as Trump versus Not Trump.

So your theory is that, absent the pandemic, turnout would have been lower and a Sanders-style progressive could have beaten the sitting incumbent on a policy platform rather than on a referendum platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NaBarney said:

It's not just you, Scoobstalinist goes out of his way to be incoherent. 

Why are you like this?

30 minutes ago, Poof said:

U filthy corporate communists

Why are you like this?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

So your theory is that, absent the pandemic, turnout would have been lower and a Sanders-style progressive could have beaten the sitting incumbent on a policy platform rather than on a referendum platform?

Not so much.  I was only making the point that a referendum on Trump muted the ideological variation in his opponents.  However, I think you could argue that without a pandemic, Sanders or another progressive would have performed well enough to win the nomination.  As to whether a progressive could beat Trump, I don't know.  Depressed voter participation favors conservatives, and Trump's base was more resilient than one might reasonably expect.  At the same time, we really don't know how a Democratic electorate led by younger progressive voters would have mobilized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point prior was that given the unprecedented turnout and the close margin where it counts, I think it defeats the truism that higher turnout necessarily benefits the left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Why are you like this?

I show you reality what you remember is the illusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NaBarney said:

I've never cringed harder

I like strong successful men

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Poof said:

I like CIA assets and men who have killed people

I know this, I read your posts 

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NaBarney said:

I know this, I read your posts 

so what if I do?

btw u don't know what asset means

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

My point prior was that given the unprecedented turnout and the close margin where it counts, I think it defeats the truism that higher turnout necessarily benefits the left.

Trump isn't really a normal scenario. His fans aren't ideological unless fragile egos are an ideology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, @Ginguy, is being a crybaby coward unable to take criticism an ideology or is that just a personality quirk shared by everyone in the Trump death cult?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

My point prior was that given the unprecedented turnout and the close margin where it counts, I think it defeats the truism that higher turnout necessarily benefits the left.

I see.  I suppose any "truism" begs for an exception.

Nonetheless, for the same reason that an up or down vote for Trump benefits Democratic candidates that don't necessarily reflect their voters, it also somewhat inflates his supporters.  We typically think of incumbents having an advantage in part because it's more difficult for opposition candidates to get their supporters motivated, but the referendum concept applies for non partisan supporters as well, the choice being a continuation of a known administration versus the unknown of a new administration.  When your incumbent isn't a polarizing louse like Trump, I'm sure it's easier to vote for someone you don't really agree with; even for Trump there are people who will take the poison pill because it's easier to turn a blind eye to his destructive tendencies then to give up the personal benefits they accrued under his administration.

More troubling is a persistent quality of pandemic societies:  the pervasiveness of denial and deniers to the seriousness of a virulent infarction.  The question that begs here is whether or not at least some of Trump's votes came from voters who explicitly believed his dismissal of COVID-19's severity and how many of them converted to his side because it.  There certainly isn't data specific enough to suggest his lies were a primary factor, but we do know many of them were echoed by supporters.  In general, pandemic deniers follow the same basic line of reasoning:  society overreacts when disease comes, people lose sight of the truth (God, gods, the Constitution, etc), ruling elite exploits the overreaction to take power for themselves.  Every pandemic has something like this, and we have the unique situation this time of having one member of the ruling elite using this to attack other members of the ruling elite.

You may well be right that the long held assumption about vote participation is all or partly debunked by this election.  But if the two examples above show anything, it's fear can also look like enthusiasm.

Edited by scoobdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

His data is probably those videos ive seen on fb and ig showing some indeterminate, faceless people at some unspecified date filling in boxes on what appears to be ballots. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

So them requesting to look at evidence of voter fraud is, in your "mind", equivalent to there actually being fraud?

They're doing their job by asking to see the alleged proof. That's how investigations work.

Strange how you apply guilt to so much as having an investigation of something you want to prove, yet can't do the same for the plethora pf FBI investigations into Trump. You're such a grifting hack. Fuck off.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...