All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Zauriel]

My theory is about who can beat Trump.

A progressive has not gone against Trump, a moderate has.

Your reasoning was what was given for why Hillary was the better choice to against Trump in 2016 and it was proven wrong. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in 2020 but I don't think so.

Bernie Sanders should have been the better choice against Trump in 2016. It would have been interesting to see a battle between the ultimate liberal versus the ultimate conservative.

Mike Bloomberg, due to his gun control stance, makes Sanders look conservative.

[aja_christopher]

My theory is about who can beat Trump.

A progressive has not gone against Trump, a moderate has.

Your reasoning was what was given for why Hillary was the better choice to against Trump in 2016 and it was proven wrong.

That's not my reasoning -- all I stated was what happened in 2012, 2016, and 2018, where moderate Democrats won and progressives didn't.

You selectively chose only to focus on Hillary because it's the only election that plays into your theory.

Just admit that you believe in Sanders based on personal bias, but not facts regarding progressives and moderates winning elections.

[Theleviathan]

No one said any of that.

You asked how a more popular candidate could lose during the nomination process. It's easy.

"Seemingly Sensible..." Vs. "Actual Popularity..."

Not that complicated.

You don't lose by 4 million in that scenario. Over the course of a primary, popularity (if true even) won't lead to a blow-out of that nature. Not to mention, people make seemingly sensible votes in ALL elections, just assuming (because it's convenient for your point) that such thinking goes away in a general is foolish.

Not to mention, when you prop up a candidate's chances of success as being based on being "the most popular"....that should show up in, I don't know...the popular vote. That's hard evidence that contradicts that argument relative to your speculation utterly devoid of any evidence.

[Celgress]

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/stat...32701194072065



Bloomberg is doing his damnedest to buy the election. This is very bad.

My mother told me when we talked on the phone today that Bloomberg has been endorsed by Obama and I was "no, mom, he hasn't been". A lot of people are falling for this claim due to Bloomberg's misleading adverts.

[Theleviathan]

Because primaries are different from the general.

If Bernie does lose to Trump, are going to still stick with saying no one who lost the primary would have done better than the nominee?

YES. Because I'm consistent....not an idol worshipper. If Biden or Buttigieg can't pull this out in the primary, there is no reason to think they'd have done better against Trump. There is one, and only one, exception to that: swing state performances. We'll have to see how that looks going forward.

And even then, if they lose overall by 10+ percent...that doesn't even matter.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Had the popularity argument been true Ron Paul would have won the GOP primaries in '08.

[aja_christopher]

Had the popularity argument been true Ron Paul would have won the GOP primaries in '08.

Part of the problem is trying to explain politics to someone with no real sense of political history.

On the one hand it's good to see a candidate that inspires that kind of loyalty, but when it's at the expense of the party as a whole, then that's a problem for the party as a whole, including Sanders.

[numberthirty]

You don't lose by 4 million in that scenario. Over the course of a primary, popularity (if true even) won't lead to a blow-out of that nature. Not to mention, people make seemingly sensible votes in ALL elections, just assuming (because it's convenient for your point) that such thinking goes away in a general is foolish.

Not to mention, when you prop up a candidate's chances of success as being based on being "the most popular"....that should show up in, I don't know...the popular vote. That's hard evidence that contradicts that argument relative to your speculation utterly devoid of any evidence.

Not if the popular vote is driven by a party who usually make the "Who's Next?..."/"Safe Bet..." call.

Which Democrats regularly do.

Again, not complicated.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Had the popularity argument been true Ron Paul would have won the GOP primaries in '08.

Ron Paul was never that popular

[Theleviathan]

Part of the problem is trying to explain politics to someone with no sense of political history.

On the one hand it's good to see a candidate that inspires that kind of loyalty but when it's at the expense of the party as a whole, then that's a problem for the party as a whole.

I mean, screw the party at that point, this guy is inspiring crack-pottery and a complete abandonment of well-reasoned positions or use of facts.

I do know some Bernie supporters that are bright and can make good arguments. With those people we tend to conclude our discussions at "We'll see what happens as the primary proceeds". With some of the folks here I'm expecting them to say they have to take a break from posting so they can help build Bernie's mothership or continue harvesting gold for the future 50 story tribute they plan to build for their savior.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Part of the problem is trying to explain politics to someone with no sense of political history.

On the one hand it's good to see a candidate that inspires that kind of loyalty but when it's at the expense of the party as a whole, then that's a problem for the party as a whole.

It's expected for the followers, what worries me is when it's in leftist leadership. Sanders has made too many decisions which make me think he's more like them then I thought, which would explain why they latch onto him so hard and why any perceived attack on Sanders they view as an attack on themselves.

[numberthirty]

Had the popularity argument been true Ron Paul would have won the GOP primaries in '08.

No.

For the same reason as Sanders.

Each of the big two will usually make the "Who's Next?..."/"Seemingly Safe Bet..." call in their nomination process.

[Zauriel]

I am not for billionaires buying elections for themselves. Particularly when they've donated to opponents, and spoken out against policies, from the party they are currently running to win the nomination of.

Bloomberg was a Republican, as Trump was a democrat. Trump donated money to Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns. Bill and Hillary Clinton attended Donald Trump and Melania's wedding. Trump attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

Bloomberg bought his way into the Nevada caucus debate. Now he will buy the Democratic presidential nomination.

[Theleviathan]

Not if the popular vote is driven by a party who usually make the "Who's Next?..."/"Safe Bet..." call.

Which Democrats regularly do.

Again, not complicated.

THEY VOTE IN THE GENERAL TOO. How hard is that to understand?

They will then "Regularly" vote against Bernie. Or not for him. Leaving the same problem Clinton supporters had with Bernie supporters. Why do I feel like I have to get puppets out for the next time I try and explain why this "He's SOOO popular.....jsut not in a primary. Or in that state. Or against that person. Or against beloved, warm and fuzzy Hillary Clinton. Or some schmo from Indiana. Or...well...you get the point. But he'd totally dominate the general obviously!"

Just. C'mon.

[aja_christopher]

Not if the popular vote is driven by a party who usually make the "Who's Next?..."/"Safe Bet..." call.

Which Democrats regularly do.

Again, not complicated.

"Not complicated" is accepting that people just weren't into Sanders so they voted for Hillary instead.

It's also "not complicated" to extrapolate from that that his policies won't appeal to the general electorate as many will view them as too far "left".