Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 57 of 57

Thread: 2020 Democratic Primaries

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The Midwest does exist though. The Democrats need to face that fact, not lose the electoral college and claim some moral high grounds because they stacked up millions more votes than they needed in California again.
    This is why I support the candidate who's a known quantity and popular in the Midwest rather than the candidates who can run up the scores on the coasts. Given the age of the frontrunners, the main point of this election is to kick Trump out of the White House. We can fight over the perfect candidate in 2024.

    Wraith, have you considered the possibility that candidates whose supporters are so fanatical also generate fanatical opponents? There's a reason Sanders lost in 2016. And to suggest that someone calling themselves a socialist is going to win in Florida, Arizona, or the Midwest is beyond stupid. You remember we have an Electoral College, right? No one gives a damn if you extend the Democratic lead in either Washington.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Wraith, have you considered the possibility that candidates whose supporters are so fanatical also generate fanatical opponents? There's a reason Sanders lost in 2016. And to suggest that someone calling themselves a socialist is going to win in Florida, Arizona, or the Midwest is beyond stupid. You remember we have an Electoral College, right? No one gives a damn if you extend the Democratic lead in either Washington.
    Are you talking to me or the strawman you built? I didn't want to interrupt you two.

    Fanatical support can generate a fanatical opposition, yes. But it's not a simple causal relationship, there's a lot of factors that go into determining whether that happens and to what extent, making it harder to predict. But more importantly, I think fanatical opposition is a wash, or at least very hard to predict the final effect on the results. Aggressive attacks can wind up just pushing more people towards that person (see: Trump, either direction) and in the course of their outrage they can wind up causing a Streissand Effect that winds up helping their opponent. For instance, take this thread - the fanatical opposition to Yang has kept us talking about a single-digit polling candidate while Warren and Bernie have gotten disproportionately small discussion. And it's only happening because of one person's fanatical opposition to the random Asian guy running for President because...I don't actually know why, but I guess this type of hatred never needed a reason.

  3. #33
    The most important form of "activism" is just casting a vote, and most voters aren't fanatics. Berniebros, for example, may be extremely vocal and seem extremely engaged, but Bernie's support among people who actually vote is less impressive. No matter how much people here or elsewhere talk about Yang, he's not gonna be the Democratic candidate, or even come close to it. It's not a conspiracy; he's better than Gabbard, but he's just not that compelling.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #34
    Grass roots campaigns aren't always effective, but they can be powerful when they are. I think Bernie and Yang (in that order) are the most likely to be able to launch effective grass roots campaigns.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    It's so very weird the way America places more importance on a candidate's personality/character/ability to debate than their actual policies.

    I suppose it explains why big personalities with disastrous policies make it all the way to the White House.
    Bingo! It's also weird that Democrats use "likeability" as a metric, even tho Republicans won the presidency with an "unlikable" character.


    edit: and now that Bloomberg has entered the Democratic field of contenders....does that change the odds?
    Last edited by GGT; 11-25-2019 at 03:20 AM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Grass roots campaigns aren't always effective, but they can be powerful when they are. I think Bernie and Yang (in that order) are the most likely to be able to launch effective grass roots campaigns.
    At this point in 2015, Bernie Sanders was polling 30%. You sound like a Mets fan who's convinced the Mets are going to win the World Series.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #37
    A fair representation? Made me laugh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    At this point in 2015, Bernie Sanders was polling 30%. You sound like a Mets fan who's convinced the Mets are going to win the World Series.
    Please don't quote me when you're talking to your strawman.

  9. #39
    Is that hard to admit that you're being a homer here? You keep on making claim after claim, but have yet to provide evidence for any of them. You seem to be drawing conclusions from a wildly biased sample.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #40
    Is it that hard to admit that you're just looking for a fight and you're not even willing to make the barest attempt to understand anything I've said? You keep arguing against things I've never said, and while you've managed to say some pretty stupid things in your pursuit of a battle, I'm not interested in taking the bait this time. I'm not even clear anymore what you're demanding I prove, because I can only see half of your conversation with that effigy you're talking to. You've proven to me over and over that you have no intention of discussing anything in good faith, so I see no reason to put in any effort on your behalf.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The Midwest does exist though. The Democrats need to face that fact, not lose the electoral college and claim some moral high grounds because they stacked up millions more votes than they needed in California again.
    They would rather ban the electoral college and introduce an urban dictatorship.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    They would rather ban the electoral college and introduce an urban dictatorship.

