2019-2020 US Election Megathread II: Tim Ryan's Empire

[Nakena]

Did my individual vote make much of a difference? Now, of course, it didn but if we extrapolate that viewpoint we get to the conclusion that it is best to slack the day off at home which isn't a good choice, you will surely agree.

Given the lack of a party or candidate I would genuinely support, my vote isn't spend in order to satisfy my feelings, ideological beliefs or conscience but to get outcomes that are within my interest.

If you're going to vote for a person you don't even like then yeah, you might as well stay home.

Elections aren't popularity contests. Treating them as such is a decadent luxury that cannot be afforded in our days.

I am going to vote for the candidate or party that is most likely to act in accordance of my interests and political objectives and least likely to act against them. It is not a matter of genuienly liking them but to get desireable results, or in other cases, prevent worse outcomes.

[Aclion]

I am going to vote for the candidate or party that is most likely to act in accordance of my interests and political objectives and least likely to act against them. It is not a matter of genuienly liking them but to get desireable results, or in other cases, prevent worse outcomes.

How can you possibly expect politicians to act in you're interests and political objectives when you put those things aside in favor of electablity?

[Nakena]

I am going to vote for the candidate or party that is most likely to act in accordance of my interests and political objectives and least likely to act against them. It is not a matter of genuienly liking them but to get desireable results, or in other cases, prevent worse outcomes.

How can you possibly expect politicians to act in you're interests and political objectives when you put those things aside in favor of electablity?

Based on their past voting and lawmaking behaviour, mentality, ideology, coalitions, statements and the political environment.

That makes their future moves quite predictable.

And thus I can make the best tactical choice.

[Valrifell]

One of the biggest reasons why Biden is considered the most likely to win the general is because he is touted as the one having the most electability. The problem again is that candidates are electable if they win elections, not through some other esoteric formula, everyone is unelectable until they're elected.

So voting for a candidate to win an election based on electability is circular, since numerous factors go into elections and winning one does not necessarily prepare you to win another. In other words, that you can win previous elections is not proof you can win future elections, particularly if you've not made it to the general before.

Biden was Obama's VP.

Yup

[Valrifell]

One of the biggest reasons why Biden is considered the most likely to win the general is because he is touted as the one having the most electability. The problem again is that candidates are electable if they win elections, not through some other esoteric formula, everyone is unelectable until they're elected.

So voting for a candidate to win an election based on electability is circular, since numerous factors go into elections and winning one does not necessarily prepare you to win another. In other words, that you can win previous elections is not proof you can win future elections, particularly if you've not made it to the general before.

I mean he’s far more electable than Clinton, than again practically anything is more electable than her

Gradients of electability make even less sense to me than the original concept.

[Cannot think of a name]

Biden is ahead and will be ahead going into the primary because he's one of the only motherfuckers in the race no one has to look up. Right now most voters are only tuned in enough to laugh at late night comedians talking about the clown car the Democratic primary is becoming. Hell, I've been reading this and I don't know who half these fuckers are. Granted, I'm not bothering until the culling starts, but that's also my point.

Outside grabbing a headline or two and enough excitement during a debate showing to fund some campaigning, the above chart is what people are investing time wise in the acid test of long shot candidates, the first primaries.

Also, interesting aside that reflects on the idea that Hillary didn't visit the rust belt states enough and cost her the election, though it's not 1:1, so maybe it doesn't say anything:

According to Joshua Darr, a political scientist who studies political campaign strategy, this approach of prioritizing on-the-ground visits in early-primary states all started with Jimmy Carter. The then-obscure former Georgia governor poured a lot of time and resources into Iowa, finishing ahead of every other candidate in the state’s 1976 Democratic caucus, and eventually won the presidency. Since then, however, political science research has been unclear on whether campaign visits have any effect on candidates’ prospects. And Darr says that factors external to the campaign — such as getting increased press coverage or being a good ideological fit for the state — may matter more to a candidate’s success today. But this hasn’t stopped presidential hopefuls from trying to replicate Carter’s success, even if most haven’t been as lucky.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... hampshire/

[Thermodolia]

I mean he’s far more electable than Clinton, than again practically anything is more electable than her

It's weird how the further we get from 2016 the more people act like it was 1984 and not a case where she won the popular vote by a considerable margin and lost the states that handed her the electoral loss by really thin margins.

