ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 5th September 2019, 05:53 PM   #801
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,894
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Who would be saying we shouldn't frame these ideas as moderate?

The free college is one of those issues that IMO is being poorly framed. It needs to be framed as "affordable college" and I agree adding trade school tuition assistance is important.

While I didn't watch the 7 hours behind a paywall debate on climate change, reports this morning (Democracy Now) were that Warren emphasized retraining people who lose jobs to clean energy. That is critical messaging that Clinton missed on the coal issue.
Because some people think the Democrats should be about advocating for a more leftward agenda, which isn't wrong, exactly, but I'm not sure they're making the point that even Bernie is not far left at all. Mayor Pete said something like that - we're going to be branded socialists no matter what, so we might as well embrace so-called "socialism." He's not wrong about the social agenda, but I think it's a miscue to allow the GOP to brand that agenda as "socialist." Most of those things are totally middle-of-the-road positions. Not free college, but affordable college, for example (or trade school, just as valid as a B.A. for a start in life, IMO). I think starting now, leaving candidate's personalities aside, the DNC, or some PAC, should be introducing the idea that many of our most cherished traditions rely on collective funding. Nobody says you should have to blade your own road to get around; why would we tell sick people they have to blaze their own trail in the "free market"?

At this point, don't try to jump in with policy details about UHC - just start pressing the idea that people in this country deserve and can afford a better (cheaper and more rational) system, and that sharing costs is what government is for. But it has to be carefully tuned to specific issues - those where there is a big disconnect between what Democrats actually want to do vs. how the Republicans are framing what Democrats want to do. They are on the right side on health care - it's clear the GOP never had any plan on health care at all, other than repealing the ACA.

I think pitching these scenarios to younger voters - portable health care benefits, affordable education and/or job training - might get more of them to vote. (A sustainable planet is not far left, either). There's no need to identify any candidate, or even to make any promises - just let them know that one party gives a damn about the world they will live in, and it's not the GOP as currently constituted.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:18 PM   #802
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,981
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's not what I asked. Please read what you are replying to. I don't want to end up in another time-wasting back and forth.

The point was about your claim people prefer free to affordable. I get it 'affordable' has it's own problems. But a large number of people get very angry when they think people are getting stuff for free from their taxes.
I said I suspect, and said I'd like to see focus group testing on the various forms of framing.

Read my words again:
Quote:
I'd be interested to see a focus group result comparing the two.

As long as it can be demonstrated to not do something awful to the economy, I suspect most people prefer "free".
I made no "claims".

Quote:
That is about people thinking it's worthwhile to attend college, not is it valuable for the community to invest in educating college students.

It's was a multi-question survey.
It also asked:

Quote:
On another survey question, 62% of all Americans support making tuition to public colleges and universities free to anyone who wants to attend, with millennials most in favor, at a hefty 77%.
They broke it down by party affiliation, too:

Quote:
You might be able to guess how a person feels about free tuition if you know their political persuasion. Democrats (81%) and independents (67%) support the concept much more than those who identify themselves Republicans (33%).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 5th September 2019 at 07:21 PM.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 07:56 PM   #803
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,087
Sorry kellyb, I'm not going down this road. You have more than enough company already.

Maybe on another day.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 08:15 PM   #804
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,201
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Why did you put my name in when you are replying to Brainster?
Sorry mate, I have no idea how that happened and it wasn't intentional. Fail by me somewhere, mea culpa.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2019, 09:16 PM   #805
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sorry mate, I have no idea how that happened and it wasn't intentional. Fail by me somewhere, mea culpa.
No problem!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 01:32 AM   #806
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,450
Team Trump fretting over Warren's rise after his best shot at her fell flat

Quote:
Trump's campaign operatives have reportedly placed negative stories about other top Democratic candidates and kicked back to soak in the results, reports the Daily Beast. In fact, following Warren's missteps with DNA testing regarding her Native American heritage, Team Trump delighted in what they figured was her early demise. But instead of crumbling, Warren's campaign has been on a steady rise ever since she regained her footing from the flap.

