|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:According to the other guy, they didn't sound enough like a Nazi . But even if one pretended that no one who voted for Senator Sanders in primary voted for him in general election, and you add his whole vote total into 2016 election, you still have Trump taking majority of the state with another hundred thousands vote to spare. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. West Virginia elected Dems within our lifetimes. Also that's not what the other person was saying at all but you do you, person who has absolutely no stake in American electoral politics and can treat this like a game instead of a struggle to survive
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:You literally have no idea what you're talking about. West Virginia elected Dems within our lifetimes. What is that supposed to mean? In my lifetime there was also collapse of soviet union. And it is unlikely true Brezhnev lackeys will restart power there any time soon. Sounds like you are upset that Senator Sanders would also lose due to overwhelming Republicans voting for Trump? Pretty you talk about other people treating things as a "game" when you seem to think of secret hidden vote units.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Except that we know why they stopped voting for democrats, and it's not because of racism
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Or for that matter what Senator Clinton's campaign was anything like you say. Secretary Clinton, you mean. Not sure why you're acting so authoritative on Secretary Clinton's campaign when you don't even know her title during the campaign but anyhoo Hillary Clinton: better ideas on healthcare will never ever come to pass  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4 https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/758501814945869824 Everything is fine, the system works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
M Condriano posted:You are missing something. Trump's primary message was "Make America Great Again", which is pretty similar to Sanders' whole thing. Compared to the message of Clinton and the Democratic establishment, which is something along the lines of "gently caress you, everything's fine and if you have a problem then you're just an ingrate and a racist, and what're you going to do, vote for Trump?", it's not exactly hard to see why things played out the way they did. These people are hurting and they want someone who says they will help, even if it means he's going to build a stupid racist wall a thousand miles away from them. This is the second time in this thread someone has said "Sanders' win in the WV primary shows that the voters there are chomping at the bit to elect a progressive candidate." While it may be the case that WV voters like progressive policy, exit polling showed that a large portion of Sanders' votes were from "crossover" voters who voted in the contested D primary instead of the R primary where Trump had pretty much wrapped up the nomination. In exit polls (and this is exit polling from the day of the WV primary, not from the GE or whatever), something like 39% of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the GE. So, WV voters may like progressive policy (because everyone likes at least some progressive policy when you aren't asking a poll question designed to skew the poll in the other direction as hard as you can), but they also appear to like Republican politicians, including Joe "Republican for everything but the majority leader vote at the start of a session" Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Sanders attracted a large portion of Republican crossover voters, obviously this is bad. Brought to you by the same people who intone "we must adopt right-wing policy to win Republican crossover voters"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sanders attracted a large portion of Republican crossover voters, obviously this is bad. Poors can go eat dirt and taste how great America is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sanders attracted a large portion of Republican crossover voters, obviously this is bad. Hillary's whole deal was she destined to win since she was going to get all the Republican cross over voters (which was insane if you met even a single actual Republican). Suddenly however all those votes in red states are tainted and dirty because rich, suburban Republicans are the non racist ones. These people can't even keep their own plans straight since it has to shift constantly in order to explain why their supposed ideology never makes any consistent sense. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Radish posted:Hillary's whole deal was she destined to win since she was going to get all the Republican cross over voters (which was insane if you actually met even a single actual Republican). Suddenly however all those votes in red states are tainted and dirty because rich, suburban Republicans are the non racist ones. These people can't even keep their own plans straight since it has to shift constantly in order to explain why their supposed ideology never makes any consistent sense. They, like the republicans, will say whatever they have to in order to safeguard their own financial interests. Luckily for them, about 80% of this country is incredibly overworked as poo poo and doesn't come even close to having the money, time, or mental bandwidth needed to cut through their bullshit. Alternative theory according to 2 terrible nerds in the last day or so worth of posts: The Democratic Party ratfucking and then completely abandoning vast swaths of the nation* actually proves that left politics doesn't work, because the Democratic Party's brand is utter dogshit and doesn't win in those areas anymore. *Anyone who isn't white, college educated, and pulling less than 150k/yr (and also very literally in terms of geography lmao) Marxalot fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Yeah the argument being offered makes zero sense at all. The argument is that some number of people who voted for Sanders preferred Trump to Sanders, and this proves that Sanders is too far to the left for the West Virginia electorate and cannot win. But the more conservative Democratic candidate got destroyed both in the general election and in the primary even among Democrats. She certainly wasn't pulling any of those Sanders-supporting Republicans. Not only is their assertion that Hillary is better at appealing to Republican