|
Inferior Third Season posted:The Republicans are very likely to retain the Senate, even if Biden can manage to squeek out a win. I mean an empty seat till 2024 is preferable to whoever Trump will nominate.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Doctor Teeth posted:Curious how "I'm not voting for Trump" never seems to mean a vote for [Biden/Hillary/John Kerry]! That is absolutely a thing in conservative circles. National Review literally had to fire an editor and redo the magazine's official editorial stance because they got so much pressure for saying that not voting for Trump wasn't supporting Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:As noted, the aggravating factor here is that BERNIE HAD THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. He also had senior advisers advocating for learning from the lessons of 2016 and killing Biden off. Instead, he leaned on the advice of Faiz and Weaver and gave Biden South Carolina and the nomination. I think you're overstating how clear the lessons of 2016 were at the time. At no point in modern history has a presidential candidate gotten absolutely demolished in the first three states to vote, and then turned things around to become the nominee. While Bernie could have and probably should have campaigned more in South Carolina to keep the score closer, there was really no way anybody could have known that that primary would be the point where Obama and the other Democratic leaders put their collective finger on the scale and dubbed Biden the only centrist candidate allowed to continue. Moreover, as The Sean pointed out, hindsight also told us that Joe Biden couldn't win a primary to save his life. Obviously, I'm not saying that this justified anyone counting Biden out before SC; I, for one, consistently said that I thought the primary would come down to Biden vs. Bernie and it was always going to be a tough fight. But it's not really fair to say that Bernie's team should have known things would play out exactly as they did. Everyone knew Biden winning SC would breathe new life into his campaign; nobody in the progressive movement, IMO, can be blamed for not foreseeing that it would clinch the nomination for Biden instantly. (unless they had a mole in the DNC feeding that info to them, in which case, yeah they should've known. But I don't think they did) quote:Donut Twitter is rightly mocked for trying to use voter suppression and Russia as excuses for Hillary losing an election where she won the popular vote because she made obvious and foreseeable errors in MI and WI. That's because she and her advisors knew that the Rust Belt states were critical to her chances, and still chose to neglect them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, but that doesn't really answer the question. I literally said "delegates are not a direct measure of what voters want." Do you disagree or not? If you disagree, please define what "delegate" means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think you're overstating how clear the lessons of 2016 were at the time. At no point in modern history has a presidential candidate gotten absolutely demolished in the first three states to vote, and then turned things around to become the nominee. Clinton got 2% of the vote in Iowa, lost all 4 of the first contests, and lost every state except for one on Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Clinton got 2% of the vote in Iowa, lost all 4 of the first contests, and lost every state except for two on Super Tuesday. Yes but the race was a completely different dynamic. I don't think the comparison is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yes but the race was a completely different dynamic. I don't think the comparison is helpful. It was a somewhat different dynamic, but not completely non-comparable. And saying: quote:At no point in modern history has a presidential candidate gotten absolutely demolished in the first three states to vote, and then turned things around to become the nominee. is just not true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"ah, yes, we should give the will to the people, but what happens *gasp* when someone has to make the decision? I know we act like the proles can make decisions on their own but when it really matters what will happen? should we let the proles choose? NO! We must only give them the illusion of choice. They should either vote for the lovely center-right candidate or nothing. As long as we are sliding to the right that its all that matters. We have already chosen what is best for them. They can choose OUR CHOICE or nothing. If they don't vote OUR CHOICE they are voting against their own interests. Why? BECAUSE WE SAID SO! That's why." What the gently caress even is this? How the gently caress does any of this come from anything I said? What drugs are you on? None of the good ones, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It was a somewhat different dynamic, but not completely non-comparable. It was the combination of Biden's horrible performance in the first three states and the establishment coordinated dropping out to defeat a populist candidate that was unique.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's because she and her advisors knew that the Rust Belt states were critical to her chances, and still chose to neglect them. And you think that there is no similarity...?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Clinton got 2% of the vote in Iowa, lost all 4 of the first contests, and lost every state except for one on Super Tuesday. I said "absolutely demolished." Clinton came in second in NH, and was the only other candidate besides Tsongas to break 20%. Biden came in 4th in Iowa and 5th in NH.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:And you think that there is no similarity...? I do, because Sanders' campaign didn't know that South Carolina was a make-or-break state. Some of his staffers realized it was important more than others, but there's no evidence that anyone was saying, "We need to win this or we will lose."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I said "absolutely demolished." Clinton came in second in NH, and was the only other candidate besides Tsongas to break 20%. Biden came in 4th in Iowa and 5th in NH. Clinton lost every single race prior to Super Tuesday by double digits, got 2% in Iowa, and then lost every single state on Super Tuesday except for one. That is far worse Biden's 4th in Iowa, 2nd in Nevada, 1st in SC, and nearly sweeping Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
