Page 482 of 999 FirstFirst ... 382432472478479480481482483484485486492532582982 ... LastLast
Results 7,216 to 7,230 of 14982
  1. #7216
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    You need to answer my question first. I wont play this game. You asked me what their argument is. I never claimed it was ironclad (shit...I made that clear twice!), just stated their argument. An argument with some merit.

    Now...your turn. How does Bernie win in places his positions have lost? That he lost in 2016? That he is not polling well in? Please don't "whatabout" again.
    I think Bernie's positions may be more popular than you think:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...lth-care%3famp

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...ialisms-appeal

    Perhaps things have changed since 1992.

    And if this strategy you are promoting is not iron clad, why should it not be questioned and criticized?
    Last edited by The Overlord; 02-07-2020 at 09:22 PM.

  2. #7217
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    You need to answer my question first. I wont play this game. You asked me what their argument is. I never claimed it was ironclad (shit...I made that clear twice!), just stated their argument. An argument with some merit.

    Now...your turn. How does Bernie win in places his positions have lost? That he lost in 2016? That he is not polling well in? Please don't "whatabout" again.
    As for that, call it what it actually is.

    Namely, "Something That He Lost During A Primary".

    The idea that it accurately predicts how he would do in a situation where not just Democrats were voting is unproven.

  3. #7218
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    I think Bernie's positions may be more popular than you think:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...lth-care%3famp

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-...ialisms-appeal

    Perhaps things have changed since 1992.

    And if this strategy you are promoting is not iron clad, why should it not be questioned and criticized?
    Just so we are clear, you dismissed polling and then countered with......polling? And national polling, not swing state specific polling at that!

    Are you trolling me?
    Last edited by Theleviathan; 02-07-2020 at 09:41 PM.

  4. #7219
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    As for that, call it what it actually is.

    Namely, "Something That He Lost During A Primary".

    The idea that it accurately predicts how he would do in a situation where not just Democrats were voting is unproven.
    Offer evidence for it changing. If you can't, it is a legitamite weakness to point out and a fair juxtaposition for candidates like Biden/Buttigieg to highlight.

    Which is what was asked to be provided. I did that and the whataboutism and hilarious hypocrisy I have been met with seems to prove it's a valid argument. Not decided or certain, but a valid argument

  5. #7220
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Offer evidence for it changing. If you can't, it is a legitamite weakness to point out and a fair juxtaposition for candidates like Biden/Buttigieg to highlight.

    Which is what was asked to be provided. I did that and the whataboutism and hilarious hypocrisy I have been met with seems to prove it's a valid argument. Not decided or certain, but a valid argument
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...primary-221529

    Bernie's Wisconsin ace in the hole
    It’s one of the main reasons why Sanders is thought to have the edge over Hillary Clinton here. While he’s lost the majority of Democratic primaries that have taken place this year, the three primary wins he’s posted -- New Hampshire, Michigan, and Vermont – have all come in states with open contests where non-Democrats can vote. Aside from caucuses – where Sanders tends to crush Clinton – an open primary usually offers Sanders his best shot at victory.

    “He wins independents who say they’re going to vote in a Democratic primary, and it doesn’t matter what their ideology is — whether they’re moderate or liberal, he wins them,” explained Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “Diehard Democrats who show up regularly in the Democratic primary are going to Hillary Clinton regardless of whether they’re liberal or moderate, so it has a lot to do with how attached voters are to their party identifications."
    If we know that is the case, it's actually going to be on you to provide some kind of evidence that this somehow takes a turn in the opposite direction in a General.

    If you don't have that evidence, why should I even entertain the possibility?

    The information we do have points to Sanders doing just fine in instances more like a General Election.

  6. #7221
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...primary-221529





    If we know that is the case, it's actually going to be on you to provide some kind of evidence that this somehow takes a turn in the opposite direction in a General.

    If you don't have that evidence, why should I even entertain the possibility?

    The information we do have points to Sanders doing just fine in instances more like a General Election.
    Michigan and Wisconsin are swing states he polls well in. They are insufficient to win the election. The polling I am citing captures what you say here - I think he wins WI and MI. The same polling shows no other flipped states, which would mean a loss by the EC.

    Where they are doing open polling in PA and FL and other places, Bernie consistently trails Trump. PA was a major 2018 flip for Dems, so those numbers are problematic for Bernie.

  7. #7222
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Just so we are clear, you dismissed polling and then countered with......polling? And national polling, not swing state specific polling at that!

    Are you trolling me?
    Well, you seem to cherry facts to fit your arguments:

    We need a moderate to win the Swing States, the fact that Hillary and Kerry failed to do so? Tossed out as irrelevant.

