2020 Democratic Nominee

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

I sweater god, Bloomberg is a Trump plant

[bad_teammate 13224]

Also, if you're someone who sees naked toddlers touching each others' genitals and you freak out about it and shame them, you're the freak. Full stop.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by bad_teammate

[gmr548 16616]

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

You'd have a point if there was a significant links between presidential primary and general election turnout/results. There isn't.

[GSU&UT 1798]

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

No turnout is terrible just ask @Aqua Buddha he will tell you he's not a conservative concern troll at all.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

26 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

You'd have a point if there was a significant links between presidential primary and general election turnout/results. There isn't.

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. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

21 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

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. 

I said you should use your brain, not that you don't have one. And Aqua absolutely has an agenda, considering he's said he may not even vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

[bad_teammate 13224]

45 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The point is that Bernie bros should stop being asshats in political discourse.

The simple act of saying "Bernie bros" unironically is just as toxic as anything you accuse that group of.

There is no Bernie bro. His coalition is, by MILES, the most diverse coalition there is. He has more votes from women than any other 2020 candidate. He has more votes from POC than any other 2020 candidate. His coalition spans the age ranges. His coalition spans the ideological ranges.

So no, the "Bernie Bros" don't need to do jack shit about the political discourse.

The Bloomberg campaign just had to delete an entire Tweet thread from the official Bloomberg account because they were fabricating quotes from Bernie and attacking him with homophobia.

No thanks, GW, not interested in whatever horse shit you're trying to sell here.

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

31 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

I said you should use your brain, not that you don't have one. And Aqua absolutely has an agenda, considering he's said he may not even vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

I'll be grudgingly vote for him even though I think his platform has some ridiculous ideas.  What I question is his electability and campaign strategy.

[Zonahorn 8079]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'll be grudgingly vote for him even though I think his platform has some ridiculous ideas.  What I question is his electability and campaign strategy.

Yup, no agenda here.

[henrygandorf 29194]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The simple act of saying "Bernie bros" unironically is just as toxic as anything you accuse that group of.

There is no Bernie bro. His coalition is, by MILES, the most diverse coalition there is. He has more votes from women than any other 2020 candidate. He has more votes from POC than any other 2020 candidate. His coalition spans the age ranges. His coalition spans the ideological ranges.

So no, the "Bernie Bros" don't need to do jack shit about the political discourse.

The Bloomberg campaign just had to delete an entire Tweet thread from the official Bloomberg account because they were fabricating quotes from Bernie and attacking him with homophobia.

No thanks, GW, not interested in whatever horse shit you're trying to sell here.

was happy to see bernie finally give a solid answer re: the bro's in his town hall last night.

it's a stupid subject, but one that can easily be addressed and dismissed.  bad answers give stupid subjects legs and a longer shelf-life.  not sure why this isn't obvious to anyone in politics right now.

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

2 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Yup, no agenda here.

Then a lot of people have the exact same agenda.  Bern's strategy is completely different than any other winning campaign.  We're told that turnout will make up for it so that's why I keep talking about turnout.

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Then a lot of people have the exact same agenda.  Bern's strategy is completely different than any other winning campaign.  We're told that turnout will make up for it so that's why I keep talking about turnout.

Yes, many people would rather Bernie Sanders not be the nominee. So was Donald Trump's, worked out pretty well for him

[bad_teammate 13224]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Then a lot of people have the exact same agenda.  Bern's strategy is completely different than any other winning campaign.  We're told that turnout will make up for it so that's why I keep talking about turnout.

Which campaign is saying that turnout isn't important?

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Which campaign is saying that turnout isn't important?

People are questioning Bernie's ability to turn out a significant amount of new voters.  That's a fair concern considering the mixed data.  

[mdmost 43050]

Trump's tweets and criticisms of and on the Supreme Court serve as a wonderful reminder that whomever your choice is to be the Democratic nominee, you cannot sit this one out if your preferred candidate is not chosen. Trump with the ability to choose the replacement of RBG and others will have generational consequences. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by mdmost

[Celery Man 20997]

Is it possible that turnout is flat because the middle of the party can’t choose between four uninspiring candidates?

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

Just now, Celery Man said:

Is it possible that turnout is flat because the middle of the party can’t choose between four uninspiring candidates?

Shouldn't there be new turnout supporting Bern, though?  NH exits didn't indicate that.  Are Bern's voters new voters or are they the same liberal block of the Dem party?

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

2 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Trump's tweets on the Supreme Court serve as a wonderful reminder that whomever your choice is to be the Democratic nominee, you cannot sit this one out if your preferred candidate is not chosen. Trump with the ability to choose the replacement of RBG and others will have generational consequences. 

Yeah, this.  That's why the electability question is so valid.  Bern is basically asking people to trust him as he runs a completely different strategy than any recent winning strategy.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

49 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

I said you should use your brain, not that you don't have one. And Aqua absolutely has an agenda, considering he's said he may not even vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

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.

[bad_teammate 13224]

7 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

People are questioning Bernie's ability to turn out a significant amount of new voters.  That's a fair concern considering the mixed data.  

You didn't answer the question. Which campaign is saying that turnout isn't important?

