Bernie Sanders Question

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _EAllusion »

P.S. Carter and Bush lost mainly because they were up for reelection during a recession.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

EAllusion wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:What year is this? 2016?

- Doc


It's sort of fascinating that people watched Trump stumble through 2016 as a wounded duck candidate who could barely, just barely eek out a victory

Electoral Vote: 304 to 227

against someone being covered like she was in the middle of Watergate and think, "This man is unstoppable!"

I forgot about the perfect and fawning coverage Trump received throughout the campaign! :lol:

If you think that the worst performing candidate to win a presidential election in over a century is a virtual lock to win reelection unless the Democrats manage to nominate Jesus Christ

Perfect EA form. Just making crap up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...

, then you probably should think that about every presidential incumbent. A simple look at history proves that wrong,

There it is. :rolleyes:

but at least it would be more consistent.

Than what? Offering up de Blasio because he has a pulse? GTFO of here with that bitchass weak sauce.

If Trump is so strong,

Perfect EA form. Just making crap up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...

I don't know how you can get your head around George H.W. Bush or Carter losing. They both actually won elections with more voters and stuff and were popular at one point. I guess the internal logic must be to assume that means their opponents were incredible even though their opponents both were very unpopular when there was a recession during their presidency and saw major midterm defeats.

There it is. :rolleyes:


What a weird damned universe EA lives in where all the snarks and grumpkins that argue in his head have some sort of footing here in the real world.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _EAllusion »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Electoral Vote: 304 to 227


That's not an impressive electoral vote victory even on the raw numbers and he achieved it by winning three states by less than 1% while losing the popular vote by 3 million. He also relied on a leftwing candidate to split the Democratic vote in those states to get that very slight margin. The only election that's been closer in the past 100 years was Bush vs. Gore and Bush's victory wasn't quite as dependent on electoral college quirks as Trump's was. By any standard, he just eeked out a victory. Your refutation of winning an election where almost 130 million votes were cast by winning by a little under 100k more votes in just the right states as a very narrow victory by pointing to the raw electoral vote count is obtuse.

I forgot about the perfect and fawning coverage Trump received throughout the campaign! :lol:


Clinton wasn't actually in the middle of Watergate, you know. The fact that she was covered like she was undeniably helped Trump. Trump's coverage, as bad as it was, wasn't as bad as it should have been. We know all of this in retrospect. For the most famous example, the Comey letter (which turned out to be nothing, mind you) almost certainly cost Clinton the election. Meanwhile, right around the same time, the media (NYT, etc.) reported that the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia to help clear the cloud over that right before the election. Spoilers: There was a link.

The man had a lot of wind at his back and still limped to the finish line. If we're describing him as a strong candidate, then we're probably describing every presidential winner by default as a strong candidate. The reality is that people were so expecting Trump to lose that his victory has messed some people's heads and led them to overcorrect by thinking he's far more potent than he is.

Perfect EAllusion form. Just making ____ up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...


I'm responding to the idea that Democrats need to nominate a very strong candidate to win. Describing this is as "Jesus Christ" is called hyperbole.

Hyperbole.

You'll note that this is the thing being discussed.

I responded to the idea that Trump is a strong candidate, hence the need to Democrats to have to nominate a "rockstar" to hope to defeat him, which you've now apparently decided no one is arguing even though that's the entire chain of conversation. I'd advise you to read, but I know that's not going to help the situation. So carry on.
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _MeDotOrg »

If we're concerned about appealing to both sexes, how about fielding a hermaphrodite?
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

EAllusion wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Electoral Vote: 304 to 227


That's not an impressive electoral vote victory even on the raw numbers and he achieved it by winning three states by less than 1% while losing the popular vote by 3 million. He also relied on a leftwing candidate to split the Democratic vote in those states to get that very slight margin. The only election that's been closer in the past 100 years was Bush vs. Gore and Bush's victory wasn't quite as dependent on electoral college quirks as Trump's was. By any standard, he just eeked out a victory. Your refutation of winning an election where almost 130 million votes were cast by winning by a little under 100k more votes in just the right states as a very narrow victory by pointing to the raw electoral vote count is obtuse.

I forgot about the perfect and fawning coverage Trump received throughout the campaign! :lol:


Clinton wasn't actually in the middle of Watergate, you know. The fact that she was covered like she was undeniably helped Trump. Trump's coverage, as bad as it was, wasn't as bad as it should have been. We know all of this in retrospect. For the most famous example, the Comey letter (which turned out to be nothing, mind you) almost certainly cost Clinton the election. Meanwhile, right around the same time, the media (NYT, etc.) reported that the FBI saw no link between the Trump campaign and Russia to help clear the cloud over that right before the election. Spoilers: There was a link.

