|
EdithUpwards posted:"You can't know their hearts" is the last resort of scumbags, and gently caress you for willfully confusing cynical pandering with sincere conversion to polish that well-worn tool. It is not your place to seek or offer forgiveness for another. What I meant by that is I don't know whether Tulsi's flip on gay marriage was sincere conversion or cynical pandering (we know Clinton's and Obama's was the latter because they claim they always believed gay people were equal, it just "wasn't the right time" for their careers to treat us as such). If you believe Tulsi was pandering too then fine, that makes her Just As Bad as every Democrat on gay rights, and trying to draw ad hoc litmus tests like "ok you can sell out gays in 2010 it's fine no biggie but if you take five minutes longer to stop then you're unforgivable" is pretty silly.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The peel-off percentage itself isn't what you want to look at; you want to look at the peel-off percentage relative to a "normal" peel-off percentage if you want to get some idea how he'd perform relative to past candidates. As far as I know, Sanders' peel-off percent was basically just normal, so there's no reason to really try that as a loss or gain. Sorry, what I meant was, how many Clinton primary voters in 2008 ended up voting for McCain, on the assumption that’s about how many 2020 primary voters would bail if Bernie won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Sorry, what I meant was, how many Clinton primary voters in 2008 ended up voting for McCain, on the assumption that’s about how many 2020 primary voters would bail if Bernie won. It was 25% lol. Which ultimately shouldn't be surprising, especially when you know the path hillaryis44 ended up taking. It's gotten memory-holed hard, but Clinton ran an astoundingly toxic and racist primary campaign in 2008. It should be no surprise that a chunk of her voters had a viscerally negative reaction to the idea of voting a) her opponent and b)her black opponent after all was said and done. That she did a paltry amount of campaigning for him after the fact also contributed to those folks not coming back in. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It was 25% lol that was the lowball estimate
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It was 25% lol http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/ Exit polling also showed that Democrats who supported Sen. Hillary Clinton during the primaries overwhelming voted for Obama in the general election, 84 percent to 15 percent for McCain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
For comparison, ~12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump, and ~75% voted for Hillary, so there was a bit more defection in 2016 than in 2008, but not a whole lot. In both cases though, a lot of their support was from ancestral white dems in places in places like Appalachia and the South, and those people were just never going to vote for a Dem at the presidential level, so who knows how concerning it is. https://twitter.com/b_schaffner/status/900377120202829824
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:For comparison, ~12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump, and ~75% voted for Hillary, so there was a bit more defection in 2016 than in 2008, but not a whole lot. Do you happen to have found the numbers of Bernie primary voters who would have voted for Trump in a Bernie vs Trump general election?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It was 25% lol. Well, let's assume that it was 25%. According to Wikipedia, Hillary Clinton won roughly 17.8 million votes in the primary. 25% of that is 4.45 million, while Wikipedia states that Obama got 69.4 (nice) million votes in 2008 in the general and McCain got 59.9 million for a total of 129.3 million. In 2016, Hillary got 65.8 million votes and Trump got 62.9 million votes, for a total of 128.7 million. So if we assume in 2020 that Bernie is the nominee, and that roughly 5 million pro-establishment/anti-Bernie voters decide to vote Trump, that's still fairly negligible imo, at least depending on where those 5 million are. I think it's reasonable to assume that a lot of them will live in safe blue states, such as in New England, as well, since that is where wealthy white pro-establishment liberals tend to live. Edit: please someone let me know if I'm a dumbass and can't do basic math.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
karthun posted:Do you happen to have found the numbers of Bernie primary voters who would have voted for Trump in a Bernie vs Trump general election? This particular survey didn't ask it, no. West Virginia's primary exit poll did, though, and there, about 35% of Bernie's primary voters said they would have voted Trump in a Bernie/Trump general, in a semi-closed primary where registered Ds could only vote on the D side, which gives a sense of the scale of how much of Bernie's support in states like WV, KY, OK, and the parts of the white south he won would have stuck around. Obviously, in other parts of the country, that number was probably single digits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
this might be premature considering he hasn't even won FL-Gov yet, but Andrew Gillum might be a good 2020 candidate who could appeal to both mainstream/Hillary types and the Bernie wing ETA:  remember how Hillary was supposed to be better with appealing to black voters? welp, SousaphoneColossus fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:this might be premature considering he hasn't even won FL-Gov yet, but Andrew Gillum might be a good 2020 candidate who could appeal to both mainstream/Hillary types and the Bernie wing i mean, if mayoral experience is sufficient (and make no mistake Gillum would have to start campaigning for president basically forty seconds after being sworn in as governor), I Like Butt 2020 is also an option i'd toss Gillum on the 2028 pile though
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
karthun posted:Exit polling also showed that Democrats who supported Sen. Hillary Clinton during the primaries overwhelming voted for Obama in the general election, 84 percent to 15 percent for McCain. according to the duke study that's the source of the 25% clinton-mccain crossover stat, the exit poll survey just asked who a self-identified democrat supported and not whether they actually voted in the primary 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:ETA:
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:this might be premature considering he hasn't even won FL-Gov yet, but Andrew Gillum might be a good 2020 candidate who could appeal to both mainstream/Hillary types and the Bernie wing Gillum is already starting to give worryful hints of selling out. Such as showing strong signs walking back on Medicare for All.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Gillum is already starting to give worryful hints of selling out. Such as showing strong signs walking back on Medicare for All. Not necessarily doubting you but do you have a source for this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Gillum-related, dumb poo poo like this certainly doesn't inspire any confidence https://twitter.com/AndrewGillum/status/1053754177283936256
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:This chart says a lot more about Obama's appeal to black voters than it says anything at all about Hillary's. One of her key selling points was that she'd be able to turn out the minority vote to a degree that no one else could, though. During the primaries, the refrain from her supporters here was that only she could turn out Obama's "Coalition of the Ascendant." No one else could. The fact that she was unable to do so, even taking things like voter suppression into account, seems like a failure to perform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Not necessarily doubting you but do you have a source for this? This was talked about in the state/local thread last month, from what I remember he hasn't changed his position at all and the debate is tonight anyways so expect to hear something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Gillum-related, dumb poo poo like this certainly doesn't inspire any confidence Under my leadership the vampires who are currenyly draining *all* of their victim's blood will only be allowed to drain 80%. In exchange garlic and wooden stakes will be banned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Gillum-related, dumb poo poo like this certainly doesn't inspire any confidence I read it as "I want to raise taxes by a billion dollars which is peanuts compared to what they just got from the fedgov"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I read it as "I want to raise taxes by a billion dollars which is peanuts compared to what they just got from the fedgov" That's probably what he meant, but it's a really bad way of framing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
It's a hilariously bad way of framing it. It comes off as begging for scraps so as not to offend the wealthy. And that's the most optimistic reading of it I'm willing to give.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's probably what he meant, but it's a really bad way of framing it. Not to mention it would be easier to sell if he didn't seemingly express wanting/expecting that extra $1 billion to only come from the top 3% of corporations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It's a hilariously bad way of framing it. It comes off as begging for scraps so as not to offend the wealthy. And that's the most optimistic reading of it I'm willing to give. Girbot posted:Not to mention it would be easier to sell if he didn't seemingly express wanting/expecting that extra $1 billion to only come from the top 3% of corporations. Exactly. It's so perfectly emblematic of the faulty mindset of the Democratic leadership: "don't risk offending or spooking the ultra-mega-rich. Their antipathy outweighs any enthusiasm we could stoke by attacking them."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:One of her key selling points was that she'd be able to turn out the minority vote to a degree that no one else could, though. During the primaries, the refrain from her supporters here was that only she could turn out Obama's "Coalition of the Ascendant." No one else could. the thing is they never intended to. they allocated resources in paid media and gotv in places like los angeles and chicago out of fear that a narrow popular vote margin would deny her a mandate, while assuming they could coast by with narrow margins in the rust belt with minimal direct interaction it's astonishingly stupid
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There is no rational reason to think this, and if anything there are reasons to assume the opposite (like Sanders having a better showing with "independents" than other Democrats). The vast majority of available polls show Sanders as considerably more popular than all other options except Biden, and I'd hope that you'd agree that Biden is ideologically repulsive. Guy Goodbody posted:The "socialism baggage" isn't real. Medicare for all has majority support among Republicans. When it actually comes to the general elections, when the debates happen, Sanders will be up there advocating for policies that people want because they would materially benefit them. The only real question is if that's enough to overcome voter disenfranchisement. Which is the thing every Democrat would face anyway What i mean by "Socialism Baggage" is the fact that Sanders has referred to himself in the past as a Democratic Socialist. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-a8425416.html I think the "s-word" has been poisoned beyond most Americans' capacity for reasonable, nuanced thinking and it has in turn put a certain perception on all of the policies that Sanders has proposed and what suburban voters think of him and how badly he can be smeared. I'm burnt out on Biden. I'm basically burnt out on anyone who's a baby boomer. Bring on the primaries. Let's see who the hell can win in a big dogfight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I think the "s-word" has been poisoned beyond most Americans' capacity for reasonable, nuanced thinking and it has in turn put a certain perception on all of the policies that Sanders has proposed and what suburban voters think of him and how badly he can be smeared. I think you're letting your opinions be driven by the rabid anti-Bernie crowd on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Everybody already knows bernie is a socialist and also everyone loves bernie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I think the "s-word" has been poisoned beyond most Americans' capacity for reasonable, nuanced thinking and it has in turn put a certain perception on all of the policies that Sanders has proposed and what suburban voters think of him and how badly he can be smeared. I don't think this matters nearly as much in 2018 as it might've in say, 2004. Hell, Republicans spent 8 years howling about how Obama was a Muslim communist coming to rape our wives and he still blew them out of the water. People like AOC have demonstrated that what voters respond to is conviction and authenticity and Bernie has both of those things in spades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:What i mean by "Socialism Baggage" is the fact that Sanders has referred to himself in the past as a Democratic Socialist. He's the most popular politician in America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He's the most popular politician in America. (It actually freaks me the gently caress out because when I checked the closest to the '3 year out' mark polling for Sanders he was 61-32)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
