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 , Bernie Sanders , donald trump , joe biden , presidential candidates , Sanders supporters

Reply
Old 21st July 2020, 04:20 PM   #81
gregthehammer
Muse
 
gregthehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 619
Sanders supporters? Maybe of the Sarah Huckabee Ilk.
gregthehammer 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 21st July 2020, 05:00 PM   #82
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,289
I imagine most of them are first time voters or people otherwise not involved in politics too much. Many libertarian/socialist/Independent types.
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 21st July 2020, 06:27 PM   #83
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,786
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yeah, that's the question at hand. If voting doesn't work, what then? How should we be preparing?
Voting will work - if we all do it. With proper preparation we don't need to prepare for failure.

Quote:
Historically, what would have been the optimal course of action?
Historically, trying to correct a failure at the ballot box rarely turns out well. Best to not fail.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 22nd July 2020, 08:11 PM   #84
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,706
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Trump also easily beat all the GOP candidates in the Republican primary, so that means they were weak too, right?
Relatively speaking, yes. They were mostly too much of the take-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich, bribe-taking usual during an election in which the voters were looking for somebody who wasn't that. Not being what the voters will vote for, possibly to the extent of being the opposite of what the voters will vote for and the main thing they're motivated to vote against, is candidate weakness.

(Notice that one person can be weak in one election and strong in a different kind of election. Circumstances change, and drag what traits make a candidate weak or strong around with them when they do.)

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And Hillary beat Bernie, so he was also weak.
Relatively speaking, yes. There were ways in which he could have adjusted his message to come across more effectively but didn't. And he didn't have the whole party establishment pulling all the tricks they could come up with against his opponent, in elections in which his opponent did. And he was too much of what most Democrat voters want actually in office, during an election in which they'd been tricked into looking for someone they didn't want based on years of getting bombarded with counterproductive "electability" myths and fear of more losing. (He was also a white man during an election in which a significant portion of them might have been looking for a demographic gimmick.) Not being what the voters will vote for is candidate weakness.

(Notice that one person can be weak in one election and strong in a different kind of election. Circumstances change, and drag what traits make a candidate weak or strong around with them when they do.)

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So who was the 'strong' candidate who would have beaten Trump in the election?
Compared to Hillary? Almost anybody else, literally. She was the second least popular candidate in Presidential election history. The "weak" candidates you called "weak" above (relatively speaking) were nowhere near her level.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Now let's examine why Hillary was 'weak'.
Wait, so you're admitting that she was? Then what was all that above about?

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
1. She's a woman...

2. Decades of Republican smear campaigns.

3. Russians
Even if these did reflect reality instead of being just whiney paranoid excuses, so what? Whatever it was that weakened her, it did. Getting weakened by outside forces still has the same result as one's own flaws from within: weak is weak.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
4. Being a part of the 'establishment'. Never mind that Bernie is too. And Trump.
Trump was definitely not, by any potential real-world definition. And Bernie was only if you misdefine the word as meaning something you know it doesn't mean in this context. It's about not just being a politician, but being a particular kind of politican.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
5. Not being a populist.

Hitler was a populist. He could tap into the fear, the anger, the hate, and get the crowd baying for blood. Trump and Bernie could do it too. But not Hillary. Such a weak candidate!
Well, yes. That's how reality works. Populism is appealing to the populace. Not appealing to the populace is electoral weakness against somebody who does.

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Sanders supporters who vote Trump aren't really Sanders supporters. Policy, ideology, and character are polar opposites between the two. As the OP said, it's not really that they support Sanders, it's they support whoever has the appearance of being an outsider, someone different to shake things up and they apparently don't care whether that means moving the country forward or driving it to authoritarianism.
Before taking office, Trump acknowledged the problems that people have actually been facing in this country and talked about wanting to fix them. So did Bernie. Hillary did not, and in fact pretty much openly swore to strive to maintain & defend the forces that have been making it that way. That's a significant overlap between Trump and Bernie but not Hillary.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
There's only person the Democrats could have gotten to beat Trump - Trump!
Well, that's who's beating him now. It certainly isn't Biden who's doing it.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The truth is, right now we don't need a 'strong' candidate, nor a populist. We need a non-controversial, middle-of-the-road likable guy... whom former republicans won't feel too unhappy about...
...because that worked so well for Hillary, and Kerry, and Gore, and Mondale, and the thousand net seats that were lost by exactly that same approach during the Obama Presidency.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
...who won't polarize liberal factions like Hillary and Bernie did.
Did you just add another of the reasons why she was a weak candidate? OK then, have some more: an advertizing campaign that, even once it seemed to have eventually tamped down its smug coronation-demanding urges, still continued to avoid ever even mentioning an issue and consisted of highlighting personality differences in a way that boosted Trump because exactly those same personality differences were what Trumpers liked about Trump and disliked about standard-issue robo-politicians like her.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I am worried because given the current situation, polling should be much more in favor of Democrats. Why isn't it?
Because the Democrat establishment has doubled down so hard on its brilliant strategy of pushing away as many of "their own voters" as possible and imposing the very very worst possible candidate they can find.

Last edited by Delvo; 22nd July 2020 at 08:22 PM.
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 22nd July 2020, 08:45 PM   #85
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 4,289
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Before taking office, Trump acknowledged the problems that people have actually been facing in this country and talked about wanting to fix them. So did Bernie. Hillary did not, and in fact pretty much openly swore to strive to maintain & defend the forces that have been making it that way. That's a significant overlap between Trump and Bernie but not Hillary.
I think Trump's appeal in that regard is greatly overstated. I don't believe for a second that the people who ultimately swung to Trump were equally open minded about all three.
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 23rd July 2020, 02:15 AM   #86
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 90,706
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Wait, so you're admitting that she was? Then what was all that above about?
What are we, in elementary school, now? Come on.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 23rd July 2020, 02:16 AM   #87
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,780
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Many folks voting for Sanders in PA and other late primaries were doing so as a message to Biden that they still want more progressive elements in o his platform. This was deliberate and there were a number of people advising this on social media and elsewhere. They weren’t sabatoging Biden or forgetting that Sanders suspended his campaign. They weren’t planning to vote for Trump later on, it was a message from progressive voters.
For reference, this is precisely why I voted for Elizabeth Warren...all the way in June when it was absolutely clear that Biden won it walking away. Having said that, I definitely prefer any dem this side of someone like Kwame Kilpatrick or Rod Blagojavich (sp?) over Cheeto Benito. Biden will more than do. I firmly believe in voting one's heart in the primary, and dems in the general, outside of extreme circumstances.

(For that matter, I'd have been fine switching parties to vote for Bill Weld - I've met him many times when he was governor, he's a stand-up and good natured guy, and I could live with him as president)
Mumbles 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 23rd July 2020, 06:45 AM   #88
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,734
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
For reference, this is precisely why I voted for Elizabeth Warren...all the way in June when it was absolutely clear that Biden won it walking away. Having said that, I definitely prefer any dem this side of someone like Kwame Kilpatrick or Rod Blagojavich (sp?) over Cheeto Benito. Biden will more than do. I firmly believe in voting one's heart in the primary, and dems in the general, outside of extreme circumstances.

(For that matter, I'd have been fine switching parties to vote for Bill Weld - I've met him many times when he was governor, he's a stand-up and good natured guy, and I could live with him as president)
Maybe there's something about being a governor rather than a Federal office holder that makes some Republicans more palatable. I'm pretty close to a blue dog Democrat, but if Phil Scott ran, I'd be inclined to break the rule.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto 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 23rd July 2020, 12:16 PM   #89
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,549
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Count me in.



Trump's core support is chipping away, but like granite under a copper chisel. When it comes to it they'll cling to an existing COVID disaster with Trump rather than without.
I think Trump still has core support of 35% to 40% of voters. But at this point, that's pretty much all he has. I don't think we're going to see the people who vote 3rd party or don't vote because they also really dislike Hillary that allowed him to sneak into an Electoral College win in 2016. At this point, I think there is a solid majority who will vote for dam near anyone not Trump. In fact it's starting to look like he could have a huge Elecoral College loss, only carrying a handfull of southern and midwestern states. I think he's also starting to lose some of the more mainstream Republicans, who didn't really like him in the first place, but were willing to vote for him to get Supreme Court justices and tax cuts, or just because it was fun to watch him troll the libruls.

Last edited by CORed; 23rd July 2020 at 12:19 PM.
CORed 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 24th July 2020, 01:08 PM   #90
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,416
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I will be happy if I can look back on this time shaking my head at my alarmism. At present I've seen too many alarms ignored until it was too late, to comfortably pooh-pooh the remainder. Not only can it happen here, it is happening here. We may yet stop it happening and have the adults in the room spend a few decades slowly unmaking it, but there's no question an apocalypse cult is actively engaged in US politics right now.


I really feel the same way about Johnson here in the UK, but I can't help but feel that there have been people saying "yeah, we'll recover from this" in every fallen civilisation in history.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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 24th July 2020, 03:00 PM   #91
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,786
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Relatively speaking, yes. They were mostly too much of the take-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich, bribe-taking usual during an election in which the voters were looking for somebody who wasn't that.
Somebody like Trump? Must be some incredibly ignorant voters out there.

Quote:
Notice that one person can be weak in one election and strong in a different kind of election. Circumstances change, and drag what traits make a candidate weak or strong around with them when they do.
Quote:
Compared to Hillary? Almost anybody else, literally. She was the second least popular candidate in Presidential election history. The "weak" candidates you called "weak" above (relatively speaking) were nowhere near her level.
You're joking, right? By that definition Trump was the least popular candidate in Presidential election history, since 2.87 million fewer people voted for him. So where does that leave Gary Johnson, with 3.3% of the vote? Your assertion is nonsensical.

Quote:
Wait, so you're admitting that she was? Then what was all that above about?
Just pointing out that the qualities touted as making Hillary 'weak' had nothing to do with her abilities. And the majority of voters weren't swayed by those 'weaknesses'.

Quote:
Even if these did reflect reality instead of being just whiney paranoid excuses, so what? Whatever it was that weakened her, it did. Getting weakened by outside forces still has the same result as one's own flaws from within: weak is weak.
Objective facts are now 'whiney paranoid excuses'?

Quote:
Trump was definitely not, by any potential real-world definition. And Bernie was only if you misdefine the word as meaning something you know it doesn't mean in this context. It's about not just being a politician, but being a particular kind of politican.
Enlighten me. What is this definition of 'weak' that doesn't apply to the least popular candidates?

Quote:
Well, yes. That's how reality works. Populism is appealing to the populace. Not appealing to the populace is electoral weakness against somebody who does.
Populism has a specific definition relating to the political ideals and tactics used, and has nothing to do with how appealing the candidate is. Objective fact:- Hillary was more popular than Trump and Bernie. That doesn't make her a populist.

Quote:
Before taking office, Trump acknowledged the problems that people have actually been facing in this country and talked about wanting to fix them. So did Bernie. Hillary did not, and in fact pretty much openly swore to strive to maintain & defend the forces that have been making it that way.
The 'problems that people have been facing'? Like having to suppress their racism and bigotry, and being prevented from imposing their obnoxious religious rules onto others? Or suffering the consequences of their support for unbridled capitalism and rejection of anything that might be labeled 'socialist'?

2016 United States presidential election
Quote:
Trump's populist, nationalist campaign, which promised to "Make America Great Again" and opposed political correctness, illegal immigration, and many free-trade agreements, garnered extensive free media coverage. Clinton emphasized her extensive political experience, denounced Trump and many of his supporters as bigots, and advocated the expansion of President Obama's policies; racial, LGBT, and women's rights; and inclusive capitalism.
The truth is, Trump mostly ran on the standard conservative platform of racism, bigotry and selfishness, same as all the other Republicans. And the people he attracted were those with similar ideals. If that is what defines strength then all democrats are weak.

Quote:
Because the Democrat establishment has doubled down so hard on its brilliant strategy of pushing away as many of "their own voters" as possible and imposing the very very worst possible candidate they can find.
What nonsense. Democrats had an opportunity to vote for a candidate that you describe as being more appealing, and the majority rejected him - for good reason.

Trump won in 2016 for two reasons:-

1. 62,984,828 Deplorables.

2. A corrupt electoral system that has been engineered by one party to give them an undemocratic advantage.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2106 ideology.jpg (26.5 KB, 14 views)
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 24th July 2020, 07:39 PM   #92
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,706
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Somebody like Trump? Must be some incredibly ignorant voters out there.
Maybe so, but also, remember that he hadn't ever held political office yet back then, and that the only image that the national media had so far seen any reason to project of him was wealth from business success, nothing political and nothing about his business failures & con jobs. The available information to most people was not what it is now.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
By that definition Trump was the least popular candidate in Presidential election history, since 2.87 million fewer people voted for him.
Yes.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So where does that leave Gary Johnson
Fair enough, I should have included the word "general" in the phrase "Presidential election history", but thought it was sufficiently implied that I must not be talking about primaries & caucuses.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
4. Being a part of the 'establishment'. Never mind that Bernie is too. And Trump.
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Trump was definitely not, by any potential real-world definition. And Bernie was only if you misdefine the word as meaning something you know it doesn't mean in this context. It's about not just being a politician, but being a particular kind of politican.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Enlighten me. What is this definition of 'weak' that doesn't apply to the least popular candidates?
Wrong word.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Populism has a specific definition relating to the political ideals and tactics used, and has nothing to do with how appealing the candidate is.
It looks as if you read "appealing" as an adjective when I had used it as a verb, meaning "making an appeal".

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Objective fact:- Hillary was more popular than Trump and Bernie. That doesn't make her a populist.
Indeed it does not. It just means that sometimes a non-populist (or even close to anti-populist) can collect more votes than a populist. There are several ways that can happen, not all of which apply in every case.

A populist can do a bad job of voicing his/her populist positions.
A populist can do that part effectively but come across as flawed in other ways.
A non-populist can fake more populistitude than the actual populist manages to convey.
A non-populist can scare or trick the people into voting against their own interests & desires. ("Electability!")
An appeal to a sense of group-responsibility can motivate people to prioritize nation over self.
A single issue can become more important for a particular election than a whole set of other issues together.
Candidates can be populist on some issues and not other issues.
Non-populists in power in a party can use the party apparatus to beat down subsequent populist candidates.

...none of which means it's not a significant factor in favor of populists, especially when there is a prominent populist candidate around to choose (which has rarely been the case in the USA lately) or when life for the peasants isn't good and has been getting worse for years of non-populist rule. It's a factor, among others, just not absolute all by itself.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The 'problems that people have been facing'? Like having to suppress their racism and bigotry, and being prevented from imposing their obnoxious religious rules onto others? Or suffering the consequences of their support for unbridled capitalism and rejection of anything that might be labeled 'socialist'?
OK, now that you've described what you think of The Enemy's thought processes, perhaps it might be useful to also consider the perspective of those who are not The Enemy. Trump's schtick did work on others who are not as you just described, you know... largely the ones he's lost since then. Simply trying to lasso them all into your stereotype of The Enemy will not be informative/insightful/incisive.

Last edited by Delvo; 24th July 2020 at 09:12 PM.
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 25th July 2020, 12:51 PM   #93
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Even if these did reflect reality instead of being just whiney paranoid excuses, so what?
That's rich coming from someone claiming there was sinister anti-Bernie conspiracy inside Democratic establishment. Projecting much?

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Because the Democrat establishment has doubled down so hard on its brilliant strategy of pushing away as many of "their own voters" as possible and imposing the very very worst possible candidate they can find.
If you think Bernie could win against Trump, you are pretty delusional.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap 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 25th July 2020, 01:07 PM   #94
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
If you think Bernie could win against Trump, you are pretty delusional.
You don't think Biden's supporters would have voted for him? They'd rather have had four more years of Trump? Says more about them than Bernie, I think.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 01:10 PM   #95
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You don't think Biden's supporters would have voted for him? They'd rather have had four more years of Trump? Says more about them than Bernie, I think.
I think a lot more Independents than Dems would not have voted for Sanders or not vote at all.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 25th July 2020 at 01:16 PM.
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 25th July 2020, 01:12 PM   #96
Gulliver Foyle
Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by MrFliop View Post
I know, you’re thinking how could any person could support Trump and Sanders indifferently?
No I'm wondering how anybody could still be pushing this bovine waste after four years. Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in higher numbers and at a higher percentage than Clinton voters voted for Obama.

But hey, continue with the myth that Bernie's supporters are the ones costing Democrat candidates elections. It's easier than actually looking to see how to increase the vote for Democrats (enough to get past the gerrymandering and vote stealing).
__________________
Welcome to the world of hitting somebody with a big stick, and getting away with it. We have facebook, and twitter. Website coming soon.
Gulliver Foyle 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 25th July 2020, 01:17 PM   #97
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think a lot more Independents than Dems would not have voted for Sanders or not voted at all.
That's fine, since they don't really exist as a cohesive bloc.

I also understand that the Chupacabra is a big supporter of Vermin Supreme, but Bigfoot is a reliable Green voter, so they kind of cancel out too.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 01:34 PM   #98
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
That's fine, since they don't really exist as a cohesive bloc.

I also understand that the Chupacabra is a big supporter of Vermin Supreme, but Bigfoot is a reliable Green voter, so they kind of cancel out too.
I didn't say moderates. I said Independents. Your article's very title says so. And as it also says, "Independents are all over the ideological map," and "Some independents are market-oriented and anti-immigration. More are the opposite. Many are consistent liberals on economic and immigration policy questions. Some are consistent conservatives. Some are somewhere in the middle."

People tend to vote along their registered party lines. Independents belong neither to the Dem or Repub parties so are more likely to not feel a loyalty to either party. That's why I think more Indies wouldn't have voted for Sanders than Dems.
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 25th July 2020, 01:39 PM   #99
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Also from that article:

Quote:
Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 02:01 PM   #100
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Also from that article:

Quote:
Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up.
You might have a point if I'd ever made such claim which I certainly did not. Why are you insisting on reading more into my comments than is there? Neither of your posts actually address what I said.
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 25th July 2020, 05:22 PM   #101
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You might have a point if I'd ever made such claim which I certainly did not. Why are you insisting on reading more into my comments than is there? Neither of your posts actually address what I said.
So you were merely making a factual observation that Democrats are more likely to vote for a Democrat than non-Democrats are? Well. Okay.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 05:58 PM   #102
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
snip

If you think Bernie could win against Trump, you are pretty delusional.
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You don't think Biden's supporters would have voted for him? They'd rather have had four more years of Trump? Says more about them than Bernie, I think.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I think a lot more Independents than Dems would not have voted for Sanders or not vote at all.
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
So you were merely making a factual observation that Democrats are more likely to vote for a Democrat than non-Democrats are? Well. Okay.
Let's take this very slowly and I'll spell it out since you seem to have trouble understanding.

Mader Levap posited that Sanders could not have won running against Trump.

You asked ML if he thought Biden's supporters would not have voted for Sanders.

I said I thought more Independents would not vote for Sanders or not at all (meaning that Sanders would get less votes overall from Independents than Biden would so Sanders would not win against Trump).

You then made two posts to me about things I never said. Finally, you made a snarky comment because, once again, you failed to understand what I was actually saying.

Clear now?
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 25th July 2020, 06:24 PM   #103
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Let's take this very slowly and I'll spell it out since you seem to have trouble understanding.
I don't use the report button, but that doesn't mean I appreciate being insulted. It looks like I understood you fine the first time, which suggests the trouble doesn't lie with me.

Quote:
(meaning that Sanders would get less votes overall from Independents than Biden would so Sanders would not win against Trump).
Which is precisely what the article said you can't do with any confidence. Do I need to walk you through why it says that? (Hint: "Independents" are not a homogenous blob in the very middle of the political spectrum)

Quote:
Clear now?
Let's hope so, I don't have much more patience for gymnastics.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 06:55 PM   #104
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I don't use the report button, but that doesn't mean I appreciate being insulted. It looks like I understood you fine the first time, which suggests the trouble doesn't lie with me.
And I don't appreciate snarky remarks because you don't understand something. Apparently you didn't understand me "just fine" because you then went on to post about two things I never said.

Quote:
Quote:
(meaning that Sanders would get less votes overall from Independents than Biden would so Sanders would not win against Trump).
Which is precisely what the article said you can't do with any confidence.
YOU quoted this from the article in response to my post:

Quote:
Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up.
I never claimed any such 'winning formula' for winning ANYONE over. I said I thought more Indies would not vote for Sanders, or not at all, than would not vote for Biden. How is that a 'formula' for 'winning over' anyone? (HINT: it was an opinion, thus the use of 'I think' beforehand.)


Quote:
Do I need to walk you through why it says that? (Hint: "Independents" are not a homogenous blob in the very middle of the political spectrum)
Once again, you are arguing something I NEVER CLAIMED. I think I need to walk you through what I actually quoted in my post:

Quote:
"Independents are all over the ideological map," and "Some independents are market-oriented and anti-immigration. More are the opposite. Many are consistent liberals on economic and immigration policy questions. Some are consistent conservatives. Some are somewhere in the middle."
Please tell me what part of that indicates I think Indies area a "homogenous blob in the very middle of the political spectrum." (HINT: it doesn't.)

Quote:
Let's hope so, I don't have much more patience for gymnastics.
I don't know about that. You've been turning yourself inside out, backwards, and forwards twisting and misinterpreting what I've said worthy of a gold medal. Speaking of patience, I've run out so I'll leave you to it.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 25th July 2020 at 07:01 PM.
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 25th July 2020, 07:21 PM   #105
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I never claimed any such 'winning formula' for winning ANYONE over. I said I thought more Indies would not vote for Sanders, or not at all, than would not vote for Biden. How is that a 'formula' for 'winning over' anyone? (HINT: it was an opinion, thus the use of 'I think' beforehand.)
You're also concluding that Biden would win where Bernie would not. That's the winning. That's literally what it means.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 07:27 PM   #106
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
You're also concluding that Biden would win where Bernie would not. That's the winning. That's literally what it means.
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 25th July 2020, 07:41 PM   #107
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
There's no need to get upset. Take a breather and come back to it tomorrow. Before you do, please read that article, don't just skim it for comebacks. One of the major points it makes is that Independent voters are all over the map... because they define themselves by things that aren't on the map, and moreover are idiosyncratic. That renders almost every "this will go better with Independents" argument down to the baseless assertion it is.

Another point I'd take from the article is that "moderates" are just shy Democrats.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 07:42 PM   #108
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
There's no need to get upset. Take a breather and come back to it tomorrow. Before you do, please read that article, don't just skim it for comebacks. One of the major points it makes is that Independent voters are all over the map... because they define themselves by things that aren't on the map, and moreover are idiosyncratic. That renders almost every "this will go better with Independents" argument down to the baseless assertion it is.
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 25th July 2020, 07:50 PM   #109
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
Are we doing pictures now?

Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 07:58 PM   #110
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Are we doing pictures now?

https://i.imgur.com/WX8cBcw.gif
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 25th July 2020, 08:00 PM   #111
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,706
Wow, the claim to be "bored" from somebody who's obviously not bored is back! I haven't seen that one in over a decade!
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 25th July 2020, 08:02 PM   #112
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
You can't be that bored, you flounced out four posts ago and yet still are trying to get the last word in.
Beelzebuddy 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 25th July 2020, 08:10 PM   #113
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,327
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Wow, the claim to be "bored" from somebody who's obviously not bored is back! I haven't seen that one in over a decade!
Nah...I just wanted to see how long B is going to keep coming back while declaring 'I' have to have the last word. But, I am truly done now. Dinner is ready! Ciao!
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 25th July 2020, 08:11 PM   #114
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,657
The rare double flounce! But will it stick?
Beelzebuddy 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
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 06:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.