The man had a lot of wind at his back and still limped to the finish line. If we're describing him as a strong candidate, then we're probably describing every presidential winner by default as a strong candidate. The reality is that people were so expecting Trump to lose that his victory has messed some people's heads and led them to overcorrect by thinking he's far more potent than he is.

Perfect EAllusion form. Just making ____ up out of whole cloth. I wonder if he's going to refute his own argument...


I'm responding to the idea that Democrats need to nominate a very strong candidate to win. Describing this is as "Jesus Christ" is called hyperbole.

Hyperbole.

You'll note that this is the thing being discussed.

I responded to the idea that Trump is a strong candidate, hence the need to Democrats to have to nominate a "rockstar" to hope to defeat him, which you've now apparently decided no one is arguing even though that's the entire chain of conversation. I'd advise you to read, but I know that's not going to help the situation. So carry on.


What year is this again? 2016? I swear we're stuck in a time loop right now.

It's 2018. Trump just kicked the Democrats' ass again. He's an incumbent. You put Tom Perez in as the DNC nominee and we're locked into another 4 years of Trump.

But. Hey. Whatever. Mr. Perez has a pulse and Trump is insanely bad at winning things like the Presidency and Supreme Court nominations. Lol.

damned EA. Jesus.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _EAllusion »

It's 2018. Trump just kicked the Democrats' ass again.


Are you posting from the future? Was there a presidential election I was not aware of? You appear to be referring to the confirmation of Kavanaugh, but that doesn't make any sense at all. That's not even an election, must less an election that Trump is involved in.

But. Hey. Whatever. Mr. Perez has a pulse and Trump is insanely bad at winning things like the Presidency and Supreme Court nominations. Lol.
Man, I remember just the other day voting against Trump for the Supreme Court and losing. I gotta find a new acid dealer.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

It's Trump's pick. He twittered up a storm. He rallied the GOP. But yeah, keep saying incredibly snarky and equally obtuse things. Maybe we can seat Biden as the Democrats' nominee for the 2019 Presidential run. He's got a pulse.

:lol:

eta: I thinks it's incredibly important Democrats don't fall into EA's mindset come 2019. We thought Hillary Clinton could walk all over the Weakest Candidate Ever. She ran a pretty uninspiring campaign, but we were sure she'd win against Trump. And we underestimated him. I'm simply arguing that we need to overestimate Trump and his handlers so we don't just field someone with a pulse. I want to be very alert, and pragmatic when entering 2019, and get someone in the Presidency who can defeat the Republicans by taking the wind out their electorate's sail. That ain't gonna happen by using a plug-n-play candidate.

- Doc
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _EAllusion »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:It's Trump's pick. He twittered up a storm. He rallied the GOP. But yeah, keep saying incredibly snarky and equally obtuse things. Maybe we can seat Biden at the Democrats' nominee for the 2019 Presidential run. He's got a pulse.

:lol:

- Doc


A vote in the Senate that is controlled by a Republican majority that resulted in a Republican outcome is a Trump election victory that bears on the strength of Trump as candidate? Whatta hobby you have.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:eta: I thinks it's incredibly important Democrats don't fall into EAllusion's mindset come 2019. We thought Hillary Clinton could walk all over the Weakest Candidate Ever. She ran a pretty uninspiring campaign, but we were sure she'd win against Trump. And we underestimated him. I'm simply arguing that we need to overestimate Trump and his handlers so we don't just field someone with a pulse. I want to be very alert, and pragmatic when entering 2019, and get someone in the Presidency who can defeat the Republicans by taking the wind out their electorate's sail. That ain't gonna happen by using a plug-n-play candidate.
- Doc


You seem to be forgetting Natasha. Do you really expect her to make another miraculous appearance in 2020?

Image
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Bernie Sanders Question

Post by _EAllusion »

If there's a recession in 2020, Democrats could nominate Satan and Satan will win comfortably assuming the election is free and fair. Trump is very unpopular for as good as the underlying fundamentals are for him currently. That's a glaring red flag that he is a very weak candidate. He's like 20 points underwater for where he should be. Imagine if "where he should be" was a negative starting point.

Clinton performed about as good as the fundamentals said she should. They way we got there was bananas and probably involved weaknesses cancelling each other out, but the Trump/Clinton split was within the normal error range of prediction modeling. My contention is simply that differences between typical party nominees aren't a major factor in presidential election outcomes. It's mostly, though not entirely a referendum on how persuadable people feel about the party in power. This is a popular view in political science. Knowing that, we can infer that it is unreasonable to think only a "high quality" candidate stands a chance at beating Trump. By 2020, it's plausible that Trump's election chances are poor enough that marginal differences between candidates won't matter and they'll all beat him. It's also plausible that Trump's election chances are good enough that no one will beat him. You want to nominate the best candidate possible, because any increase in odds is better than no increase in odds, but that doesn't mean that's a needed step in winning.
Post Reply