What specific claim is being made by the Sanders campaign regarding turnout that doesn't seem to be working out; please cite, reference or quote it?

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

You didn't answer the question. Which campaign is saying that turnout isn't important?

What specific claim is being made by the Sanders campaign regarding turnout that doesn't seem to be working out; please cite, reference or quote it?

No one is saying turnout does't matter.  They're saying Bern's ability to turn it out is questionable.  Also, that there are these millions of people out there who rarely or never vote that will turn out by en mass is questionable at best.

You're telling everyone that Bern will generate a groundswell and that hasn't been the case so far.  Maybe that will change in the future but the results so far are mixed.

[gmr548 16616]

I have a point whether or not the link (in your opinion) is “significant.” Anyway, how would one measure “significance” in this case?

... Statistical significance, for one? Or really any observed link at all? It's not being an asshat to point out that an assertion that's been made multiple times on here is wrong based on the existing data.

[henrygandorf 29194]

18 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Is it possible that turnout is flat because the middle of the party can’t choose between four uninspiring candidates?

it's also possible (hope hope) that the turnout is ~flat because there are loads of people sitting home waiting to vote for whomever is running against trump.  i know plenty of non-engaged people who fit this description.

[Biff Tannen 45742]

Man, I gotta say, I'm getting more and more worried the Ds aren't going to coalesce around Sanders if he's the nominee.  The division among the Ds is palpable right now.  This is a nightmare scenario with the dotard at the helm.  

[Celery Man 20997]

19 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Shouldn't there be new turnout supporting Bern, though?  NH exits didn't indicate that.  Are Bern's voters new voters or are they the same liberal block of the Dem party?

I haven't read or listened beyond blurbs any of the stuff talking about how Bernie's turnout boost isn't happening so they may have addressed this, but that's essentially my question.  Is turnout flat because a bunch of new people are participating in the primary while the moderates are sitting home wondering who the fuck they're supposed to coalesce behind?  If that is why, that =/= "Bernie isn't bringing in new voters", that = moderates didn't abandon HMS Biden until it was too late to escape the undertow.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

  i know plenty of non-engaged people who fit this description.

My fear is that "non-engaged" people are going to flake out and not vote. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Man, I gotta say, I'm getting more and more worried the Ds aren't going to coalesce around Sanders if he's the nominee.  The division among the Ds is palpable right now.  This is a nightmare scenario with the dotard at the helm.  

we're all worried.  even bernie supporters who aren't worried are worried.

i blame a huge field, a 15 month primary season, 5 debates a month, and twitter.

[Aqua Buddha 14610]

10 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I haven't read or listened beyond blurbs any of the stuff talking about how Bernie's turnout boost isn't happening so they may have addressed this, but that's essentially my question.  Is turnout flat because a bunch of new people are participating in the primary while the moderates are sitting home wondering who the fuck they're supposed to coalesce behind?  If that is why, that =/= "Bernie isn't bringing in new voters", that = moderates didn't abandon HMS Biden until it was too late to escape the undertow.

It's hard to say.  Iowa turnout was basically flat.  NH turnout was up over previous years but exits said a lot of the new voters voted for Pete and Klobs.  Most of Berns voters were people who voted for him in 18.  I realize those are exits so take those for what they're worth.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

twitter.

AKA, Russia

[bad_teammate 13224]

There has been ONE actual primary and it broke the record for state turnout.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

12 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

 

 

... Statistical significance, for one? Or really any observed link at all? It's not being an asshat to point out that an assertion that's been made multiple times on here is wrong based on the existing data.

 

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.

 

 

[Huckleberry 33098]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

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. 

Yes, how would one measure this voodoo word "significance" in terms of correlation. If only there were a field of mathematics devoted to this magical concept of correlation "significance."

Also, I too like putting "significant" and its related terms in quotation marks because can we really be sure it's even a word?

[Biff Tannen 45742]

[Huckleberry 33098]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

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.

 

 

You have been arguing that primary turnout correlates to general election turnout. The study you link and quote at the end states that there is a correlation between primary divisiveness and party general election success. Basically you have been arguing that A correlates to B and just provided supporting evidence showing that C correlates to D.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

You have been arguing that primary turnout correlates to general election turnout. The study you link and quote at the end states that there is a correlation between primary divisiveness and party general election success. Basically you have been arguing that A correlates to B and just provided supporting evidence showing that C correlates to D.

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? 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

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.

[Dbeasy 15093]

Yes, how would one measure this voodoo word "significance" in terms of correlation. If only there were a field of mathematics devoted to this magical concept of correlation "significance."
Also, I too like putting "significant" and its related terms in quotation marks because can we really be sure it's even a word?

R you just a square?

[Huckleberry 33098]

26 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

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? 

Nobody is ignoring the link between primary divisiveness and underperformance in the general. It's just completely irrelevant.

It's also a funny way of stating "incumbents do well" while also getting paid to publish a study.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Nobody is ignoring the link between primary divisiveness and underperformance in the general. It's just completely irrelevant

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

[mchookem 16386]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

My fear is that "non-engaged" people are going to flake out and not vote. 