I'm still waiting on how 1988, 1992, and 2004 are like 2020 where the winner of Iowa and second place in NH drops out before Super Tuesday
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I do, because Sanders' campaign didn't know that South Carolina was a make-or-break state. Some of his staffers realized it was important more than others, but there's no evidence that anyone was saying, "We need to win this or we will lose." South Carolina wasn't make or break. It became the tipping point only because of what happened after. And the establishment would've tried to steal it from Bernie no matter what happened in SC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
Iowa is historically dumb as gently caress and New Hampshire is full of votey contrarians to make up for being second but they are weener states and ultimately only important to the "narrative"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Clinton lost every single race prior to Super Tuesday by double digits, got 2% in Iowa, and then lost every single state on Super Tuesday except for one. I disagree. Getting humiliatingly crushed in the first three states when you were just a couple months ago the presumptive frontrunner is much, much worse than being a scrappy, previously mostly-unknown outsider who unexpectedly did much better than expected in some early states. I also noticed that you left out Biden's 5th in NH there... mcmagic posted:South Carolina wasn't make or break. It became the tipping point only because of what happened after. And the establishment would've tried to steal it from Bernie no matter what happened in SC. Fair point, but still - there really was no way of knowing that the immediate aftermath of SC was going to be when the Dem leadership made their play, much less that the other centrist candidates would kowtow that quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
The moratorium on primarychat is lifted!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAwWPadFsOA
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Doctor Teeth posted:Curious how "I'm not voting for Trump" never seems to mean a vote for [Biden/Hillary/John Kerry]! Because conservatives understand that voting for the candidate that is the best match for your politics is better than pretending someone gives a rats rear end that you voted third party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Because conservatives understand that voting for the candidate that is the best match for your politics is better than pretending someone gives a rats rear end that you voted third party. It's actually because Republicans are never going to vote for Republican-lite when they can get the real thing, no matter how often Chuck Schumer tells you otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Fair point, but still - there really was no way of knowing that the immediate aftermath of SC was going to be when the Dem leadership made their play, much less that the other centrist candidates would kowtow that quickly. Yeah I don't blame the Bernie campaign for that. I think their fatal mistake came after Nevada when they didn't try to get any "mainstream" Dems on board to send a message to voters that he was a more acceptable front runner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
No press conference today?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:No press conference today? Yeah there was one. Zinc is the new miracle cure
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:No press conference today? It's been happening for the last 30 minutes and just ended. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UySTErEG-4 Dr. Fauci says we know “for sure” that mitigation efforts are working, but “don’t get complacent about that.” Dr. Birx reiterated that the number of cases has stabilized or is stabilizing. Pence says he is going to have church in his house on Easter (I think he is saying that he is staying home in a very weird way). The rest of it has just been going over the updated graphs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually because Republicans are never going to vote for Republican-lite when they can get the real thing, no matter how often Chuck Schumer tells you otherwise. Because they’re sure as hell going to vote for a democratic socialist, right? Come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Yeah I don't blame the Bernie campaign for that. I think their fatal mistake came after Nevada when they didn't try to get any "mainstream" Dems on board to send a message to voters that he was a more acceptable front runner. Do we know for a fact that they didn't? I know they didn't actively court Clyburn's vote, but neither did any of the other campaigns, from what I understand. OhDearGodNo posted:Because they’re sure as hell going to vote for a democratic socialist, right? Come the gently caress on. Republicans won't, and why should we want them to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Clyburn was not the smoking gun you think. Older African Americans already had a well-established preference even before that endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The moratorium on primarychat is lifted!!! for now although frankly i've been pleasantly surprised at the discourse level, so we'll see how that