“We all push out the bad Warren stories but they don’t go very far,” one Republican strategist told the Beast. That person and others close to Trump said they have mounted continued efforts to land blows to Warren's candidacy that have almost all fallen flat. Worse yet, Trump himself may have already squandered what they view as his best shot at Warren and failed. Even Trump remarked wistfully about his missed opportunity at a rally last month.

<snip>

“Sure the Republican base will ultimately loathe Warren, but she doesn’t inspire the same kind of historic vitriol that Hillary Clinton did,” another GOP strategist observed. “That, combined with fact that SCOTUS isn’t on the line as it was in ’16, and remembering that Trump needed the perfect inside straight to barely win last time, and any Democrat is going to be tough to beat, Warren included.”
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:15 AM   #807
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Those quotes remind me of how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 05:30 AM   #808
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.
If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade. She was tainted goods. Her character was already assassinated long before going into the race; Dems shouldn't have expected that propping it up and waving an arm around like Weekend at Bernie's would unfool the fooled. When she talked about revamping the stricken economy of coal-producing counties, all they heard was benghazi benghazi benghazi.

Which is why I'm glad to see this whole Pocahontas thing fading back. Even now Warren is still the leader when it comes to proposing actual policies, not just "I'mma gonna fix it." I think she should pick Buttegieg as her veep: youthful and charismatic but on the moderate wing of the party.

While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:03 AM   #809
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,615
I want that socialism to start soon. My wife still needs Obamacare. It sets limits on my spending. I'd like to buy a car (Capitalism!) after she gets socialism (health insurance). Otherwise we have to wait till she is on Medicare to buy that car.

Help me Warren! Or even Biden!
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:18 AM   #810
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade. She was tainted goods. Her character was already assassinated long before going into the race; Dems shouldn't have expected that propping it up and waving an arm around like Weekend at Bernie's would unfool the fooled. When she talked about revamping the stricken economy of coal-producing counties, all they heard was benghazi benghazi benghazi.

Which is why I'm glad to see this whole Pocahontas thing fading back. Even now Warren is still the leader when it comes to proposing actual policies, not just "I'mma gonna fix it." I think she should pick Buttegieg as her veep: youthful and charismatic but on the moderate wing of the party.

While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.
WRT Clinton, I agree. She had been a target of right-wing smears for decades.

We keep discussing "electability" in this thread without recognizing what happened the last time Dems ran a candidate with low "electability"- she lost!

I remember being thrilled with the Republican nomination of Trump (I could probably dig up the posts) because I mistakenly believed that they had selected the only candidate from their field that could possibly lose to Clinton.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:47 AM   #811
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
WRT Clinton, I agree. She had been a target of right-wing smears for decades.

We keep discussing "electability" in this thread without recognizing what happened the last time Dems ran a candidate with low "electability"- she lost!

I remember being thrilled with the Republican nomination of Trump (I could probably dig up the posts) because I mistakenly believed that they had selected the only candidate from their field that could possibly lose to Clinton.
You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.

I see Biden having the same problem she did. When it came right down to it, not enough people actually wanted her as president, so they stayed home because they assumed all those other people who did want her would turn up. Just like you don't want Biden, but you're afraid people will vote against whoever else otherwise.

Don't worry about what candidate other people will want. Support the person you'd most like to see in office, and trust others to do the same.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:59 AM   #812
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,473
Well the problem is "My credibility has been destroyed but it's unfair and not my fault" even if 100% true is still like a factor we can't just make go away.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:18 AM   #813
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,450
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Indeed, Trump got a massive plurality over the other candidates: He had 14 million total votes in the primary. Next highest total? Ted Cruz, with 7.8 million. Trump's total was 80% more than the second place contender, despite being a moronic lunatic.
Tangent - That Ted Cruz was 2nd is actually a bit significant, too, though. Ted Cruz is also a moronic lunatic. A pretty friggin' horrible one, at that, even if he's outclassed by Trump in that regard. And Ted Cruz still got second even after Fox was ordered to not say a good word about him, apparently.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a decade.
It was actually a heck of a lot longer than that. They were being really mean to her long before Bill Clinton was President, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.
There was a rather dramatically long list of effectively unpredictable and unprecedented major interferences. Without any one of those many major interferences, Hillary would fairly certainly have won, albeit only a squeaker victory in the EC with only one. Take out the Russian hacking and dissemination of hacked material and the way that the media jumped onto it like bloodthirsty sharks, with pretty much nary a mention of the Russians or their reasons for doing so, and the ensuing dramatic reopening of an investigation by Comey (while people were early voting)... and Hillary's win would have been pretty solid.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 6th September 2019 at 08:38 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:29 AM   #814
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,087
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Those quotes remind me of how silly it is for people who just can't let go of 2016 to keep claiming Hillary only lost because the Republicans were mean to her. Republicans are mean to everybody. The difference between their opponents is how well it works.
Have you been asleep for the last 40 years? Are you in your 20s?