voters demonstrably empirically false, but the same quality they claim she has they also consider a bad thing when anyone else actually has it. Whatever it is West Virginians like about Republicans, it certainly isn't their economic conservatism because a Democrat adopting Republican economic policies is a suicide move. Just assuming that the electorate agrees with every single policy advanced by the winning political party is absurd in a two-party FPTP system like ours. That argument is only ever advanced by people who agree with Republican economic policy and who want two economically conservative parties with largely identical policies on everything except LGBT rights and abortion, so that the only political debate and choice allowed is on those two issues and those two issues alone. And even the people making this argument know this. The logical conclusion of their argument is that West Virginia Democrats should start a "gently caress teachers" campaign because the Republicans won the election and they're now passing gently caress teachers legislation so clearly that must be what the voters want. And yet that inescapable conclusion of their argument isn't endorsed, those people seem to recognize that this conclusion is so absurd it's a bridge too far even for them. Even they recognize that their own argument is clearly and obviously full of poo poo, they just don't care because it sounds better than "well I want Democrats to be conservative because I'm conservative". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah the argument being offered makes zero sense at all. Let me try to state my actual argument: Maybe we shouldn't give much weight to the democratic primary results from one conservative state when 1) it was an open primary, 2) the other party's primary was meaningless so voters would have little incentive to vote in that primary instead of the democratic one, and 3) exit polling shows a large portion of voters for the winner wouldn't vote for the winner in the GE. (exit polls here). If we use "next President should be less liberal than Obama" as a proxy for "Trump voters who voted in the Dem Primary for the hell of it", then the results look more like a dead heat or a close win for Sanders instead of a Sanders blowout. Maybe WV, and by extension other Republican strongholds, are full of people waiting to shower a progressive candidate with votes, and maybe Sanders was that candidate and the DNC blew it by putting their thumb on the scale for their pre-ordained victor, but I don't think the 2016 Dem primary in WV is great evidence for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Yeah I don't buy the argument, posited by bernie bros itt, that WV voters are down on their hands and knees BEGGING for a communist candidate. Like VitalSigns literally seems to believe that the state is entirely populated by crypto-leftists who are going to all simultaneously rip off their clothes to reveal hidden Che Guevera tattoos the moment Bernie wins the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Yeah I don't buy the argument, posited by bernie bros itt, that WV voters are down on their hands and knees BEGGING for a communist candidate. Like VitalSigns literally seems to believe that the state is entirely populated by crypto-leftists who are going to all simultaneously rip off their clothes to reveal hidden Che Guevera tattoos the moment Bernie wins the nomination? The idea that anyone can be this out of touch with reality that they don't understand that the average person doesn't give a poo poo about "left" or "right" is insane to me. These people don't have a political ideology, they don't spend half their lives on the internet arguing about politics, they pay attention for 6 months every 4 years and vote for the candidate that they think will help them. Sanders and Trump both said they would, Clinton told them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Jethro posted:If we use "next President should be less liberal than Obama" as a proxy for "Trump voters who voted in the Dem Primary for the hell of it", then the results look more like a dead heat or a close win for Sanders instead of a Sanders blowout. (1) this is a bad proxy because asking for voter self-identification of policies as "liberal" or "conservative" tells you what those words mean to voters, and nothing about the policies they support. People in the primary thread love to cite polls of black voters self-identifying as "conservative" but if you poll their support for specific policies instead of just asking "are you liberal or conservative" you find that economically they're to the left of white Democrats and of the Democratic party but that also they have higher levels of religious adherence than white Democrats so they're more conservative on issues like gay rights and abortion. It would be a mistake to assume that just because a West Virginia Democrat says they want a president more conservative than Obama then it means they must want tax cuts for the rich, banking deregulation, and Ryancare. Most of the time people who want Medicare For All along with gays back in the closet will describe themselves as "conservative". This is even backed up by data.  Fiscally conservative voters basically don't exist, outside of the richest 1% and a few dumbshit internet libertarians. A significant chunk of Trump voters are very economically liberal, they're just extremely socially conservative. Hillary Clinton offered them nothing they want (economic conservatism plus a reluctant social liberalism) and Trump offered them half of what they want (social conservatism) while at least being willing to pretend to support the other have of what they want (economic liberalism), so it's not hard to see why 2016 went as it did. From here we can go one of two ways, we can ignore the data, swallow the line from the liberal donor class that we need to move right fiscally (something no voters want at all, but which coincidentally happens to be in the class interests of Democratic Party funders). Or we can look at the empirical data about voter preferences that we have, and try to peel off some of the roughly half of Republican voters who want economic liberalism by offering the inverse of the deal they're getting from Republicans now. (2) even if we ignore the foregoing and assume anyone who says they wish Obama were more  conservative voted for Trump, since the actual WV general election results were a Trump blowout (69-26, a 43-point landslide for Trump), if your interpretation of the primary polling data is that it points to a dead heat or narrow Sanders win in a theoretical Sanders v Trump GE you just proved thatJethro posted:WV, and by extension other Republican strongholds, are full of people waiting to shower a progressive candidate with votes What else would you call a 43+ point jump! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:(1) [snip] quote:(2) even if we ignore the foregoing and assume anyone who says they wish Obama were more  Let me try again, with smaller words this time. Sanders won the 2016 WV Primary 51% to 36%. People like to use this result as evidence in various arguments about how great Sanders is and how much Clinton sucks. However, various factors lead to people voting in the Democratic primary that would never vote for a Democrat in the GE. This probably describes 25-40% of the D primary voters. If we were to remove these voters, I suspect the "true" results of the primary would have been much closer to 50-50, though probably with Sanders still getting a slight edge. I suspect a hypothetical 2016 Trump-Sanders GE in WV would have lead to another large victory by Trump, though probably not as large. As such, I think the 2016 WV Democratic Primary is very weak evidence for anything relating to the palatability of economically progressive candidates in "red" states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnthonyAdragna/status/1138179507716853760 #votebluenomatterwho
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Jethro posted:
Ah ok I misinterpreted you I thought you were trying to extrapolate the primary results to the general election, since that was the argument you were trying to defeat (that Sanders would do better against Trump than Clinton did). I didn't realize you were trying to unskew the WV primary to show that Clinton "really" won because it's better for your narrative if Sanders voters "didn't count" for some reason. lol ok sure buddy, whatever you have to tell yourself I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1138119604243435522
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
Did Nancy Pelosi ask them for assistance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/AnthonyAdragna/status/1138179507716853760 The best part is that shutting down all coal capacity while only halting natural gas expansion by 2030 is already hilariously slow and conservative compared to what's required for even a very optimistic timeline. It's shameful that there's any debate whatsoever about this within the Democratic party, even if it does come from pond scum like Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
lol this country deserves to burn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol this country deserves to burn. No it doesn't we are held in thrall by a vicious aristocratic class manipulating an idiotic political system created by slavers 200 years ago. The deck is stacked pretty heavily against everyone. The Democratic party does need to have it's entire leadership ousted though but that's never happening. https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1138434712094019589?s=19 Democratic primary voters want their own Trump apparently. Also: https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1138454707842818048?s=19 Glad they aren't wasting time impeachng Trump so they can get on with their agenda of doing absolutely nothing. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah ok I misinterpreted you I thought you were trying to extrapolate the primary results to the general election, since that was the argument you were trying to defeat (that Sanders would do better against Trump than Clinton did). In this case, I'm not trying to defeat an argument. I'm trying to show that we have reason to believe this one piece of evidence is unreliable so maybe stop using it to prove anything other than people in WV really loving hated Hillary Clinton. Would Sanders have defeated Trump nationwide in a hypothetical GE? I dunno. The main thing not in his favor is that socialism is still a bit of a four letter word in this country, but then that's getting better, but also I think Sanders' campaign was part of that (so maybe we weren't as ready for progressive economic policy in 2016 as we may be in 2020). As for Sanders pros? He was certainly able to generate enough enthusiasm to have people re-litigating the primary three years later. His outsider status might have peeled off voters who voted for Trump because of his outsider status. People hadn't been conditioned for 25 years to hate him specifically. Finally (and most decisively, I think), there sure as hell wouldn't have been a loving letter from Comey about Sanders' email less than a week before the election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Radish posted:Democratic primary voters want their own Trump apparently. https://twitter.com/randygdub/status/796229362643152896
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Radish posted:No it doesn't we are held in thrall by a vicious aristocratic class manipulating an idiotic political system created by slavers 200 years ago. The deck is stacked pretty heavily against everyone. Well, they now have surveillance & media technology that can keep everyone ignorant about every aspect of reality in ways that make Orwell's 1984 look like some archaic landline poo poo. How do we overthrow Bezos and the Koch bros without violence, sir?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Then I clarify that I'm turning a Sanders blowout into a close Sanders victory, so that must mean I think Clinton actually won? Well the "Clinton actually won" part was a bit of a humorous exaggeration on my part because this is a comedy forum, but essentially yes you've convinced yourself that a blowout loss for her was  a tie if you unskew the election and declare that votes for her opponent don't count.Which okay sure whatever if that's what you need to believe, but also: lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well the "Clinton actually won" part was a bit of a humorous exaggeration on my part because this is a comedy forum quote:, but essentially yes you've convinced yourself that a blowout loss for her was And just to clarify again, I am not saying that economically progressive politicians can't win in 2020 nation wide. I'm not saying that there is no desire for progressive policy in "Trump country". I'm saying that this one data point isn't good evidence of anything. E: not sure why I've got a bug up my rear end on this teeny issue, but I guess everyone has weird foibles Jethro fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol this country deserves to burn. It's worse than you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGh1Su7-ok Abby Martin interviews a political sociology professor at Sonoma State about his book concerning what the transnational billionaire class is doing. Just 17 investment firms control $50 trillion worth of wealth. But don't worry, Joe Biden is going to stand up to these people! Alyssa Milano says policy doesn't matter - only defeating Trump matters! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Yes, I am the deluded one for thinking when 15-30% of the voters say "my vote doesn't count", I should believe them. correct First of all, one exit poll doesn't invalidate the actual results of the election. Even if that 15-30% figure is accurate and not one of the many lovely 2016 polls (polls in other primaries missed by 20 points it was unreal), and that it's representative of all the Democrats and Independents who didn't vote in the primaries but would vote in the general, and even if we could be certain that none of them would change their minds, that still doesn't prove that those people didn't actually prefer Bernie to Clinton. Voting in the presidential primary of the party you don't intend to vote for (either because your own party's primary was effectively over as the GOP's was because Trump already had it in the bag, or because you intend to vote Democrat downballot like many in WV still do) and picking the candidate you'd rather see win if yours loses is a thing. Bernie and Trump ran on "I will help you", Clinton ran on "better things aren't possible, but how about another Middle East War and also let's put you out of work". It is not at all surprising that who liked/believed Trump the most still preferred the Democrat who promised to help them to the Democrat who suggested they code themselves some bootstraps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Look we have to vote blue because Trump is such a disaster we can't even count on allies to believe us when we want to go blow up a mid east country anymore. https://twitter.com/zacharybasu/status/1140284514503147521?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
So do any of you mouth breathers in the "vote blue no matter who" crowd have the chutzpah to step up and defend this? Or are you finally ready to acknowledge that the present Democratic Leadership are a bunch of useless idiots who do not deserve any support from any political constituency? https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1141494728048959488?s=19 Literally demanding a black man apologize for criticizing segregation. These are the people and the attitudes that the "vote blue no matter who" crowd constantly demands that minorities must support. The "vote blue no matter who" crowd is a bunch of overfed chumps who, despite being given a very fine education, understand absolutely nothing about the world. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
I don’t support Biden and I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (I support Warren). But if he’s the nominee you’d have to be pretty stupid not to vote for him. When you’re going to get one of two choices, and one choice is clearly much better than the other, whining about how you really want a third, impossible choice isn’t very smart. Also, that’s the second or third time I’ve noticed you whine about other people’s educations PJ. Feeling insecure about your own personal accomplishments?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t support Biden and I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (I support Warren). But if he’s the nominee you’d have to be pretty stupid not to vote for him. When you’re going to get one of two choices
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't know about you, but my ballot in 2016 had 10 choices for President on it, not 2. You are mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You are mistaken. edit: Like if we're engaging with reality and my options are: 1) Run up the score for a horrible racist with no actual effect on the election 2) Vote for an even more horrible racist who will definitely not win my state with no actual effect on the election 3) Vote for a person who actually reflects my values with no actual effect on the election I need a real strong argument why I should prioritize 1 over 3 given we both agree that realistically choosing 1 will never change anything. twodot fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:
 Please explain why minorities should vote for someone who will happily enable white supremacy. Can you in good conscience tell minorities that they should support the fascism enabler over the open fascist? Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jun 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Please explain why minorities should vote for someone who will happily enable white supremacy. Can you in good conscience tell minorities that they should support the fascism enabler over the open fascist? Please elaborate on this "minorities shouldn't vote" plan you have here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:
He’ll be racist in a nice way. Ditto wrt to him being sexist
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t support Biden and I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (I support Warren). But if he’s the nominee you’d have to be pretty stupid not to vote for him. When you’re going to get one of two choices, and one choice is clearly much better than the other, I'm going to stop you right there, Joe Biden is Donald Trump (D) E: and I voted for a child-bombing psycho in 2016 because Trump somehow still managed to be worse than her
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t support Biden and I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (I support Warren). But if he’s the nominee you’d have to be pretty stupid not to vote for him. When you’re going to get one of two choices, and one choice is clearly much better than the other, whining about how you really want a third, impossible choice isn’t very smart. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:remember. vote for Democrats, to preserve abortion rights. so insolent, these upstarts, eh, ogmius. can't they understand that their rights are the sacrifice we must pay, for you to feel good about the president again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 19:02
|
|