Presidential Debate + RFK

[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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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, 2024 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. 

[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, 2024 by Raze