First off, that's a straw man. Who made that claim? Unless by "mean to her" you are referring to 40 years of demonizing Clinton, you missed the point.

Second, she didn't lose the actual vote.

Third, I'm pretty sure most if not all of us think she lost for a cascade of reasons.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:31 AM   #815
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,087
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
If you'd kept reading you'd understand their point and how it isn't silly. It's not that the Republicans were mean to Hillary, it's that they were mean to Hillary for a [four] decades. ....
ftfy
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 08:39 AM   #816
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
While I'm kibitzing, I STILL haven't heard of anyone - anyone at all - who wants Biden as president on his own merits. It's always boiled down to "we have to pick Biden, because if we don't some other demographic is going to vote against us." I think this would be a good time for Biden to start adopting a big tent "vote blue no matter who" platform, and end up being the unifier of the party for whomever ends up with the torch.
I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:22 AM   #817
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.
Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:28 AM   #818
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?
The same ones Biden will after his.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:30 AM   #819
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
The same ones Biden will after his.
You don't think Biden would defeat Trump?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:35 AM   #820
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Yet Hillary Clinton could not.

What policies that she favored was she able to enact after her loss?
That circles around nicely to the discussion in the Elizabeth Warren Ancestry thread: which candidate has no weaknesses?

Certainly not Sleepy Joe. ****, his whole career is is pretty much unimpressive up until he worked for what's his name, uh, "my boss". He's a ******* gaffe factory compared to anyone else in the field. And he has some pretty non-progressive baggage from that long career that will turn off a lot of voters.

Any single other Democratic candidate currently in the field would be better than Biden. Seriously, even that Bullock guy from Montana.

It is not about finding the bullet proof candidate, it is about finding the candidate who Trump has the weakest bullets for. Maybe Warren, maybe someone else, but sure as hell it isn't Sleepy Joe.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 09:40 AM   #821
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
You don't think Biden would defeat Trump?
No. No one wants him. I don't want him. You don't want him. You're saying there's a lot of other people who'd stay home rather than vote against him, I'm saying there's a lot of people who'd stay home rather than vote for him. That was a problem Clinton had as well. Her electoral strategery of "well she's not Trump at least" did not defeat Trump. Biden's will not either.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 10:56 AM   #822
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You're only assigning her "low electability" in hindsight, which is why the term is meaningless. Everyone but 538 gave her, what, a 98% chance of winning at the time? That's not low.

I see Biden having the same problem she did. When it came right down to it, not enough people actually wanted her as president, so they stayed home because they assumed all those other people who did want her would turn up. Just like you don't want Biden, but you're afraid people will vote against whoever else otherwise.

Don't worry about what candidate other people will want. Support the person you'd most like to see in office, and trust others to do the same.
As I said. I can dig up the posts from back then if necessary (maybe), but I was calling her unelectable well before the Republican nominee had been selected.
I felt the Democratic Party was underestimating the vitriol towards her in the Midwest.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:04 AM   #823
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No. No one wants him. I don't want him. You don't want him. You're saying there's a lot of other people who'd stay home rather than vote against him, I'm saying there's a lot of people who'd stay home rather than vote for him. That was a problem Clinton had as well. Her electoral strategery of "well she's not Trump at least" did not defeat Trump. Biden's will not either.
Who do you think would "stay home rather than vote for him" when the alternative is a second Trump term?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:12 AM   #824
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,981
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Who do you think would "stay home rather than vote for him" when the alternative is a second Trump term?
Same type of people as these folks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-presidency/
Quote:
As we noted shortly after the election, about 30 percent of Americans were eligible to vote but decided not to, a higher percentage than the portion of the country who voted for either Trump or his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:41 AM   #825
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Same type of people as these folks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-presidency/
I think the pool of eligible non-voters is worthy of consideration- but not very much consideration. Historically, better than 58% turnout of voting age Americans does not seem to have been achieved since 1968.
The dynamism required to motivate the non voters is just as likely to cut both ways IMO



