|
NewForumSoftware posted:Hmm, let's take a look at another chart Clearly Bernie's black and red lines would have switched places once voters found out he might have once said something nice about fidel castro or something thanks to GOP Oppo research. Remember when Jeremiah Wright prevented Obama from being president?
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I was not making claims about the causes of Clinton's loss. I was explaining why the head to head matchups in may were painting a misleadingly rosy picture of Sanders' performance against trump. Why is it misleading? You think picking the candidate with the highest approval rating during the primary has no impact on their approval rating post-primary? Does approval rating just mean nothing to you? Considering how and why Hillary lost, does it really make sense to pretend like the GOP attacking him for being a socialist would have gotten anywhere considering the people voting for him weren't Republicans, unlike Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I was not making claims about the causes of Clinton's loss. I was explaining why the head to head matchups in may were painting a misleadingly rosy picture of Sanders' performance against trump. It's almost like they aren't arguing with you in good faith because they see you as a hillary supporter and thus "the problem".
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
"We simply had no one that could beat Donald Trump based on our primary process" -a competent political party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't help; it's irrelevant to the point I made. Hillary's favorability was already depressed due to years of republican attacks-- more attacks during the campaign didn't do much. Bernie, conversely, represented virgin pastures for republican oppo dudes. Thus, comparing the two VS trump in may, when only Clinton had gotten the GOP oppo treatment, is either useless or actively misleading. What Republican opposition research? Do you mean that thing Eichenwald put up on Twitter? Clinton was told, more than once, and not just by Sanders, that she her credibility was beyond repair and she should therefore drop out of the race. The fact she didn't and the fact her and her supporters believed this was actually her strength, and not her weakness, is just purified and condensed hubris. A lot of thing could have happened if Bernie was tapped. I don't like to think of it in terms of what the Republicans could magically conjure in less than six months such that his credibility was as damaged as Clinton was by the time November came around. Even if he didn't get elected, he wouldn't have forced everyone running the House and Senate to board the Titanic with him. This needs to be posted yet again. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Bernie had people loving lit, much like Trump fired up his own supporters. And guess how people who are super motivated about their candidate react when somebody tries to tell them that this figure they've invested so much into is actually bad? EDIT: It's like some people here are super invested in not getting the political psychology of the US voter. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Did oppo hurt Hillary or not? Argue with NFS. Hillary Clinton is a historically unpopular candidate, but everything's out in the open already (apparently, not really), lets run her instead of the really popular guy because there MIGHT be something in his past that tanks him... seems like a really bad argument to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:A lot of thing could have happened if Bernie was tapped Eew
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner?Cerebral Bore posted:Bernie had people loving lit, much like Trump fired up his own supporters. And guess how people who are super motivated about their candidate react when somebody tries to tell them that this figure they've invested so much into is actually bad? Except Trump's voters actually voted for him, instead of deciding to show up late to caucuses to get that last bowl in and then started throwing chairs and c-words.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner? Because his team didn't ignore states they knew they had to win and instead opt for trying to play weird mind games with their opponents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner? She won due to institutional inertia, not good campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:She won due to institutional inertia, not good campaigning. That and the millions upon millions of minority voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
zegermans posted:That and the millions upon millions of minority voters. Notably in states she had no chance of winning in the general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner? Because the voter in the rustbelt who looks at Hillary Clinton in disgust and stays home or crosses over to Donald Trump might have a reason to vote for Bernie Sanders instead. Oh no, Bernie might lose some white collar votes in blue states, what ever will we do now that he can't run up the score like Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Bernie had people loving lit, much like Trump fired up his own supporters. And guess how people who are super motivated about their candidate react when somebody tries to tell them that this figure they've invested so much into is actually bad? The political psychology of the US voter isn't a scientifically significant predictor of voting turnout. - Robbie Mook
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner? The Democrats and the people who voted for her in the primary, along with the superdelegates themselves, were an echo chamber of wrong who in no way reflected the reality of the electoral map they were going to face in November. That's the first thing that needs to change for the DNC going forward. Clinton also spent the entire latter half of the 00s and the early 10s gearing up for POTUS in one form or another, and by 2012, while already making open overtures about her next run for office, was making doubly sure that no one would dare oppose her, as Obama did, when she ran again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Notably in states she had no chance of winning in the general. This is not really a great line of reasoning, likelihood to elect democratic candidates is already taken into consideration when they allocate party delegates to the states