Oh I know that. I just can’t stand Clinton. She’s a Corporate suit whose to the right of Obama. The only reason why I voted for her was that Trump was worse

[South Odreria]

I know no democrats who will vote for Trump if Bernie gets the nomination, so it hardly matters. I knew many democrats who voted for Trump to spite Hillary though.

Yes but I know many republicans who would vote for Joe Biden, I know none that will vote for Sanders.

Just gonna throw this out there, maybe that has something to do with you being a theology PhD.

[San Lumen]

It's weird how the further we get from 2016 the more people act like it was 1984 and not a case where she won the popular vote by a considerable margin and lost the states that handed her the electoral loss by really thin margins.

Oh I know that. I just can’t stand Clinton. She’s a Corporate suit whose to the right of Obama. The only reason why I voted for her was that Trump was worse

You also called members of congress corporate suits. How dare they work for certain groups or have certain professions. I think you just throw that term out for people you dont like.

[San Lumen]

(Image)

Biden is ahead and will be ahead going into the primary because he's one of the only motherfuckers in the race no one has to look up. Right now most voters are only tuned in enough to laugh at late night comedians talking about the clown car the Democratic primary is becoming. Hell, I've been reading this and I don't know who half these fuckers are. Granted, I'm not bothering until the culling starts, but that's also my point.

Outside grabbing a headline or two and enough excitement during a debate showing to fund some campaigning, the above chart is what people are investing time wise in the acid test of long shot candidates, the first primaries.

Also, interesting aside that reflects on the idea that Hillary didn't visit the rust belt states enough and cost her the election, though it's not 1:1, so maybe it doesn't say anything:

According to Joshua Darr, a political scientist who studies political campaign strategy, this approach of prioritizing on-the-ground visits in early-primary states all started with Jimmy Carter. The then-obscure former Georgia governor poured a lot of time and resources into Iowa, finishing ahead of every other candidate in the state’s 1976 Democratic caucus, and eventually won the presidency. Since then, however, political science research has been unclear on whether campaign visits have any effect on candidates’ prospects. And Darr says that factors external to the campaign — such as getting increased press coverage or being a good ideological fit for the state — may matter more to a candidate’s success today. But this hasn’t stopped presidential hopefuls from trying to replicate Carter’s success, even if most haven’t been as lucky.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... hampshire/

1976 and 2020 are very different

[Tarsonis]

Yes but I know many republicans who would vote for Joe Biden, I know none that will vote for Sanders.

Just gonna throw this out there, maybe that has something to do with you being a theology PhD.

Master, not the doctor yet, but I have no idea how you’re relating the two

[Nakena]

Just gonna throw this out there, maybe that has something to do with you being a theology PhD.

Master, not the doctor yet, but I have no idea how you’re relating the two

Maybe he means that your profession/study is reflective of your social environment which supposedly would be devoid of Sanders supporters.

[Tarsonis]

Master, not the doctor yet, but I have no idea how you’re relating the two

Maybe he means that your profession/study is reflective of your social environment which supposedly would be devoid of Sanders supporters.

That’d be very mistaken as I went to Yale, which is oh boy to the left of lenin

[Cannot think of a name]

(Image)

Biden is ahead and will be ahead going into the primary because he's one of the only motherfuckers in the race no one has to look up. Right now most voters are only tuned in enough to laugh at late night comedians talking about the clown car the Democratic primary is becoming. Hell, I've been reading this and I don't know who half these fuckers are. Granted, I'm not bothering until the culling starts, but that's also my point.

Outside grabbing a headline or two and enough excitement during a debate showing to fund some campaigning, the above chart is what people are investing time wise in the acid test of long shot candidates, the first primaries.

Also, interesting aside that reflects on the idea that Hillary didn't visit the rust belt states enough and cost her the election, though it's not 1:1, so maybe it doesn't say anything:


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... hampshire/

1976 and 2020 are very different

Well, yes. One is less than the other in numerical terms. One starts with a 2 and the other ends with a 6. One is only made up of two repeating numbers and the other has four unique numbers. One is also a term associated with vision and hindsight while the other was two hundred years after the signing of the constitution.

Maybe you want to elaborate on your point, or were you hoping to coattail the political scientist that was quoting his actual research that started with "Since then, however..."

[Pasong Tirad]

Biden was Obama's VP.

Yup

Would Obama have lost if Biden wasn't his VP? Electability doesn't make sense given that Biden ran for president twice before and also lost twice before.

[Farnhamia]

Yup

Would Obama have lost if Biden wasn't his VP? Electability doesn't make sense given that Biden ran for president twice before and also lost twice before.