Voting Age Population (VAP)[clarification needed][8] Turnout[clarification needed][8] % Turnout of VAP[8][9]
1789
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828 57.6%
1832 55.4%
1836 57.8%
1840 80.2%
1844 78.9%
1848 72.7%
1852 69.6%
1856 78.9%
1860 81.2%
1864 73.8%
1868 78.1%
1872 71.3%
1876 81.8%
1880 79.4%
1884 77.5%
1888 79.3%
1892 74.7%
1896 79.3%
1900 73.2%
1904 65.2%
1908 65.4%
1912 58.8%
1916 61.6%
1920 49.2%
1924 48.9%
1928 56.9%
1932 75,768,000 39,817,000 52.6%
1936 80,174,000 45,647,000 56.9%
1940 84,728,000 49,815,000 58.8%
1944 85,654,000 48,026,000 56.1%
1948 95,573,000 48,834,000 51.1%
1952 99,929,000 61,552,000 61.6%
1956 104,515,000 62,027,000 59.3%
1960 109,672,000 68,836,000 62.8%
1964 114,090,000 70,098,000 61.4%
1968 120,285,000 73,027,000 60.7%
1972 140,777,000 77,625,000 55.1%
1976 152,308,000 81,603,000 53.6%
1980 163,945,000 86,497,000 52.8%
1984 173,995,000 92,655,000 53.3%
1988 181,956,000 91,587,000 50.3%
1992 189,493,000 104,600,000 55.2%
1996 196,789,000 96,390,000 49.0%
2000 209,787,000 105,594,000 50.3%
2004 219,553,000 122,349,000 55.7%
2008 229,945,000 131,407,000 58.2%
2012 235,248,000 129,235,000 54.9%
2016 250,056,000 (estimated)[10]

Sorry for the poor quality of the cut/paste.
It is from this link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote...tial_elections
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 6th September 2019 at 11:43 AM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:44 AM   #826
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,473
I think it's dangerous to assume that getting non-voters out for "your side" is going to be significantly easier then getting "other side" voters out for your side.

The Dems have played the "Oh all those non-voters... yeah they'd totally be on our side if they voted" card a lot and I think are usually right, especially in the face of voter suppression, but they aren't right as much as they think they are.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 11:47 AM   #827
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,421
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I think it's dangerous to assume that getting non-voters out for "your side" is going to be significantly easier then getting "other side" voters out for your side.

The Dems have played the "Oh all those non-voters... yeah they'd totally be on our side if they voted" card a lot and I think are usually right, especially in the face of voter suppression, but they aren't right as much as they think they are.
If there's one thing I've learned from online discussion forums, it's that the guy who says the lurkers agree with him is always comically wrong.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 02:57 PM   #828
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,100
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.
And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:01 PM   #829
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".
It was just a clip, so I'm not sure what her total comments were, but she did seem to stumble around saying something along the lines of 'maybe this person is better on that issue or another person is better in this issue', as if she knew he just wasn't very good.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:02 PM   #830
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,087
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I saw a clip of Jill Biden making this argument: He's not who you want, but he is the one who can beat Trump.

That is such ********. A ******* grocery store rotisserie chicken could beat Trump.
It says she doesn't have enthusiasm for her own husband.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:21 PM   #831
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,624
Tulsi still running lame banner ads on websites I visit. She might as stop throwing her money away....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:23 PM   #832
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,624
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
And, as always for the people who say that, she supplied no reason why we should buy it. They just count on the myth of the missing "middle".

