Presidential Debate + RFK

[Raze]

 

[aurum]

@Raze these are my final statements about this because we are derailing this thread with Bernie and getting off-topic.

 

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

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.

You need a sufficient amount of general appeal to win a primary.

Yes, Bernie probably appealed to independents in polling because he was more of an outsider. But that's not enough.

If you cannot win over the people in your own primary, that shows how little support there actually is for your campaign. You are not going to win a general.

The idea that Bernie didn't have enough popularity to win his primary but suddenly would have enough popularity to beat Trump is backwards.

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

Yet Hillary Clinton was the epitome of a mainstream status quo politician and she lost to a reality tv star. The general electorate was in the mood for something else, they didn’t want establishment.

Actually, in a sense they did want the establishment. That's what the promise of MAGA is: Make American what it used to be like.

Appeal to traditional, conservative Christian values. Fight the "woke" Green culture movement. Embrace capitalism, business and deregulation. Patriarchy, nationalism and white people. 

This is what we've always had.

Trump is exactly what appeals to a mainstream American audience. This is what a huge percentage of Americans believe in. Trump feels like AMERICA to them.

Bernie Sanders appeals to none of that. He is in opposition to it.

Trump gives the veneer of change, which appeals to people. While Bernie Sanders was actual change.

Fake growth vs real growth.

The entire "change" that Trump promised, and continues to promise, is essentially to resist SD Green people like Bernie. And he won, even against someone who wasn't as radical like Hilary.

That's how much people are interested in maintaining the status quo.

Trump is even more status quo than Hilary.

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

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

The point is that Bernie had less mainstream appeal than either of them.

[Raze]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Trump is even more status quo than Hilary.

We both know you don’t believe this. 

[aurum]

47 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

But why? I do not get it. He says things which cater to the general american interest.

No he doesn't. That's your whole misunderstanding.

Theoretically, of course you are right. But those things aren't what Americans actually care about.

47 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

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

Religion is part of it.

It's really the entire SD Blue / Orange value system. 

47 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

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

YES.

47 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Are they this under developed?

I expected more from a superpower.

Some are. But of course some are more developed.

We have a lot of Green people as well. 

47 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

@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.

All that would require education and development of the average voter to appreciate and understand.

It doesn't matter if your policies are theoretically better for people. What matters is optics.

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

We both know you don’t believe this. 

Of course I do.

It's in the title: MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN.

Again.

As in, before. As in, what it was. As in, traditional American values.

Trump's whole appeal is to the SD Blue / Orange system. There is nothing radical about this. That IS what America has always been about.

Listen to some Trump voters. They pine for the good ol' days. When men were men, and women were women. When we were about Christian values. When people recited the Pledge of Allegiance. When you could drive your gas-guzzling truck and not these liberal woke electric vehicles.

Everything about this is establishment.

Get it?

[Raze]

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

Everything about this is establishment.

Get it?

Trump was calling for change, even if that change was returning to the past, it was still a change from how things aee. Establishment entails more of the same. Trump was anti establishment because he wasn’t in government. He himself constantly talked about how he’s an outsider and will drain the swamp. Everything about him from the way he talked to his controversies gave him a anti establishment edge,

It’s the same reason why polls showed Bernie Sanders winning the general and he appealed to independents, he had a anti establishment flair with his populist messaging.

People were in a anti establishment mood, so candidates like Trump or Bernie had the advantage among the general electorate.

Edited July 2 by Raze

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Trump was calling for change, even if that change was returning to the past, it was still a change from how things aee.

That is not change!

To call that "change" is a joke. You can use that word if you want, but it's not really change.

Change actually requires a new way of doing things and evolving to higher values.

Change would be if some evangelical preacher suddenly became an atheist. That would be some serious change.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Establishment entails more of the same

Which is exactly Trump's promise, when you peel off all the bullshit and spin.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

Trump was anti establishment because he wasn’t in government. He himself constantly talked about how he’s an outsider and will drain the swamp. Everything about him from the way he talked to his controversies gave him a anti establishment edge,

None of that is what makes someone anti-establishment.

To truly be anti-establishment, Trump would have to actually confront deeply held American values. Which of course he never did.

Bernie did though. Bernie challenged America. And he lost for it.

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

t’s the same reason why polls showed Bernie Sanders winning the general and he appealed to independents, he had a anti establishment flair with his populist messaging.

People were in a anti establishment mood, so candidates like Trump or Bernie had the advantage among the general electorate.

I will grant you that an "anti-establishment" message can have a surface level appeal. Certainly, Trump was able to tap into people's dissatisfaction. Trump is a narcissistic manipulator and he will twist things however he needs.

But if you cut through all the bullshit, fundamentally MAGA people did not want real change. They still do not.

That is why it's popular.

Trump has no interest in challenging anything fundamental to American culture. That would just make things more difficult for him.