He ran for the nomination of the Democratic Party twice before. That's somewhat different than the general election. And his primary campaigns suffered from bad staffs and bad gaffs. On the other hand, in 2007 he gave us this dismissal of Rudy Giuliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."

[South Odreria]

Maybe he means that your profession/study is reflective of your social environment which supposedly would be devoid of Sanders supporters.

That’d be very mistaken as I went to Yale, which is oh boy to the left of lenin

I didn't say "devoid of Sanders supporters." I'm sure you know left wingers that support Sanders. We were talking about Republicans voting for Biden vs Sanders. The Republicans Sanders is most likely to flip are farmers and industrial workers, and those people usually don't go to Yale.

[Valrifell]

Yup

Would Obama have lost if Biden wasn't his VP? Electability doesn't make sense given that Biden ran for president twice before and also lost twice before.

Personally, I'm of the mind that veep picks in the 21st century are far less important than they were previously. Biden wasn't a hindrance, at least, and his time campaigning for Obama and for Dems in non-presidential years show that he has the capacity to be an effective campaigner without major gaffes, but his track record with campaigns centered around himself have fallen a bit flat historically.

My whole point here, however, is that "electability" is a worthless heurestic and basing votes on that ill-defined concept defeats the purpose of the democratic process in the first place. At least people should be more willing to question how they define "electability".

[Pasong Tirad]

Would Obama have lost if Biden wasn't his VP? Electability doesn't make sense given that Biden ran for president twice before and also lost twice before.

Personally, I'm of the mind that veep picks in the 21st century are far less important than they were previously. Biden wasn't a hindrance, at least, and his time campaigning for Obama and for Dems in non-presidential years show that he has the capacity to be an effective campaigner without major gaffes, but his track record with campaigns centered around himself have fallen a bit flat historically.

My whole point here, however, is that "electability" is a worthless heurestic and basing votes on that ill-defined concept defeats the purpose of the democratic process in the first place. At least people should be more willing to question how they define "electability".

You know who is electable? Jeb. Good old Jeb.

[Valrifell]

Personally, I'm of the mind that veep picks in the 21st century are far less important than they were previously. Biden wasn't a hindrance, at least, and his time campaigning for Obama and for Dems in non-presidential years show that he has the capacity to be an effective campaigner without major gaffes, but his track record with campaigns centered around himself have fallen a bit flat historically.

My whole point here, however, is that "electability" is a worthless heurestic and basing votes on that ill-defined concept defeats the purpose of the democratic process in the first place. At least people should be more willing to question how they define "electability".

You know who is electable? Jeb. Good old Jeb.

You misspelled Jeb! but most people get that wrong. It's close enough, I guess.

[Farnhamia]

You know who is electable? Jeb. Good old Jeb.

You misspelled Jeb! but most people get that wrong. It's close enough, I guess.

It's one of those click sounds like in languages from South Africa. I bet Trevor Noah would pronounce it correctly.

[Galloism]

Would Obama have lost if Biden wasn't his VP? Electability doesn't make sense given that Biden ran for president twice before and also lost twice before.

He ran for the nomination of the Democratic Party twice before. That's somewhat different than the general election. And his primary campaigns suffered from bad staffs and bad gaffs. On the other hand, in 2007 he gave us this dismissal of Rudy Giuliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."

I fail to see anything incorrect about that.

[Nakena]

Maybe he means that your profession/study is reflective of your social environment which supposedly would be devoid of Sanders supporters.

That’d be very mistaken as I went to Yale, which is oh boy to the left of lenin

Oh my. Yale, to the left of Lenin?

What did I miss?

[Tarsonis]

That’d be very mistaken as I went to Yale, which is oh boy to the left of lenin

I didn't say "devoid of Sanders supporters." I'm sure you know left wingers that support Sanders. We were talking about Republicans voting for Biden vs Sanders. The Republicans Sanders is most likely to flip are farmers and industrial workers, and those people usually don't go to Yale.

I wouldn’t say that, we have a school of forestry.

[South Odreria]

I didn't say "devoid of Sanders supporters." I'm sure you know left wingers that support Sanders. We were talking about Republicans voting for Biden vs Sanders. The Republicans Sanders is most likely to flip are farmers and industrial workers, and those people usually don't go to Yale.

I wouldn’t say that, we have a school of forestry.

So the average farmer goes to Yale. Right.