Presidential Debate + RFK

[Raze]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Bernie is a SD Green progressive, which is unappealing to most people in the US.

If he seems like such an obvious choice to you, that's because you are also likely around SD Green.

Hypothetical matchup polls had Bernie beating Trump comfortably 

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I see a blowout. To each their own, though 

Actually I'd rather we'd debate this.

If you think Biden is going to get blown out, then I have to assume you also think it would be a good idea to replace him.

This is a serious discussion that needs to be had. It's not something to just shrug off as a difference of opinion. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Yes, that's where the real trouble is. The polls paint a grim picture.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

4 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Swing state polls, especially those in the midwestern states, are even more prone to polling errors according to many experts. Look what happened in 2016, when the polls back then predicted around election day that Hillary would comfortably win each of the swing states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Yet, she lost all of those states to Trump in the in the electoral college back then. 

if the swing state polls overestimate democratic support that is even worse for Biden 

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

Hypothetical matchup polls had Bernie beating Trump comfortably 

And that's a great example of how polling can be misleading.

Bernie couldn't even secure the democratic nomination, let alone beat Trump.

For all the progressives that were upset about Bernie losing, in retrospect I think we need to consider the fact that Joe Biden actually had the better shot of beating Trump.

So if you don't like Trump, you should in a sense be happy about Biden's victory. Because otherwise you'd have another 4 years of Trump.

Edited July 2 by aurum

[Raze]

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

And that's a great example of how polling can be misleading.

Bernie couldn't even secure the democratic nomination, let alone beat Trump.

For all the progressives that were upset about Bernie losing, in retrospect I think we need to consider the fact that Joe Biden actually had the better shot of beating Trump.

So if you don't like Trump, you should in a sense be happy about Biden's victory. Because otherwise you'd have another 4 years of Trump.

The base that votes in the primary is very different than the base that votes in the general because far more people vote in the general and winning over independents is much more important.

Not only do I think Bernie would have beat trump had he won the nomination, I think he wouldn’t have such a huge ego to try and run again if he was dying like Biden is doing, and he would shift the landscape of political discourse to a much healthier place even if his proposals didn’t get past. When he was running so many people were talking about Medicare for all, tax loopholes, corporate control or politics, and failed foreign intervention. As opposed to now where its identity bs, who will give Israel more bombs, and which candidate has dementia.

Edited July 2 by Raze

[Forestluv]

Those Citizen Free Press polls were from last January and not relevant anymore.

The Emerson polls indicate Trump likely has a lead in swing states, yet they are all within the margin of error and four months is a long time. 

 

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Those Citizen Free Press polls were from last January and not relevant anymore.

The Emerson polls indicate Trump likely has a lead in swing states, yet they are all within the margin of error and four months is a long time. 

 

These are the most recent ones 

https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states

I am not even sure if Biden will be alive in 4 months 

 

Edited July 2 by Raze

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

The base that votes in the primary is very different than the base that votes in the general because far more people vote in the general and winning over independents is much more important.

That works against Bernie. Because Bernie was more of a niche, radical politician for people in the US.

The more general and more people you include, the less of a shot Bernie had. 

 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

That works against Bernie. Because Bernie was more of a niche, radical politician for people in the US.

The more general and more people you include, the less of a shot Bernie had. 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

[aurum]

Just now, Raze said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-sanders-does-better-with-independents/

Just because you win over some independents in polling does not mean you will win a general.

Look, I like Bernie a lot. In many ways I like him better than Biden. But you have to be realistic about electibility.

If Bernie was the more electable candidate, he would have won. Period.

Everything else is cope.

[Raze]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

Just because you win over some independents in polling does not mean you will win a general.

Look, I like Bernie a lot. In many ways I like him better than Biden. But you have to be realistic about electibility.

If Bernie was the more electable candidate, he would have won. Period.

Everything else is cope.

That makes no sense. If the polls say independents like him then they like him. Primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base. Hillary won it and was she electable?

[aurum]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

That makes no sense. If the polls say independents like him then they like him. Primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base. Hillary won it and was she electable?

Hilary was more electable than Bernie. Yes that's exactly right.

And what is the proof? It's the fact that she beat Bernie.

No theoretical polling matters when we have the actual results of actual elections.

Again, the fact that primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base works AGAINST Bernie. Because the more voters you include, the more mainstream appeal you need.

Hilary and Biden both had more mainstream appeal. So they won. The end.

[Yimpa]

57 minutes ago, aurum said:

Actually I'd rather we'd debate this.

If you think Biden is going to get blown out, then I have to assume you also think it would be a good idea to replace him.

This is a serious discussion that needs to be had. It's not something to just shrug off as a difference of opinion. 

We’ve gotta get Biden to the finish line no matter what. We will have a bigger blow out if we don’t. This is serious!

[Raze]

14 minutes ago, aurum said:

Hilary was more electable than Bernie. Yes that's exactly right.

And what is the proof? It's the fact that she beat Bernie.

No theoretical polling matters when we have the actual results of actual elections.

Again, the fact that primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base works AGAINST Bernie. Because the more voters you include, the more mainstream appeal you need.

Hilary and Biden both had more mainstream appeal. So they won. The end.

Winning a primary shows your electability with primary voters, not with general voters.