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Notably in states she had no chance of winning in the general. So their votes don't count? You realize they're stuck in those states because, even 150 years later, the lasting effects of slavery, right? Maybe we should just have the primary consist of voters in the rust belt with evergreen-shaped family trees, so we can finally get a winning candidate again. Also maybe include posters of a dead comedy forum. It seems we're concentration on a very specific subset of voters that cost us the election this time, while ignoring that other types of voters exist - and that an overreaction towards billy ray cletus may end up alienating them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
rscott posted:This is not really a great line of reasoning, likelihood to elect democratic candidates is already taken into consideration when they allocate party delegates to the states So that's why I kept hearing it was over at the end of Super Tuesday The problem is that the South leads to a gateway for a substantive lead very early on in the race zegermans posted:So their votes don't count? You realize they're stuck in those states because, even 150 years later, the last effects of slavery, right? Maybe we should just have the primary consist of voters in the rust belt with evergreen-shaped family trees, so we can finally get a winning candidate again. Also maybe include posters of a dead comedy forum. With that kind of voter turnout during the primary, it did not reflect reality- not the reality where a wave of black people showed up to shove Clinton in office nor the one where white people held all the cards. It's bad enough that the Democrats have to draw from an increasingly smaller and smaller pool of talent such that their primary campaign starts with maybe four people and quickly becomes two. Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Because his team didn't ignore states they knew they had to win and instead opt for trying to play weird mind games with their opponents. Bernie exactly lost because he ignored a bunch of states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Let's not forget that in her Hubris Hiliary encouraged Donald to loving run thinking it would be a lap to victory. Guess that loving bit her in the rear end now didn't it. Christ I know more than one Trump voting Republican that admitted to me they would rather have voted for Sander, IF Trump wasn't the nominee. Do I Believe him, meh I wouldn't put money on. But Bernie did appeal to non democratic voters in all the caucus and open primary states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Square this circle: Clinton was a horrible campaigner and candidate who didn't know poo poo about poo poo. She also beat Sanders handily. How does this imply Sanders would be a better campaigner?  The Bernie bro myth rides on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
zegermans posted:So their votes don't count? You realize they're stuck in those states because, even 150 years later, the lasting effects of slavery, right? Maybe we should just have the primary consist of voters in the rust belt with evergreen-shaped family trees, so we can finally get a winning candidate again. Also maybe include posters of a dead comedy forum. Honestly an open primary would probably do the trick too
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
The whole "b-but she won the primary" argument is horseshit argument anyway since the primary electorate is a self-selecting part of likely Democratic voters, and therefore a lousy predictor of how a candidate will fare in the General Election. Hell, Obama got fewer votes in total in the 2008 primary, and he went on to win by a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:
Is this a serious comment in this very thread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The Democrats and the people who voted for her in the primary, along with the superdelegates themselves, were an echo chamber of wrong who in no way reflected the reality of the electoral map they were going to face in November. That's the first thing that needs to change for the DNC going forward. Yeah there's this narrative trying to be created where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went into the primary on totally equal footing and the better candidate emerged so thus no one could have beaten Trump. In reality Clinton has been spending a decade (and probably longer) gearing up for a presidential run and using her political capitol (ugh) in order to make sure she was running basically unopposed in the primary. The fact that the Democratic primary coalesced into her versus someone that wasn't even a Democrat who threw together his campaign in the last minute and the screeching about how that was ruining her chances when he became even somewhat of a threat shows that the plan was she would be running effectively unopposed. Sanders wasn't supposed to be a contender but her candidacy was so weak that he became one and that should have been a huge wake up call that was basically ignored because they chose to interpret her primary win as actual popularity and not institutional inertia (which is not the same as Sanders being screwed before someone wants to claim that is what I am saying).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