    Bernie is a loser for failing to defeat Hillary in the primary, the fact Biden lost horribly in 1988 primaries? Tossed out as irrelevant.

    Polls that agree with you relevant, polls that disagree with you tossed out as irrelevant.

    You only like facts that fit your narrative and will ignore or downplay ones that don't.

    We should trust this only moderates can win Swing States theory, when it failed last time?

  8. #7223
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Michigan and Wisconsin are swing states he polls well in. They are insufficient to win the election. The polling I am citing captures what you say here - I think he wins WI and MI. The same polling shows no other flipped states, which would mean a loss by the EC.

    Where they are doing open polling in PA and FL and other places, Bernie consistently trails Trump. PA was a major 2018 flip for Dems, so those numbers are problematic for Bernie.
    You're talking about polling.

    Polling said Biden was going to be first in Iowa until he was actually fourth, and suggested HRC had thing wrapped up tight back in 2016.

    I am talking about actual wins. Factual results.

    Again...

    If you still want to give polling weight as something you can make predictions based on? Your call, and I guess I can kinda see the reasoning.

    The idea that you put it on the opposite side of actual wins on a scale, and it comes out even?

    It's not laughable, but it surely isn't easy to take it seriously.

  9. #7224
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    You're talking about polling.

    Polling said Biden was going to be first in Iowa until he was actually fourth, and suggested HRC had thing wrapped up tight back in 2016.

    I am talking about actual wins. Factual results.

    Again...

    If you still want to give polling weight as something you can make predictions based on? Your call, and I guess I can kinda see the reasoning.

    The idea that you put it on the opposite side of actual wins on a scale, and it comes out even?

    It's not laughable, but it surely isn't easy to take it seriously.
    I talked about factual results too. You just didnt like hearing them. "Actual wins" in swing states is not in Bernie's favor to date.

  10. #7225
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    Well, you seem to cherry facts to fit your arguments:

    We need a moderate to win the Swing States, the fact that Hillary and Kerry failed to do so? Tossed out as irrelevant.

    Bernie is a loser for failing to defeat Hillary in the primary, the fact Biden lost horribly in 1988 primaries? Tossed out as irrelevant.

    Polls that agree with you relevant, polls that disagree with you tossed out as irrelevant.

    You only like facts that fit your narrative and will ignore or downplay ones that don't.

    We should trust this only moderates can win Swing States theory, when it failed last time?
    Yup. Trolling.

    Impressive Strawman to Text ratio though!

  11. #7226
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theleviathan View Post
    Yup. Trolling.

    Impressive Strawman to Text ratio though!
    Yes, pointing out the fact you cherry-pick arguments is trolling. I guess anything you don't like is trolling.

    You constantly say you present factual results, but all you have done is present a theory that failed last time? Why will it work this time, what factual results do have that backs up this theory will work this time when it failed last time? I guess you never have to provide factual results to justify this theory eh? This theory is based more in assumptions than factual results.

    If you want him to an argument that Bernie or Warren are a sure thing, I can't do that, but guess what, you have no factual results that say Biden or Buttigieg is a sure thing either. Ultimately I think Bernie or Warren could win and will try to change things for the better so we not fighting another wave of Trumpism in 4 years. I think if Biden or Buttigieg wins and they maintain the status quo, we will see more Trump clones challenge them because they will do nothing to challenge the ideology of Trumpism.

    Do you think Trump is a demon from Hell that ruined a perfectly good system or the product of a broken system? Because if its the later, just getting rid of Trump will win a battle, but not a war.

    If you do not take on Trumpism, all your supposed ''Factual results'' will not matter, the US will continue to decline and Trumpism will grow in opposition to Biden or Buttigieg.

    Do you remember the campaign Trump ran? He made appeals to the working class, he coded them with racism and they turned out to lies, but he totally outmaneuvered Hillary in the campaign through these tactics, why wouldn't he do the same to Biden or Buttigieg. He captured the Rust Belt, which was supposed to be Hillary's Blue wall.

    Here is a question, why is the American dream easier to achieve in Canada over the US at this point?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/busin...dex/index.html

    What will Biden or Buttigueg do to address the wage gap? Because if they don't, you will be fighting Trumpism until someone does.

  12. #7227
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Trump has had so many sexual assault allegations against him, if one came out from a male I would not be all that surprised. Still not sure if even that would be enough, even with evangelicals.

    No, I think it would have to be something even more dramatic. Like trying to disband Congress and trying to arrest it's members regardless of political background.
    Honestly, I think we're at the point Trump would actually get more support were he to dissolve Congress and attempt to arrest and try members, especially Democrats, on a bunch of phony charges. Nothing anyone has done to rein him in has been effective, and the more rational and reasonable people in this administration who had any chance of doing so have either quit or been forced out, leaving nothing but sycophants and enablers.