Just keep up this "We Don"t Need No Stinking Moderates and Centrist" crap and you will hand Trump a second term on a silver platter.
And the real myth is the "Lost Tribe Myth" in which you seem to firmly believe.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 03:31 PM   #833
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,574
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Just keep up this "We Don"t Need No Stinking Moderates and Centrist" crap and you will hand Trump a second term on a silver platter.

And the real myth is the "Lost Tribe Myth" in which you seem to firmly believe.
Isn't it just as reckless for moderates and centrists to turn their noses up and sit out, though?

The "purity test" argument goes both ways.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 04:12 PM   #834
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
As I said. I can dig up the posts from back then if necessary (maybe), but I was calling her unelectable well before the Republican nominee had been selected.
I felt the Democratic Party was underestimating the vitriol towards her in the Midwest.
And I'd have agreed with you, then and now. I see Biden as similarly terrible for similar reasons. I don't see any reason his run would turn out any differently.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 06:06 PM   #835
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,120
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
And I'd have agreed with you, then and now. I see Biden as similarly terrible for similar reasons. I don't see any reason his run would turn out any differently.
I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.

I think a nice, boring, establishment, "business as usual" type candidate is what they long for after the Trump experience. And a candidate like that will give us back MI and PA- and probably OH too, without costing us any blue States.

A candidate pushing UHC, free tuition, and reparations will put them in the same dilemma they found themselves in in 2016- with the same likely result.

I thought the Dems had that with Biden, unfortunately it is seeming lately that his age is going to overtake him before he can get to the finish line.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:02 PM   #836
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,061
It would be interesting to know if a race in 2020 between Trump and Clinton (if she hadn't run in 2016) would have a different outcome. After 4 years of Trump insanity, I wonder if more Democrats would have gotten their asses to the voting booth and less would be willing to gamble on Trump. We'll never know of course.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:34 PM   #837
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,981
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It would be interesting to know if a race in 2020 between Trump and Clinton (if she hadn't run in 2016) would have a different outcome. After 4 years of Trump insanity, I wonder if more Democrats would have gotten their asses to the voting booth and less would be willing to gamble on Trump. We'll never know of course.
It would probably depend, in part, at least, on who was beat by Trump last time and what the prevailing narrative was about why they lost.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:36 PM   #838
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,981
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.
I'm sure some of them do, but I'm also sure a lot of them don't.

There are several members of this forum who voted for Trump, or voted 3rd party, or just didn't vote for POTUS, but I haven't seen any of them say they regret it or that they're planning to vote differently this time around because of how bad Trump is.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:55 PM   #839
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,012
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I think what we got with Trump has caused the voters who cast their votes against Clinton, and the voters who elected to vote for neither (but still voted-just left the POTUS box blank), and the voters who just tossed off a third party vote because they could not stomach either major candidate. To regret that decision.

I think a nice, boring, establishment, "business as usual" type candidate is what they long for after the Trump experience. And a candidate like that will give us back MI and PA- and probably OH too, without costing us any blue States.

A candidate pushing UHC, free tuition, and reparations will put them in the same dilemma they found themselves in in 2016- with the same likely result.

I thought the Dems had that with Biden, unfortunately it is seeming lately that his age is going to overtake him before he can get to the finish line.
There I can disagree with you. I think that relying solely on anti-Trump sentiment turning out all the base voters to usher in the most inoffensive, milquetoast candidate they can anoint would be a stupid gamble. It's already failed once with Clinton, and Biden would be no different. If your answer to regretful independent voters is "we're going to take your vote for granted and run a geriatric white guy of our own whom no one wants, what else are you gonna do, vote for Trump, ya saps," you're going to lose.

Look. You've had half a dozen posts by now to correct me and say that you genuinely want Biden, qua Biden, in office. You haven't done so. You, the person here who is arguing for Biden, will be holding your nose to vote for him. That is a bad idea. It will continue to be a bad idea, because candidates whom everyone has to hold their nose to vote for don't get elected.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2019, 07:59 PM   #840
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Isn't it just as reckless for moderates and centrists to turn their noses up and sit out, though?

The "purity test" argument goes both ways.
Doesn't count when progressives are involved.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.