Bernie according to polling did better than Hillary with independents.

Therefore, Bernie was more electable in a general where independents are relevant, than in a primary where they aren’t. So it being a primary was a disadvantage for him.

This is shown in how some Bernie voters ended up voting Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

The 2016 election was between the two most unpopular politicians in recorded US history, by your logic those were somehow simultaneously the only ones that the people wanted. They aren’t, they were the ones the primary voters wanted and because of the two party system everyone had to go along with them. 
 

Look at the polling for Trump v Clinton compared to Trump v Sanders in 2016

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Edited July 2 by Raze

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

Winning a primary shows your electability with primary voters, not with general voters.

Bernie according to polling did better than Hillary with independents.

Therefore, Bernie was more electable in a general where independents are relevant, than in a primary where they aren’t. So it being a primary was a disadvantage for him

That's exactly where you have it backwards.

Bernie did not have enough general appeal to even win a primary. That's really the correct interpretation.

If you make the election even more general and extend it outside of a primary, he would have done even worse.

Really consider how radical of a candidate Bernie was for most people. Think about how polarizing he was, and how strongly people reacted against him. Think about how much genuine change he represented and the threat he was to the established ways of doing things. And not "Trump" change, which is really just about faux appealing to SD Blue values, but actual higher values.

Then think about Biden and Hilary, both of whom were more established, mainstream, status quo politicians. Who weren't going to push for as much change and who seem like more safe, traditional politicians.

THAT is why they beat Bernie.

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

The 2016 election was between the two most unpopular politicians in recorded US history, by your logic those were somehow simultaneously the only ones that the people wanted. They aren’t, they were the ones the primary voters wanted and because of the two party system everyone had to go along with them. 

I didn't say "only".

I said they had the most mainstream appeal. Which is true.

The reality is that even without a two-party system, only one person can win the presidency. And Bernie would have still lost. In a three-way election between Trump, Hilary and Bernie, Bernie comes in last.

[Leo Gura]

Bernie is history. He has no business in this conversation.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's exactly where you have it backwards.

Bernie did not have enough general appeal to even win a primary. That's really the correct interpretation.

If you make the election even more general and extend it outside of a primary, he would have done even worse.

Really consider how radical of a candidate Bernie was for most people. Think about how polarizing he was, and how strongly people reacted against him. Think about how much genuine change he represented and the threat he was to the established ways of doing things. And not "Trump" change, which is really just about faux appealing to SD Blue values, but actual higher values.

You don’t need general appeal to win a primary, you need primary appeal, as you are appealing to primary voters not general election voters, they are different demographics.

That doesn’t automatically mean radicalism does better in a primary than it does in a general. What makes the general different is independents, and for the hundredth time Bernie did significantly better with them.

If what you’re saying is true explain why hypothetical general election polls had him with a much higher lead than Clinton over Trump, those sample general voters not primary voters. 

The dem primary polls between Sanders and Clinton had them neck and neck or Clinton winning, which is what happened.

Meaning samples of primary voters liked Clinton, but samples of general voters liked Sanders.

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

Then think about Biden and Hilary, both of whom were more established, mainstream, status quo politicians. Who weren't going to push for as much change and who seem like more safe, traditional politicians.

Yet Hillary Clinton was the epitome of a established mainstream status quo politician and she lost the general to a reality tv star with no experience. The general electorate was in the mood for something else, they didn’t want establishment.

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

I didn't say "only".

I said they had the most mainstream appeal. Which is true.

The reality is that even without a two-party system, only one person can win the presidency. And Bernie would have still lost. In a three-way election between Trump, Hilary and Bernie, Bernie comes in last.

In that case obviously because Hillary and Bernie would split the left leaning base.

Edited July 2 by Raze

[Karmadhi]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Bernie is history. He has no business in this conversation.

But why? I do not get it. He says things which cater to the general american interest. To 90% of voters. Not to some rich wall street guy.

How does Trump aid your average Joe? By promoting religion?

Is religion more important than education, minimum wage and health care for half Americans?

Are they this under developed?

I expected more from a superpower.

@aurum It is not that I endorse him because of his green views on liberalism or lgbt. Those are your classic green values. I have no clue whether Bernie supports those or not.

But i have seen he supports the more pragmatic non idealistic green like affordable health care and education. Things which are crucial for 90% of the population that is not elite rich. Gender fluidity and stuff is idealistic green. I am talking about survival pragmatic stuff here. I can understand your conservative guy not wanting LGBT or mass immigration. But I cannot understand your average Joe preferring  his education and health care to be much more expensive while the minimum wage is not increased.

Edited July 2 by Karmadhi

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Karmadhi said:

But why? I do not get it. He says things which cater to the general american interest. To 90% of voters. Not to some rich wall street guy.

How does Trump aid your average Joe? By promoting religion?

Is religion more important than education, minimum wage and health care for half Americans?

Are they this under developed?

I expected more from a superpower.

@aurum It is not that I endorse him because of his green views on liberalism or lgbt. Those are your classic green values. I have no clue whether Bernie supports those or not.

But i have seen he supports the more pragmatic non idealistic green like affordable health care and education. Things which are crucial for 90% of the population that is not elite rich. Gender fluidity and stuff is idealistic green. I am talking about survival pragmatic stuff here.

Bernie is older than Biden.