    But they can't. Constitution says no.

    I see Elizabeth Warren has pledged to be the last President to be elected by the Electoral College - Umm yes how are you going to get a Constitutional Amendment through for that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #43
    NPVIC. Not something she can control, but that's the way there.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  14. #44
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,865
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    But they can't. Constitution says no.

    I see Elizabeth Warren has pledged to be the last President to be elected by the Electoral College - Umm yes how are you going to get a Constitutional Amendment through for that?
    I think the point of an election campaign is to say what you want to change? Or do politicians no longer run with a platform? So I'd say by making a new amendment and trying to get it through Congress, and getting it ratified.

    Or maybe she's planning to stop following the constitution, but I thought that was the GOP's platform already.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I think the point of an election campaign is to say what you want to change? Or do politicians no longer run with a platform? So I'd say by making a new amendment and trying to get it through Congress, and getting it ratified.

    Or maybe she's planning to stop following the constitution, but I thought that was the GOP's platform already.
    Generally it makes sense to propose changes that you can actually implement.

    A constitutional amendment requires 34 states to agree to it, which will never happen. The NPVIC is another method as Aimless said, but that is also not in the President's control either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #46
    The NPVIC is an odd duck. Ultimately the idea hinges on the state legislature being able to overrule the will of the state voting population. Which seems to be a rarity for it to occur outside of a very strong gerrymandering effort. The only reason it is popular in some states is that those states know their vote will go the way they think it will in the state. It is dubious that a state that knows their vote will go in a different direction would tolerate such a compact.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    They would rather ban the electoral college and introduce an urban dictatorship.
    If we're playing the hyperbole game....then the electoral college has become the tyranny of the minority.

    "Urban dictatorship" is a loaded term, but you knew that. Maybe you should revive Gentry to say outlandish crap like that.

  18. #48
    Kamala Harris drops out. This was a bit of a surprise for me. She didn't have a serious chance, but I thought she'd at least tough it out until the early states.

    Speaking of surprises, Gabbard's got the numbers in the early states (from non-qualifying polls) that we might be seeing her again in the next debate. It's a bit of a toss-up still, though - she's within the margin of error, so she could also show as just below the line in few remaining qualifying polls. I didn't expect her to outlast Harris.

  19. #49
    Meanwhile, Bloomberg enters the stage....and begins his multi-million dollar media blitz.

  20. #50

  21. #51
    Remarkable how a small town's Mayor is nearly spending as much as POTUS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  22. #52
    Trump gets free advertising every day. He doesn't need to run ads. He got outspent by Clinton 2 to 1.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #53
    OK . . . remarkable how a small town's Mayor is spending more than anyone who isn't a billionaire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  24. #54
    Warren and Sanders are in this for the long haul, so they're conserving funds for later. Buttigieg is doing an early-state strategy, and that can only work if you win the early states, so he has to go all in before Iowa. Those spending numbers aren't proportional to their fundraising numbers.

  25. #55
    I have heard that he is very organised for the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire which seems surprising to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #56
    It's actually a common tactic for candidates that enter the race without much name recognition or enough funding to build it fast. If you can't afford to compete with the bigger candidates at the national level, you just focus on the early states instead and concentrate all your resources and energy there. If you can win the early states or at least make a strong showing, that'll lead to a bunch of free press and an influx of cash and supporters, so you can start competing at the national level. The success record of the strategy is kinda poor, but it's usually seen as the best route for underdog candidates.

  27. #57
    Anyone else find it insane that the Democrats are crying about not enough diversity when there is still Tulsi, Yang, Booker and Castro still in the race? Wtf? Not to mention the gay mayor if you want that angle too.

Posting Permissions

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