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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , 2020 elections , democratic party , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 31st October 2019, 12:51 PM   #2041
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,522
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sunk cost, then? ; )
I don't know how that applies.
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 31st October 2019, 12:53 PM   #2042
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,522
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
As demonstrated by what?
Her loss to an opponent considered one of the most unqualified to ever run?
The fact that it was such a close race, between Hillary Clinton and Donald ******* Trump, that James Comey re-opening the emails inquiry was enough to tip the scales, should tell you something about the limits of her electability.
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 31st October 2019, 01:26 PM   #2043
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
There are those of us who think the Dems should not run McGovern II aka Bernie Sanders.
I agree with them.
__________________
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 31st October 2019, 01:32 PM   #2044
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, seriously, what's your plan here? Ridicule me for considering Warren? Try to talk me out of voting for her? Try to convince me I'm not going to vote for her? Do you want more Trump? Because this is probably how you get more Trump.
My plan would be to buy you a beer and see if you could give me more insight into this line of thinking. But you are pretty far away and I'm not heading your way in the foreseeable future. So, how about you buy yourself a beer and you put it on my tab? I'm good for it, honest. (Just don't get some Trappist monk crap that is going to set me back the cost of whole six pack. A beer means a beer.)
__________________
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 31st October 2019, 01:33 PM   #2045
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,522
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
My plan would be to buy you a beer and see if you could give me more insight into this line of thinking. But you are pretty far away and I'm not heading your way in the foreseeable future. So, how about you buy yourself a beer and you put it on my tab? I'm good for it, honest. (Just don't get some Trappist monk crap that is going to set me back the cost of whole six pack. A beer means a beer.)
Fair enough. Pilsner okay?
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 31st October 2019, 01:38 PM   #2046
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fair enough. Pilsner okay?
Sure.

Are craft pilsner any better than German or Czech pilsners? I've never really ventured down those paths.

I feel like Warren would better be able to understand that question than any of the other candidates except maybe Beto.

I like Beto, but this was not his time to run and his wild grasping at the end is going to turn off a lot of Texas voters if he tries for another shot at the Senate.

ETA: I don't think Warren would be able to give me much of an answer to the question, just that she would understand it.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 31st October 2019 at 01:40 PM.
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 31st October 2019, 01:45 PM   #2047
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
__________________
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 31st October 2019, 01:48 PM   #2048
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,151
There were quite a few warning signs about Hillary's electability. When she ran for the Senate she won by 12.3 percentage points in a state which Al Gore carried by 25 percentage points in the presidential election that year. Look at the numbers:

Gore 4,113,791
Bush: 2,405,676
Clinton: 3,747,310
Lazio: 2,915,370

It seems pretty obvious that a pretty substantial number of voters cast their ballot for Gore, then crossed over and voted for Rick Lazio over Hillary.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 31st October 2019, 02:04 PM   #2049
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominate., it's a lost cause anyway.
You need the candidate who can beat Trump in Wisconsin. Why don’t the Dems just move the state primaries of the key states to the beginning of the order and see who wins there. Then just go for it.

No offense to you but you are in California. Your vote is as important as mine and I live in Japan.
__________________
"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 31st October 2019, 02:17 PM   #2050
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
How is one scenario a total "lost cause" and the other is a totally reasonable scenario to base a voting strategy off of?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb 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 31st October 2019, 02:18 PM   #2051
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 23,205
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There were quite a few warning signs about Hillary's electability. When she ran for the Senate she won by 12.3 percentage points in a state which Al Gore carried by 25 percentage points in the presidential election that year. Look at the numbers:

Gore 4,113,791
Bush: 2,405,676
Clinton: 3,747,310
Lazio: 2,915,370

It seems pretty obvious that a pretty substantial number of voters cast their ballot for Gore, then crossed over and voted for Rick Lazio over Hillary.
It's a different race. Apples and Oranges.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 31st October 2019, 02:22 PM   #2052
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
How is one scenario a total "lost cause" and the other is a totally reasonable scenario to base a voting strategy off of?
Because in both cases the progressives are bad!!!!1!
__________________
"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 31st October 2019, 02:40 PM   #2053
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,317
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
And again, you might not need some vast hidden pool of progressives. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a hard right winger who supported everything he was about either.
Internal polling suggests that Sanders would beat Trump by about 10 points each in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Make of that what you wish but he has a solid influence in some battleground states that Trump handily beat Clinton in in 2016.

Some interesting numbers:

Bernie Out-Raises Biden in Obama-Trump Swing Counties
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
Old 31st October 2019, 02:48 PM   #2054
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,181
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
Who are the moderate swing voters, and what policies will win them over? Karl Rove proved that turning out the base rather than reaching out to moderates works as well. I don't think we can declare one strategy best on paper. Republicans won the Senate on Kavanaugh, a base turn out, but Democrats won the House on health care, a moderate appeal.

Leaving the abstract terms, in terms of electoral demographics from the 2016 election the shift of White voters without college degrees to Republican and the fall in Black voter turnout seemed to be the end of the Obama coalition. If we called populist "White voters without college degrees" "moderates" and "Black voters" "the base" both theories are kind of accurate, but also a bit off.

More analyses of 2016 are also a bit conflicting:

Quote:
And of course, it is the Electoral College that decides presidential elections, not the popular vote, so where swing voters are based geographically can have huge electoral consequences. Catalist, a Democratic data firm, recently found that the shifts in vote margin from 2012 to 2016 in many swing states were predominantly driven by changes in vote choice rather than changes in turnout. According to their analysis, the change in vote margin in the three key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could mostly be explained by people shifting which party they voted for, rather than by changes in turnout. On the other hand, using data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a large nationwide survey that focuses on respondents’ political attitudes, other researchers have suggested that depressed voter turnout or votes for third-party candidates could also explain a big part of the national swing toward the GOP. So while estimating the number of swing voters is challenging — and the number will vary depending on what data and definitions you use — the importance of swing voters should not be understated. How they swing in 2020 could make all the difference.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha 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 31st October 2019, 03:06 PM   #2055
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
And again, you might not need some vast hidden pool of progressives. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a hard right winger who supported everything he was about either.
Internal polling suggests that Sanders would beat Trump by about 10 points each in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Make of that what you wish but he has a solid influence in some battleground states that Trump handily beat Clinton in in 2016.

Some interesting numbers:

Bernie Out-Raises Biden in Obama-Trump Swing Counties
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Who are the moderate swing voters, and what policies will win them over? Karl Rove proved that turning out the base rather than reaching out to moderates works as well. I don't think we can declare one strategy best on paper. Republicans won the Senate on Kavanaugh, a base turn out, but Democrats won the House on health care, a moderate appeal.

Leaving the abstract terms, in terms of electoral demographics from the 2016 election the shift of White voters without college degrees to Republican and the fall in Black voter turnout seemed to be the end of the Obama coalition. If we called populist "White voters without college degrees" "moderates" and "Black voters" "the base" both theories are kind of accurate, but also a bit off.

More analyses of 2016 are also a bit conflicting:



Linky.
I’m going to predict the future...we haven’t heard the last of this “lost tribe”!
__________________
"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 31st October 2019, 03:20 PM   #2056
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
The Berniebots are out in force I see.
__________________
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 31st October 2019, 03:23 PM   #2057
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
The Berniebots are out in force I see.
That’s impossible. There is no lost tribe.
__________________
"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 31st October 2019, 04:19 PM   #2058
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,701
It's Schrodinger's Lost Tribe. They are at once so insignificant they shouldn't be catered to, yet also responsible for losses (or are predicted to be).

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 31st October 2019 at 04:21 PM.
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 31st October 2019, 04:31 PM   #2059
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,181
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
The Berniebots are out in force I see.
If I had to vote today I would vote for Warren, but I don't feel compelled to advocate for anyone particularly. There are legitimate strengths and weaknesses for each, and Iowa and NH largely get to decide for us.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha 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 31st October 2019, 04:45 PM   #2060
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,181
A wild Pokémon appears:

Quote:
In 2008, Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) requested $500,000 in taxpayer money to go towards an anti-drug program run by Minnesota Teen Challenge, a group with anti-LGBTQ views that is also associated with the world’s largest Pentecostal group, the Assemblies of God. The Pentecostal denomination is fundamentalist and very anti-LGBTQ.

While it’s unclear if Minnesota Teen Challenge ever received the money, it was meant to fund their “Know the Truth” program for “drug prevention education efforts for teenagers.” The group also called “Halloween, Harry Potter, and Pokémon” gateways to drug addiction” and listed homosexuality as a problem similar to drug addiction.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 31st October 2019 at 04:46 PM.
Tsukasa Buddha 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 31st October 2019, 04:58 PM   #2061
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,890
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It's Schrodinger's Lost Tribe. They are at once so insignificant they shouldn't be catered to, yet also responsible for losses (or are predicted to be).
I don’t quite get dudalb’s analysis:

Pick a progressive and lose the moderates; pick a moderate and lose the progressives, but neither constitutes a lost tribe and either way it must be the fault of the progressives.
__________________
"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 31st October 2019, 05:59 PM   #2062
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,153
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
neither constitutes a lost tribe
Given the studies that have found that most people who call themselves "independent" or "moderate" or even "undecided" or such are actually to one side or the other and just not admitting it, and the fact that they've never come through for the politicians who've based their campaigns on going after them no matter how hard they keep trying year after year after year of losing at every level of government, the evidence certainly points toward a certain "tribe" being "lost" here.
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 31st October 2019, 06:14 PM   #2063
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,317
Why not have more Joe Donnellys and Joe Manchins so the Republicans can double down on calling us crazy leftists anyway?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Meanwhile many Indiana Democrats held their nose for Donnelly even after years of this nonsense.
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
Old 31st October 2019, 09:29 PM   #2064
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,151
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
That's the essential tension both parties undergo. Both parties have pundits telling them that they need to play to the base and pundits telling them that they need to play to the center. And guess which group of pundits gets the most listeners, followers, favorites or whatever. Yep it's the people saying that all you have to do is energize the base and you will win.

One would think that Trump himself would have proved that theory as bunk. If ever there was a GOP candidate that did not appeal to much of the base, it was he. So how did he win? By poaching votes from the Democrats in a lot of their rust-belt strongholds.

I can prove this in several ways. Look at Utah, for example. Trump was so unpopular in Utah that he got only 45% of the vote. Romney got 72% in 2012, okay, so he's a Mormon and had the connection, but McCain got 62% and Bush got 72% and 67% in 2004 and 2000 respectively. So it certainly seems like Trump actually bled support in some GOP strongholds. The issue was of course that these were still GOP strongholds and so the bleeding was limited, yes, in part due to the Electoral College.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 31st October 2019 at 09:30 PM.
Brainster 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 31st October 2019, 10:21 PM   #2065
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,181
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
That's the essential tension both parties undergo. Both parties have pundits telling them that they need to play to the base and pundits telling them that they need to play to the center. And guess which group of pundits gets the most listeners, followers, favorites or whatever. Yep it's the people saying that all you have to do is energize the base and you will win.

One would think that Trump himself would have proved that theory as bunk. If ever there was a GOP candidate that did not appeal to much of the base, it was he. So how did he win? By poaching votes from the Democrats in a lot of their rust-belt strongholds.

I can prove this in several ways. Look at Utah, for example. Trump was so unpopular in Utah that he got only 45% of the vote. Romney got 72% in 2012, okay, so he's a Mormon and had the connection, but McCain got 62% and Bush got 72% and 67% in 2004 and 2000 respectively. So it certainly seems like Trump actually bled support in some GOP strongholds. The issue was of course that these were still GOP strongholds and so the bleeding was limited, yes, in part due to the Electoral College.
Here is where it breaks down, because candidates like Trump can construct a different base while making anti-centrist appeals. His central campaign pledge to "build the wall" had 66% opposed. All the Republicans have switched to the new base as a result.

I would argue he did win over voters, but not by appealing to the center, which is why the base vs center debate is sort of an incomplete narrative.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha 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 31st October 2019, 10:46 PM   #2066
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is politics. Being more popular is absolutely meaningless unless you're more popular with the right people.
I don't think Dump was popular at all among many who voted for him. They just had their fill of the Clintons or were persuaded by (literally) decades of HRC demonizing by the right.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 10:48 PM   #2067
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
I tend to think that 2016 was an outlier.
In what way? Say more, especially in light of the thread topic, namely, the 2020 election.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 10:52 PM   #2068
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
A large portion of the Republican field that year would have beaten her resoundingly.
I don't believe that. Let's see what you have. A "large portion" of what, the initial candidate list? OK, name, say, five that would have beaten her "resoundingly". Smells like hyperbole unless you can name names.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 10:56 PM   #2069
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
While "basket of deplorables" was an infelicitous phrasing, Clinton had a point. The original formulation was something like, there are three "baskets" of voters on the right: Those who will vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, the literal "deplorables", and moderate/swing voters who can actually be reached by a Democratic candidate.

The voters on the left fall into similar buckets. It's no secret that the densely-populated coastal urban centers are full of people who reliably vote for anyone with a "D" after their name. The question is, was Hillary electable in those areas because of Hillary, or because of the "D"?

Both ways, she's electable, but the nature of that electability has to be understood and accounted for. Being electable in New York and San Francisco because of the "D", but being unelectable elsewhere may be a more meaningful definition of "unelectable". The Democratic candidates for 2020 will need to think carefully about this, and about whether garnering millions of redundant votes in states they were going to win anyway because of the "D", is the kind of electability they want to base their campaign strategy on. At the end of the day, the only electability that matters is the electability that actually matters. A Democrat being electable in New York doesn't actually matter.
tl;dr version: The sky is blue.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 11:09 PM   #2070
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Which Democratic policies are more or less popular with voters WHO ARE NOT ALREADY FIRMLY IN THE BAG FOR YOU is not a totally unknown factor ("*Whine* But we can't know for suuuuuuurre *whine*" lamb bleating aside) and focusing on things which are more likely to get you people who weren't already going to vote for you is a good thing. IT'S LITERALLY WHAT POLITICS IS.
I think what you might be missing is turnout. Someone who is "in the bag" for Candidate A doesn't matter if that someone doesn't bother to vote. So Candidate A who constantly bleats about policies that are already popular is not trying to win converts from the other side, he/she is trying to get those lazy bastards to feel strongly enough that that candidate is "their guy" that they will actually vote instead of watching reruns of Seinfeld. That's why, for example, post-election analysis almost always focuses on turnout.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 11:20 PM   #2071
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then the email server story broke. As an IT professional, the carelessness displayed at all points in that story, from the initial decision to the response to the investigation, really pissed me off. That, on top of all her other baggage, was the final straw. Given the choice between two retarded man-babies, I chose one of them.
In that case, you should be outraged at the IT sloppiness of the Dump Administration and not even countenance pulling the lever for Trump in 2020.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 11:29 PM   #2072
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,608
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Why was everyone so shocked by Trumps victory? I believe it is because it was pretty unbelievable that he could have had a shot at winning against anyone.
Everyone? I don't think that I was? Unhappy, certainly. Not wanting to accept reality? A little. I considered Trump to have a very real shot at victory, though, despite how obvious it was that he was a vile con man.

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
The only reason Trump won was that his opponent was even more "unelectable" than he.
Ha, no. The illegal actions of the Russians and the way that the Republicans and media made a massively huge mountain out of the tantalizing nothing that the Russians fed them was more than enough to shift the election to Trump's win. Why was it that close in the first place? Well... that gets into nastier ground, where just about any Democratic candidate likely would have had a relatively narrow win, at best. Even if we took the decades of slander against the Clintons away and put in a different candidate, the nature of their propaganda machine, electorate, and seriously unethical stratems really needs to be taken into account - and it's not a pretty picture at all.

Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Trump was looked at at first as a joke, because he was so clearly, blatantly, unfit for the office of POTUS.
When asked, multiple Republicans told me that they voted for Trump because he was such a joke and they thought that Trump being President would be funny. And, to be fair, if one buys into the BS equivocation that all politicians are equally corrupt and will never do anything to actually help you that the right-wing fosters, voting for Trump immediately becomes much less insane.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Which Democratic policies are more or less popular with voters WHO ARE NOT ALREADY FIRMLY IN THE BAG FOR YOU is not a totally unknown factor ("*Whine* But we can't know for suuuuuuurre *whine*" lamb bleating aside) and focusing on things which are more likely to get you people who weren't already going to vote for you is a good thing. IT'S LITERALLY WHAT POLITICS IS.

Making someone who is already going to vote for you like you more in a way that costs you votes of people who might have voted for you is STUPID.

That's all. That's all I've said. That's all I've ever said. And it's all I will get baited into discussing.
"Firmly in the bag" or not doesn't matter too much if they're not motivated enough to get to the voting booth. THAT has been the biggest loss-causer for Democrats. Remember - Democrats quite significantly outnumber Republicans.

What you're doing is fairly simple, by the look of it. You've grasped onto a simple truth and are trying to over-emphasize how much it matters in the larger picture. There's also a bit of the "why don't the Democrats have a storybook prince riding in on his white horse to slay the evil Trump monster with ease?" in play, too, by the look of it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So getting back to the thread and tying that in, I'll say it again, if the candidate we choose doesn't recognize how Trump won and how to come back against those social media and mainstream media propaganda tactics, Trump (if he's not impeached) could win again.
Well, at least AOC is helping teach congressional Democrats more about how to properly take advantage of social media. It's actually quite abysmal that she's needing to, though. The MSM, on the other hand, well... it's not like they're likely to stop trying to profit off of a horserace that they create as much as possible - unless, for example, the profit motive was largely taken back out of the news.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You should run Gabbard. Or Williamson. Or Buttigieg. Or Romney.

Hmm... Why not Romney? You'll get enough of the "D" vote to carry those states. You'll get enough of the non-Trumpist conservative vote to win those states. Apparently Obamacare is just Romneycare anyway, so there should be plenty of policy overlap to mollify both sides.

With a little bit of careful marketing, running a right-of-center candidate is probably the Democrats' best shot at getting rid of Trump in 2020.
I think that something might be a little wrong with your eyes if you think that Romney would get enough of the "D" vote to carry the election, even if his opponent were Trump. As a Democrat, I say that it's much more likely that the Democratic Party would simply break if Romney became our candidate, even in the face of the negative partisanship towards Trump.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I can picture the GOP chomping at the bit to start that propaganda campaign against socialism.
Why would you need to? They already have. Democratic Socialism = Cambodian Genocide is a prime example of that, remember?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not that I expect you to believe me, but that's honestly my train of thought this morning. Would a Warren presidency be so bad?
The institutions would fairly certainly have an immensely easier time coping with her attempts to get them running smoothly and well than they have had with the Trump Administration's attempts to sabotage them, after all.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival. They should nominate the candidate most likely to do that.
I also contend that the Swing voters ..the much despised "Moderates" and "Centrists" will decide this election. There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there. So,logically, the Dems need to nominate somebody who can bring out the moderates and centrist. My fear is if the Dems nominate too radical a candidate, the Moderates will decide it's a case of two equal evils and stay home.
And if large numbers of the progressive wing of the Dems will stay home or throw away their votes on a third party candidate if somebody not "Progressive" enough for them is nominated, it's a lost cause anyway.
As was noted on 538 - There is no vast or hidden undecided "moderate/centrist" vote to win in the first place. No more really needs said as a response to that, I think.

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
In that case, you should be outraged at the IT sloppiness of the Dump Administration and not even countenance pulling the lever for Trump in 2020.
Indeed. Trump and his Administration have been horrendous when it comes to IT related things - exponentially worse than even the worst that the GOP dared to accuse Hillary of. Literally, there are IT security people quitting the White House because Trump and co refuse to follow even very basic security protocols. Well, that and them being targeted for removal by the Administration because, well... this is an Administration that's shown a distinct fondness for political purges of the government.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 31st October 2019 at 11:37 PM.
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 31st October 2019, 11:33 PM   #2073
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I am coming from the viewpoint that Beating Trump should be the #1 priority for the Dems, overriding everything else, as a matter of national survival.
Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
There is no vast hidden "Progressive" vote out there.
I'm not so sure of that. Turnout is abysmal in the USA. I don't have the numbers as I type, but IIRC, less than half the electorate turns out, even in presidential election years. Getting just another, say, 5% of Hispanics to actually vote would result in a huge Dem victory. Or getting another 5% of the under-25 crowd to vote would do the same thing.

And, btw, the same applies to the GOP. If they weren't so stupid to trash Hispanic immigrants, naturally conservative Hispanic Catholics is a mother lode of conservative voters. The GOP had the right analysis when they did their 2008 post-election analysis that said that they had to do a better job of outreach to minority voters. Well, we all can see how Dump put that into place.
SezMe 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 31st October 2019, 11:46 PM   #2074
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,400
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
One would think that Trump himself would have proved that theory as bunk. If ever there was a GOP candidate that did not appeal to much of the base, it was he. So how did he win? By poaching votes from the Democrats in a lot of their rust-belt strongholds.
I hereby nominate this post for Worst 2016 Election Analysis.
SezMe 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 1st November 2019, 01:22 AM   #2075
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,608
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I'm not so sure of that. Turnout is abysmal in the USA. I don't have the numbers as I type, but IIRC, less than half the electorate turns out, even in presidential election years.
More than half.

Quote:
In 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012.
But yeah, there's a lot of room there.
__________________
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 1st November 2019, 02:25 AM   #2076
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
As demonstrated by what?
I've answered that one already! Man, pay attention.

As demonstrated by the fact that the election was a close call, and that a few thousand more votes in key states would've handed her the Presidency.

Clearly she got close enough to the prize to disabuse anyone of the notion that she was unelectable. You seem to have locked yourself onto the idea that she was, and are unwilling to change your mind despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st November 2019, 02:30 AM   #2077
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't know how that applies.
Your post implied that you voted for Trump. It sure would explain why you feel you have to defend him and his party even though you don't actually like any of them.

It was posted a bit in jest, with a bit of a kernel of truth but not intended as a personal attack.

Originally Posted by Venom View Post
And again, you might not need some vast hidden pool of progressives. Not everyone who voted for Trump was a hard right winger who supported everything he was about either.
No but they are more towards the moderate/independant bucket, which makes nominating a moderate over a party ideologue a good idea.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I don’t quite get dudalb’s analysis:

Pick a progressive and lose the moderates; pick a moderate and lose the progressives, but neither constitutes a lost tribe and either way it must be the fault of the progressives.
No, I think the idea is that the moderates are more numerous and also cross the aisle.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st November 2019, 05:13 AM   #2078
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I've answered that one already! Man, pay attention.

As demonstrated by the fact that the election was a close call, and that a few thousand more votes in key states would've handed her the Presidency.

Clearly she got close enough to the prize to disabuse anyone of the notion that she was unelectable. You seem to have locked yourself onto the idea that she was, and are unwilling to change your mind despite the clear evidence to the contrary.
She only got that close to the prize because of the unprecedented repugnance of her opponent.

I don't describe that as being "electable", however, I concede that definitions can vary.
__________________
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 1st November 2019, 05:55 AM   #2079
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
She only got that close to the prize because of the unprecedented repugnance of her opponent.
Which was the context we were discussing. You're just unwilling to admit to being wrong on this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st November 2019, 05:59 AM   #2080
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,489
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
She only got that close to the prize because of the unprecedented repugnance of her opponent.

I don't describe that as being "electable", however, I concede that definitions can vary.
Aren't all elections the choice between the perceived lesser of two evils? People wouldn't be running for office to begin with if they weren't maniacs, idiots, or insane.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 01:21 PM.
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.