The easiest path to power is just to play into what most people already believe in.

[Leo Gura]

Al Queda is anti-establishment in that they want to return to medieval Islam.

It's pointless to say "anti-establishment", the question is what are you replacing it with? Progress or regress? Future or past?

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, aurum said:

That is not change!

To call that "change" is a joke. You can use that word if you want, but it's not really change.

Change actually requires a new way of doing things and evolving to higher values.

Change would be if some evangelical preacher suddenly became an atheist. That would be some serious change.

Which is exactly Trump's promise, when you peel off all the bullshit and spin.

None of that is what makes someone anti-establishment.

To truly be anti-establishment, Trump would have to actually confront deeply held American values. Which of course he never did.

Bernie did though. Bernie challenged America. And he lost for it.

I will grant you that an "anti-establishment" message can have a surface level appeal. Certainly, Trump was able to tap into people's dissatisfaction. Trump is a narcissistic manipulator and he will twist things however he needs.

But if you cut through all the bullshit, fundamentally MAGA people did not want real change. They still do not.

That is why it's popular.

Trump has no interest in challenging anything fundamental to American culture. That would just make things more difficult for him.

The easiest path to power is just to play into what most people already believe in.

You are misusing terms.

Change just means different from status quo. It can be negative or positive, a decline or progress.

Establishment just means status quo. What is established at the moment.

The political establishment are those who are already in politics and seen as making the current situation persist. 

The anti establishment are those who are seen as coming from outside to work against what is already established to create something else.

10% of Bernie Sanders primary voters went on to vote for Trump over Hillary. How can that be when Hillary is closer to Bernie’s positions? Simple, they saw Clinton as establishment and they didn’t like that.

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

You are misusing terms.

Change just means different from status quo. It can be negative or positive, a decline or progress.

Establishment just means status quo. What is established at the moment.

The political establishment are those who are already in politics and seen as making the current situation persist. 

The anti establishment are those who are seen as coming from outside to work against what is already established to create something else.

10% of Bernie Sanders primary voters went on to vote for Trump over Hillary. How can that be when Hillary is closer to Bernie’s positions? Simple, they saw Clinton as establishment and they didn’t like that.

No more on this.

We've derailed this thread enough.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

On 6/30/2024 at 1:08 AM, Leo Gura said:

The country was stupid enough to elect W Bush twice. So we're really just staying consistent.

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

 

[hundreth]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

No more on this.

We've derailed this thread enough.

You're both kind of talking past each other at this point, but I generally agree with @Raze that alternative candidates can and could have had a better chance in a general election.

The part that is missing is that the DNC railroads their own candidates in favor of the establishment ones. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

Quote

Among the emails released on Friday were several embarrassing messages that suggest the committee’s chairwoman, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, and other officials favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Sanders — a claim the senator made repeatedly during the primaries.

In one of the emails, dated May 21, Mark Paustenbach, a committee communications official, wrote to a colleague about the possibility of urging reporters to write that Mr. Sanders’s campaign was “a mess” after a glitch on the committee’s servers gave it access to Clinton voter data.

“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee.

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

The part that is missing is that the DNC railroads their own candidates in favor of the establishment ones. 

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat running as a Democrat.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat.

So they shouldn’t be shocked when Trump beats them.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

So they shouldn’t be shocked when Trump beats them.

The Dem party certainly shoots itself in the foot with poor candidates. Candidate quality is key to winning elections.

They have no good replacement for Biden other than Gavin Newsom. Everyone else is a pathetic piece of wet white bread.

Edited July 2 by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

 

This guy literally looks demented.

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Dem party certainly shoots itself in the foot with poor candidates. Candidate quality is key to winning elections.

They have no good replacement for Biden other than Gavin Newsom. Everyone else is a pathetic piece of wet white bread.

Gavin would be better but not by much, he comes across extremely slimy and and massively disliked. Trump will just spam campaign ads about Californias issues and claim he’s going to bring them to every state. 

They would be better off with a Democrat from a swing state, like Gretchen Whitmer, Tammy Baldwin, or Josh Shapiro.

[hundreth]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course they do!

Bernie is not even a Democrat. Why would they make it easy for him? This is politics not elementry school.

One of the big unspoken reasons why Bernie didn't win is because he is not a Democrat running as a Democrat.

It is more or less a technicality. His ideas most closely align with the Democratic party, most of his allies are in the Democratic party, and he's running as a Democrat. The only thing he doesn't do is pay the exorbitant fees of some bullshit.

If it was actually about electability, which is what they were talking about, they should let the people decide and may the best man win.

That they shoot themselves in the foot and derail their own kind shows how little input we have as a population.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

Gretchen Whitmer, Tammy Baldwin, or Josh Shapiro.

I'm gonna vomit.