  13. #7228
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    Yes, pointing out the fact you cherry-pick arguments is trolling. I guess anything you don't like is trolling.

    You constantly say you present factual results, but all you have done is present a theory that failed last time? Why will it work this time, what factual results do have that backs up this theory will work this time when it failed last time? I guess you never have to provide factual results to justify this theory eh? This theory is based more in assumptions than factual results.
    You have yet to provide evidence that a leftist candidate will produce superior results, when one has failed become president and they have a tiny percentage of politicians elected in congress. What's Bernie Sanders personally done to convince you he'll break this cycle?

    If you want him to an argument that Bernie or Warren are a sure thing, I can't do that, but guess what, you have no factual results that say Biden or Buttigieg is a sure thing either. Ultimately I think Bernie or Warren could win and will try to change things for the better so we not fighting another wave of Trumpism in 4 years.
    Biden has a stronger history of being liked by the Democrats for months in polls, long before Sanders entered the race. He's finally cracking but it is disingenuous to imply that Biden had the same chances as everyone else in these primaries. Electability is malleable, as well, just because Biden started out a sure thing isn't set in stone. How you feel about candidates is irrelevant when discussing the facts about winning elections. They're not going to win simply because you liked them.


    I think if Biden or Buttigieg wins and they maintain the status quo, we will see more Trump clones challenge them because they will do nothing to challenge the ideology of Trumpism.
    This'll happen, regardless. Don't get complacent when a politicians you like might win. Had the left been as strong at destroying conservatism as you're claiming the GOP would been vastly weaker than they are now and they've have won more seats in '18.

    Do you think Trump is a demon from Hell that ruined a perfectly good system or the product of a broken system? Because if its the later, just getting rid of Trump will win a battle, but not a war.
    There are more options than Trump being an exception, he isn't, and whatever you're suggesting. I agree with the last part, however, you're not going to win that war with Bernie Sanders.

    If you do not take on Trumpism, all your supposed ''Factual results'' will not matter, the US will continue to decline and Trumpism will grow in opposition to Biden or Buttigieg.
    Biden or Buttigieg getting the nomination will continue to take on Trumpism, they're not going to hoist a white flag as soon as they cross the finish line in the primaries. I may disagree with them, but they will fight. Facts are important in politics, opinions won't stop Trump from winning - reality will.

    Do you remember the campaign Trump ran? He made appeals to the working class, he coded them with racism and they turned out to lies, but he totally outmaneuvered Hillary in the campaign through these tactics, why wouldn't he do the same to Biden or Buttigieg. He captured the Rust Belt, which was supposed to be Hillary's Blue wall.
    Maybe, maybe not. Sanders winning the nomination is far from a guaratee he'll get those results. Sanders has his own weaknesses as a politician and a campaigner, but say you're right he does get the Rust Belt, what if he loses other states candidates like Biden would have won? He still loses when moderates and older voters aren't enthused.

    edit: The worst thing a leftist presidential candidate can do is not learn from Corbyn's mistakes. Warren will, Bernie Sanders remains to be seen.

    Here is a question, why is the American dream easier to achieve in Canada over the US at this point?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/busin...dex/index.html

    What will Biden or Buttigueg do to address the wage gap? Because if they don't, you will be fighting Trumpism until someone does.
    There's numerous places a campaign can go wrong, policies by itself won't sink them. Had that been true Warren would be the front runner right now. America isn't Canada, you know this. The second Sanders runs for president like he's Justin Trudeau seals his fate losing to Trump.
    Last edited by Steel Inquisitor; 02-08-2020 at 01:20 AM.

  14. #7229
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superbat View Post
    Sanders has twice the LGBTQ support Buttigeig has.

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/02/...-lgbtq-voters/


    That poll was taken between January 20 and January 26. The Rogan stumble happened on the 24th, so fallout had barely begun for a minority of people polled.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  15. #7230
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Overlord View Post
    So are you fine with Mayor Pete's record on racism in South Bend?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...h-bend-indiana

    For all your hemming and hawing about Bernie's supposed racism and sexism (do you have real proof of this or just guilt by association) are ignoring the police killings of African Americans in South Bend under Mayor Pete's watch or do you have a double standard when it comes to this issue?
    I am not a Mayor Pete supporter. Just presenting a theory on why Sanders did so much worse in Iowa than predicted before he embraced Rogan.

    Your whataboutism, knee-jerk reaction are not effective debating.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •