GW Hayduke

Your criteria is spot on. It won’t matter if we decide to dress casual or for Sunday church if there is still a steaming piece of shit in the undies.

But really, it doesn’t matter whether there isn’t a study that shows that. The idea that a person’s position or red flag lacks merit because they don’t have a study establishing “significance” is simply a way stymie that position. For Huckleberry, that is why “significance” is in quotations.

That was directed towards Calihorn. My original position is about political discourse and the Bernie bro phenomenon. Yes. There are factors that lead to high and low turnout. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a link in 2016 between high/low primary turnout and the results in the general. Your statements were not limited to presidential elections FYI. Nor did others limited their position solely to presidential elections. I understand you want to limit it to presidential elections. I thought your position is that there is no link between performance in a primary and outcome in a general.... limited to presidential races. It seems you are arguing whatever position makes a certain candidate look good. Thats ok. But you may want to see how that influences your position. —————- 2014, 2016, 2018 presidential and midterms all support there is a link between primary and general performance. Underperformance in a primary should raise a red flag about electability in a general. That was the initial claim. Are there studies that show a lack of significance between underperformance in a primary and outcome in a general? Absent those studies, it is inappropriate imo to drown out red flags in this thread and doubly inappropriate to jump into berni bro mode (i.e., calihorn) claiming folks “have an agenda” or “need to use their brain.”

It’s not irrelevant when the starting position is that “there is no link between the primary and general.” You may not hold that position, but others here very well may. Divisiveness and underperformance is a clear link. There are also clear links when it come to the recent midterms in 2014 and 2018. Finally, the last presidential election indicates a link

Dem turnout in early primary voting in 2014 was half the turn out in 2018. GOP made gains in 2014. Dems made big gains in 2018. If you recall in 2016, some folks were throwing up flags that GOP was having a larger than expected turnout in the primary and trump needs to be taken seriously. Many dismissed that there wasn’t a link between primary and general elections back then. Trump ended up over performing in the general.

Did you not read the rest of the comment about the 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections? Ignoring 2014, 2016, and 2018 along with ignoring the link between primary divisiveness and underperformance, where is it established that there is no link between a primary and a general or where is it established that underperformance in a primary does not lead to losses in a general?

There are lots of links between primaries and general elections. Is the counterpoint that underperformance in a primary (low turnout) is not significant in predicting performance in a general? If so, where are the studies that show a lack of significance? I just got the below from a quick google. And for the record, I don’t have an agenda LULZ, I’m just answering your question. The 2016 election is a clear data point. Hillary had marginal turnout in the primary and underperformed in the general. GOP had relatively high turnout in the 2016 primary. Midterm 2018 primary had solid Dem turnout and then made big gains in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/upshot/texas-primary-democrats-voter-enthusiasm-turnout.html In early voting, Democratic primary voters outnumbered Republicans in Texas by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. The number of Democratic early voters, presumably motivated in part by distaste for President Trump, more than doubled compared with 2014. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2111323.pdf?seq=1 Using ordinary least-squares regression, we find that divisive presidential primaries do indeed have a deleterious effect on the general election results. Specifically, when one party has a divisive primary season while the other party's nominee is essentially uncontested, then the divided party will be adversely affected in November.

Yes. I understand you think it is ok to dismiss his position because you feel he “has an agenda” and dismiss my position as “not using my brain.” That is the point. That type of political dialogue by progressives towards moderates is a problem. You can do better.

I have a point whether or not the link (in your opinion) is “significant.” Anyway, how would one measure “significance” in this case? The point is that Bernie bros should stop being asshats in political discourse. It’s a simple point. The idea of labeling others as “without brains” or “with an agenda” is lame now just like it was back in elementary school.

You are the decider of correctness and everyone else “has an agenda” or should “use their brain.” I keep hearing about this Bernie bro phenomenon where there are a bunch of dicks online. That’s some fake news if you ask me

Why? That has already been answered for you. But go ahead keep being a dick to everyone and anyone that doesn’t fall lock-step in line with everything you say. Better yet, don’t.

Those Others have an agenda or don’t use their brain!

When someone holds a position I don’t agree with and provides support for that position, I just tell myself that person has an agenda. The world seems brighter after that

It’s about both suppression of Dem vote and motivating GOP vote in downballot races. The top of the ticket heavily affects turnout. “Socialism” as a platform is going to really hurt in Texas. A lot of moderate Dems will stay home and not vote. A lot of moderate GOP will catch the socialism fear bug and turn out. From a Texas Democrat’s perspective hopeful about the possibility of flipping the legislature, running a “socialist” at the top of ticket is about as stupid as it gets.

Both Bernie and Trump are isolationists and represent the global retreat of the US from diplomatic, economic and military perspectives.

Someone pls tell me this is sarcasm

Really? That’s funny. I’m usually decent at picking up sarcasm but I guess the Bernie Bros have my trigger finger itching

Her point is that Bernie spent decades as a politician who barely enacted any noticeable change through development and passage of legislation. That’s why his wiki is so lacking. Bernie wasn’t a “doer” or a guy that got things done. He was the guy that stood out on the left side of the room and held down that line while others were doing things. It is a big difference between the two candidates

That would be awkward for old man Bernie after he takes office and goes deep on all these corrupt actors

Just continually doubling down on how stupid and useless the bad asses are... wow. Yes, I have (and do) serve in all branches of the military. Navy seal, Army ranger, Delta Force, Israel Defense Force... I’m also the first commander of special elite group in Space Force, and am consultant to the next Rambo movie. When badasses have representation on elite badass forces, they don't just pull someone randomly out of a hat to sit in. Do you seriously think that's how it works? Jesus Christ.

It depends on the state imo. Bernie would prob be ok down ballot in union states like Michigan but would be a disaster in a state like Texas. “Socialism,” “communism,” and “raising taxes” would tank Dems in Texas. I’m not expecting to lose the US house if Bernie is the nominee but we won’t make gains in the Texas legislature like we could have.

Bernie wins the nomination, and in the first debate, the moderator asks Bernie, “Are you a socialist and are you going to raise taxes?” Bernie says, “Yes and Yes.” That will be the end of the debate and the election will be over. Trump can pull out and wank his little mushroom on live TV and it won’t matter.

A platform labeled “Socialism” in Texas is a losing platform. That is plain as day for anyone that knows the state. It might work in the Midwest or other places, but not Texas. You might as well run under the platform of “population control” or “bureaucracy.”

I’m not that in-tune with how the electoral college would likely shake out in Bernie-Trump head to head, but there is probably a reason why Hannity and Trump defend Bernie while Trump goes to the extreme to attack Biden and Warren. From a Texas perspective thinking about the State legislature, Bernie would be terrible for down ballot candidates.