I hope he stays the most popular politician in America once he declares his candidacy again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:(It actually freaks me the gently caress out because when I checked the closest to the '3 year out' mark polling for Sanders he was 61-32) I vote we pick the one who emerged from a primary more popular after people got to know them, not less
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
While I would love President Bernie, he won't be able to get much done with the current fickle Democratic Party. The Left needs to gain more ground. He'd effectively be at least eight years too early.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:While I would love President Bernie, he won't be able to get much done with the current fickle Democratic Party. Hed effectively be at least eight years too early. A hypothetical President Bernie would have a lot of power to drag the party in his chosen direction and reshape it from above, in much the same way that Corbyn has been (trying to). I don't know how successful he would be or what his priorities are, but there is merit to the idea even if it isn't sufficient on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:While I would love President Bernie, he won't be able to get much done with the current fickle Democratic Party. The Left needs to gain more ground. He'd effectively be at least eight years too early.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:While I would love President Bernie, he won't be able to get much done with the current fickle Democratic Party. The Left needs to gain more ground. He'd effectively be at least eight years too early. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one old man giving the same speech 1,460 times
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think this matters nearly as much in 2018 as it might've in say, 2004. Hell, Republicans spent 8 years howling about how Obama was a Muslim communist coming to rape our wives and he still blew them out of the water. This, plus let’s not forget who’s president. “Trump” was a by-word for “the literal worst trust fund fancylad in all of America” from the 80’s until...I dunno, 2004? 2012? “The Apprentice” helped wipe the slate clean for him, because this is Hellworld, but the point stands: these labels as pejoratives don’t necessarily have the staying power that we may assume they do. Particularly when the candidate in question leans into that label. The evidence that we have on-hand suggests that most people in the US don’t really care if Bernie is a socialist. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:50 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:
Pinterest Mom posted:People, by a 47-42 margin, even thought that they'd be able to keep their current health insurance plan under medicare for all! My favorite topic appears in the thread I posted? Glorious. As you've shown with the deeper Kaiser work, there's a case to be made that MFA polling shows strong bipartisan support for UHC/Healthcare as a Human Right as opposed to bipartisan support for the extant single payer plan of the same name. In even the most aggressive plans and timelines put forward, there will be both a midterm and a presidential election waged after passage of MFA but before the bulk of people have transitioned off of private coverage. The single biggest liability of MFA is if it survives those election cycles, as many of the funding mechanisms will have come into effect but the bulk of the currently-insured population will still be on the employer sponsored plans that a wide majority rate favorably (including, with narrower majorities, their costs), especially given that those two elections will be literally existential for insurance companies and the other parasites that have attached themselves to our current system. Part of that is managing what Zaid/Bruenig have coined as "switching pain", which remains underdiscussed. So as to not be accused of cherrypicking: The single biggest liability for a multipayer UHC is creating a public plan that is equivalently robust, well funded, and protected to such an extent that future GOP administrations and congresses can't kneecap it. This is made more challenging by the fact that insurance companies and the other parasites will continue to exist but have their profits and margins carved into by the government-which capitalism teaches us is the most cruel and intolerable of fates. Groovelord Neato posted:those questions leave out half the equation. it's more "would you support it if it meant your taxes increased but you paid half as much as you do under your current plan?" Single payer as an electoral asset would be a new phenomenon domestically, in the face of California's Senate failing to secure the required votes for even their Potemkin legislation, the resounding defeat in Colorado during an otherwise blue election, and the aforementioned struggles of GMC. I'm hopeful that the support for MFA (and Sanders) is as strong as the toplines make them out to be and that the electoral landscape has shifted since their last ballot appearances. Though you and PM are correct that running on UHC would be the right thing to do even in the absence of polling numbers. Frightening Knight posted:People like AOC have demonstrated that what voters respond to is conviction and authenticity and Bernie has both of those things in spades. One of the interesting questions out of 2018 is which elements of progressive success/failures can be applied to 2020 and which are the results of local factors or tactical successes that can't be replicated nationally. AOC cruised to victory in a district that Hillary won handily during the primaries. Which of the plethora of theories is (most) correct about why will be an important factor. Same with why D'Alessandro faltered in Iowa, Kucinich in Ohio, and why Beto, Abrams, and Gillum (how about that first name poo poo last night?) appear set to overperform and possibly win in races that were expected to go healthily Red. For instance, Beto's extensive travel and small-venue statewide work is impossible to scale up, whereas Abrams' turnout machine (especially if the black/blue coalition materializes on election day) could be applied in both March and November.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 13:07
|
|