continues to go good job everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do we know for a fact that they didn't? I know they didn't actively court Clyburn's vote, but neither did any of the other campaigns, from what I understand. It was more important that Bernie do it than any other campaigns because he was viewed as an outsider by alot of voters. He needed establishment figures to tell their rube voters that it was OK to support Bernie and that never happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Pick posted:Clyburn was not the smoking gun you think. Older African Americans already had a well-established preference even before that endorsement. I don't think anyone said Clyburn was "the smoking gun" for anything. Boomers of any race tend to be conservative, and tend to vote conservative. mcmagic posted:It was more important that Bernie do it than any other campaigns because he was viewed as an outsider by alot of voters. He needed establishment figures to tell their rube voters that it was OK to support Bernie and that never happened. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean that Bernie's campaign didn't try, though. As with many things in this primary season, it's possible that the campaign was never going to succeed against the establishment united against it, even if it did everything right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It was more important that Bernie do it than any other campaigns because he was viewed as an outsider by alot of voters. He needed establishment figures to tell their rube voters that it was OK to support Bernie and that never happened. He did literally come out on Twitter and call the establishment someone whose hate he welcomed. This is probably not going to endear him to the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1248016471453622273
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Pick posted:Iowa is historically dumb as gently caress and New Hampshire is full of votey contrarians to make up for being second but they are weener states and ultimately only important to the "narrative" First mosque in the US, first to legalize gay marriage....
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:First mosque in the US, first to legalize gay marriage.... That was Massachusetts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually because Republicans are never going to vote for Republican-lite when they can get the real thing, no matter how often Chuck Schumer tells you otherwise. That's probably true now. But that's because there is no republican party, just the trump personality cult. Before 2016 they'd vote for whoever rush/hannity told them. That voting base falls in line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:And what happens when no candidate comes into the convention with a clear majority? Or when a leading candidate dies before the convention, a la RFK? Do we go back to the states and ask them to hurriedly set up an additional primary date to ask the voters “what now?” That’s an absurd idea, given that primary dates and funding are set by state legislatures, and the GOP would be thrilled to sow chaos by refusing to allocate funds or times for a new vote (see Wisconsin). And that even assumes time enough for that. The Sean posted:So, your logic is "voters vote --> inform delegates --> delegates voter how voters want"? Am I right? skeleton warrior posted:What the gently caress even is this? How the gently caress does any of this come from anything I said? What drugs are you on? None of the good ones, apparently. I'm on such good drugs that I imagine a vote should count. I'm so high. Such a weird concept. Woooooooo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Spite posted:That's probably true now. But that's because there is no republican party, just the trump personality cult. It sure does, which is why it's appallingly stupid that Democratic leaders still insist that they have to cater to them. But God help you if you say the Dems need to reach out to independents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Hey, guess what! A third of the country hasn't even voted yet. Sure feeling like my vote matters. At least Sanders cared about voting literally killing people in red states, unlike Biden and the DNC, though.skeleton warrior posted:And what happens when no candidate comes into the convention with a clear majority? Or when a leading candidate dies before the convention, a la RFK? Do we go back to the states and ask them to hurriedly set up an additional primary date to ask the voters “what now?” That’s an absurd idea, given that primary dates and funding are set by state legislatures, and the GOP would be thrilled to sow chaos by refusing to allocate funds or times for a new vote (see Wisconsin). And that even assumes time enough for that. We use a simultaneous ranked-choice primary instead of our dumbass fptp (with small nods to first-choice proportions), rolling-state primary. Stickman fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Apr 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's because she and her advisors knew that the Rust Belt states were critical to her chances, and still chose to neglect them. Yes because African American voters have never been important in democratic primaries before. You don't win a primary with only a third of the voters. If the three other candidates are all centrist and *surprise* their voters prefer a centrist candidate, of course they are going to coalesce as candidates drop out. Especially doesn't help that there's been a bunch of Bernie supporters like you being such toxic dickholes to anyone who dare prefer another candidate that Bernie couldn't even get the other progressive candidates voters when she dropped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Pick posted:That was Massachusetts? Ok, third, but top three isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 00:59
|
|