HOW CAN THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE??

how ANYONE can be that 'non-engaged' right now is just...i mean.... WHAT!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, mchookem said:

HOW CAN THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE??

how ANYONE can be that 'non-engaged' right now is just...i mean.... WHAT!

Have you met any actual Americans?

[GSU&UT 1798]

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/with-sc-primary-days-away-voters-making-their-choices-with-absentee-voting/101-28bec49c-74e7-4b85-8251-df034048e912

SC Absentee ballots are coming in at a higher clip than they were in 2016 and that is when there's only one real primary this year.

Quote

So far, the state has collected roughly 25,000 absentee ballots, both by mail and in-person. At this time in 2016, the Democratic primary brought in 20,000 absentee ballots.

“Of course it's not apples to apples, in 2016 you had two presidential primaries, so it's certainly encouraging as far as turnout goes that we're seeing higher numbers,” Whitmire said.

 

[gmr548 16616]

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.
 
 

1.) I didn't say you have an agenda. Please stop with the whining about that. It gives the look that you're taking this personally.

2.) The 2016 case is shaky. The R primary was far more competitive and fractured than the D primary. While Bermie was a spirited challenger - and the only challenger, at that, against a historically unfavorable candidate - Hillary Clinton was a wire to wire frontrunner. Not so in the GOP. That obviously drives turnout in the primary elections. Further, higher GOP primary turnout in 2016 (I'm taking your word here) didn't translate to more votes given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3mm votes.

2.) The Times article you cite is exploring the link between total turnout in partisan primaries to partisan success in the following general elections for legislative seats. I've read that article, and part of the reason I limited my statement to presidential elections is because there is at least some data that indicates a rough correlation there. I also limited my statement because I anticipated someone attempting to compare apples to oranges like this. We're not talking about a general analysis of legislative races. We're talking about a specific presidential candidate's ability, or lack thereof, to attract a certain bloc of voters. For what it's worth, the same article also clearly and correctly notes that primary turnout in presidential years featuring incumbents is clearly lopsided in favor of the opposition party and can't really be used to draw conclusions.

4.) This is part of what's called incumbency and it's well documented. You previously argued that higher primary turnout was predictive of GE success based on 2016 and the NYT piece. No doubt these competitive primaries in the study - for which we can only see the abstract - had higher turnout than did the party in power. Your points contradict. So is high turnout good or bad? That contradiction is my point in some way. All this really tells us here is that life is good as an incumbent. Duh. No one's arguing that. What it doesn't support is the idea that Sanders won't be able to bring new voters into the fold because there hasn't been a primary turnout surge.

Lastly, it's worth noting that the latter part of the previous statement is a premature claim in itself. There's only been one primary this cycle. It broke turnout records. Three states have voted in total, two with caucuses which are quirky to put it nicely. We don't even know what Democratic primary turnout is going to be this year.

Done with this topic.

[bad_teammate 13224]

NH broke the record
SC early vote booming
Texas early vote booming

[edit]

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by bad_teammate

[elfenix 34332]

play around with shit:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/post-opinions-simulator/index.html?utm_campaign=wp_pw_ret_ssimulator_022520&utm_medium=email&utm_source=retention&wpisrc=pw_ret_simulator_022520#/races/

[Bookman 4642]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Man, I gotta say, I'm getting more and more worried the Ds aren't going to coalesce around Sanders if he's the nominee.  The division among the Ds is palpable right now.  This is a nightmare scenario with the dotard at the helm.  

Yeah that could happen if the most far left candidate is nominated.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

3 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I didn't say you have an agenda. Please stop with the whining about that. It gives the look that you're taking this personally.

That was directed towards Calihorn.

My original position is about political discourse and the Bernie bro phenomenon.

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

) The 2016 case is shaky. The R primary was far more competitive and fractured than the D primary. While Bermie was a spirited challenger - and the only challenger, at that, against a historically unfavorable candidate - Hillary Clinton was a wire to wire frontrunner. Not so in the GOP. That obviously drives turnout in the primary elections. Further, higher GOP primary turnout in 2016 (I'm taking your word here) didn't translate to more votes given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3mm votes.

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.

13 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

) The Times article you cite is exploring the link between total turnout in partisan primaries to partisan success in the following general elections for legislative seats. I've read that article, and part of the reason I limited my statement to presidential elections is because there is at least some data that indicates a rough correlation there. I also limited my statement because I anticipated someone attempting to compare apples to oranges like this. We're not talking about a general analysis of legislative races. We're talking about a specific presidential candidate's ability, or lack thereof, to attract a certain bloc of voters. For what it's worth, the same article also clearly and correctly notes that primary turnout in presidential years featuring incumbents is clearly lopsided in favor of the opposition party and can't really be used to draw conclusions.

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. 

22 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Lastly, it's worth noting that the latter part of the previous statement is a premature claim in itself. There's only been one primary this cycle. It broke turnout records. Three states have voted in total, two with caucuses which are quirky to put it nicely. We don't even know what Democratic primary turnout is going to be this year.

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.”

[GW Hayduke 1953]

28 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

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?

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.

[Zavala 1384]

It's not real btw