I don't have any idea if Republican oppo would have caused Bernie to lose, and neither do you, because we haven't observed it. It's a giant unknown. That giant unknown is one of the reasons to be suspect of May head to head polls. Comparisons with Clinton at that point are inherently flawed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Bernie exactly lost because he ignored a bunch of states. So how many angry phonecalls did the Bernie people make to their field operatives, chewing them out for trying to campaign in a state that was to be ignored?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That giant unknown is one of the reasons to be suspect of May head to head polls. Comparisons with Clinton at that point are inherently flawed. I think it's fair to say nothing is certain, but given Hillary's performance do you not think it's likely that Bernie would have done better? I mean, that's really what the conversation here is. No data is perfect and polling is the best we have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any idea if Republican oppo would have caused Bernie to lose, and neither do you, because we haven't observed it. It's a giant unknown. That giant unknown is one of the reasons to be suspect of May head to head polls. Comparisons with Clinton at that point are inherently flawed. Then, since Trump was also a huge unknown, let's ignore the polling for a moment and paint a route to victory in our heads on how Bernie could have won. We can't just look at the numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah there's this narrative trying to be created where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went into the primary on totally equal footing and the better candidate emerged so thus no one could have beaten Trump. In reality Clinton has been spending a decade (and probably longer) gearing up for a presidential run and using her political capitol (ugh) in order to make sure she was running basically unopposed in the primary. The fact that the Democratic primary coalesced into her versus someone that wasn't even a Democrat who threw together his campaign in the last minute and the screeching about how that was ruining her chances when he became even somewhat of a threat shows that the plan was she would be running effectively unopposed. Sanders wasn't supposed to be a contender but her candidacy was so weak that he became one and that should have been a huge wake up call that was basically ignored because they chose to interpret her primary win as actual popularity and not institutional inertia (which is not the same as Sanders being screwed before someone wants to claim that is what I am saying). But she won, and she could have won the whole thing but mistakes were made. Focusing on the primary is pretty fruitless except for the "don't vote for clinton in the primary next time" and believe me, we get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Because his team didn't ignore states they knew they had to win
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah there's this narrative trying to be created where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders went into the primary on totally equal footing and the better candidate emerged so thus no one could have beaten Trump. In reality Clinton has been spending a decade (and probably longer) gearing up for a presidential run and using her political capitol (ugh) in order to make sure she was running basically unopposed in the primary. The fact that the Democratic primary coalesced into her versus someone that wasn't even a Democrat who threw together his campaign in the last minute and the screeching about how that was ruining her chances when he became even somewhat of a threat shows that the plan was she would be running effectively unopposed. Sanders wasn't supposed to be a contender but her candidacy was so weak that he became one and that should have been a huge wake up call that was basically ignored because they chose to interpret her primary win as actual popularity and not institutional inertia (which is not the same as Sanders being screwed before someone wants to claim that is what I am saying). Sanders' insistence on staying in the primary for months due to his FBI fever dream didn't make him a serious challenger, it just made him delusional. His deficit was insurmountable past Super Tuesday, no matter how much Fox News concern trolled about "why can't she put him away?!" Also I'm not seeing how "She planned ahead of time" is somehow a negative. Lord Hydronium posted:That's actually literally what they did in the South. Yes but he was ignoring the correct voters to ignore, not the white people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any idea if Republican oppo would have caused Bernie to lose, and neither do you, because we haven't observed it. It's a giant unknown. That giant unknown is one of the reasons to be suspect of May head to head polls. Comparisons with Clinton at that point are inherently flawed. More or less flawed than the logic the Clinton campaign ran on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Notably in states she had no chance of winning in the general. If Bernie had come into the race a year earlier and worked harder at courting minorities, it would be probably be a different story as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Except Trump's voters actually voted for him, instead of deciding to show up late to caucuses to get that last bowl in and then started throwing chairs and c-words. Bip Roberts posted:Is this a serious comment in this very thread? lol you people got played http://www.snopes.com/did-sanders-supporters-throw-chairs-at-nevada-democratic-convention/
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But she won, and she could have won the whole thing but mistakes were made. Focusing on the primary is pretty fruitless except for the "don't vote for clinton in the primary next time" and believe me, we get it. Focusing the primary is extremely important because it is really telling on what precisely is wrong with the party. Whatever result is conjured by the winner in the primary better drat well reflect what will happen in November.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:lol you people got played Sorry, lifted a chair in anger, but did not throw. They still called a sitting senator the c-word until she left the building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:If Bernie had come into the race a year earlier and worked harder at courting minorities, it would be probably be a different story as well. Oh yeah, he would have easily won. Or if the Hillary had a brain and dropped out because the writing was on the wall from the moment she entered the race that she'd never be able to leave her past behind. All the "but minorities voted for Clinton!" is just meaningless drivel meant to divide the left on the race plank. zegermans posted:They still called a sitting senator the c-word until she left the building. Oh god won't someone think of poor Barbara Boxer's feelings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
zegermans posted:Sorry, lifted a chair in anger, but did not throw. Now, now, the appropriate title for her is loser
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:23
|
|