Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Mnementh said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

It's actually a point that hurts Sanders now these days and that many hate him for: Clinton would have won the election if Sanders (unwillingly, I must add) wouldn't have moved so many voters to rather not vote or to even vote for Trump in protest for what the DNC did to him. There are quite a few who won't forgive him for ruining an election that was promised to the democrats.

[citation needed]

No really, that is something I see not even a hint for. I see it only ever used as a strategy to smear Sanders. Because, maybe there were a few Bernie or Bust people, but would they have voted for Clinton in the first place? I think it is the other way around: that Sanders fought hard in the primary activated many voters that would have been passive otherwise because they had long given up on voting, as they felt neither party would do anything for them. Sanders could actually bring them back in the political process. That some of these people were in the end disappointed that Clinton was the nominee and didn't show up on election day is meaningless, as they would have been absent if Sanders wouldn't have been in the primary in the first place. But many of the people he activated in the end voted for Clinton.

In the end Clinton got 65 million votes, just about the same as Obama did. To be precise, Obama got 65,915,795 votes 2012, while Clinton got 65,853,514. So she lost about 62K voters, pretty much nothing compared to one of the most beloved presidents. Trump on the other hand got 62,984,828 votes, about 2 million more than Romneys 60,933,504. So in the end Clinton did not lose because she lost voters, Trump won because he convinced voters. In which way he did that is a miracle to me, but he did.

So, people want to tell me, that Clinton - a candidate with certainly a lot of problems and baggage - would have magically gotten more votes than Obama, if not the mean kid Sanders threw a wrench in it? Yeah no, I don't buy that. It is obviously bull to damage Sanders, and it disheartens me that so many people believe that bull.

The thing is that she lost most of the rust states by just a couple thousand votes. Having even just some Bernie supporters following the Bernie or bust motto and abstain from voting is therefore enough to give Trump the advantage - or at least that's what some democrats think and are since hating Bernie for that. Trump won Michigan by less than 11k votes, Pennsylvania by 44k and Wisconsin by 23k. All of those are within one percent and total 46 electoral votes, enough to flip the entire election in favor of Clinton.

I'm not saying that I believe he's the reason that Clinton lost (I don't), just that some believe he's the reason she did, as I explained further down in the previous post. I just wanted to explain why some democrats do think Sanders is he reason that Trump is president now, not Clinton.

Btw, your calculation has one fallacy: The total amount of voters grew by 7M. At the 2016 election, there were a total of 135.7M, while in 2012, there were only 128.7M people who voted. The republicans raised their amount of votes by 2M, most of the rest went to third parties. That means that Clinton lost voters, as otherwise it would have been more balanced (as in ±3M for each candidate and the rest for 3rd parties). In fact, she got about 150k less voters than Obama did in 2012. Not a huge amount, but still some regression on that front, too, despite the rather large increase in total voters.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Mnementh said:

[citation needed]

No really, that is something I see not even a hint for. I see it only ever used as a strategy to smear Sanders. Because, maybe there were a few Bernie or Bust people, but would they have voted for Clinton in the first place? I think it is the other way around: that Sanders fought hard in the primary activated many voters that would have been passive otherwise because they had long given up on voting, as they felt neither party would do anything for them. Sanders could actually bring them back in the political process. That some of these people were in the end disappointed that Clinton was the nominee and didn't show up on election day is meaningless, as they would have been absent if Sanders wouldn't have been in the primary in the first place. But many of the people he activated in the end voted for Clinton.

In the end Clinton got 65 million votes, just about the same as Obama did. To be precise, Obama got 65,915,795 votes 2012, while Clinton got 65,853,514. So she lost about 62K voters, pretty much nothing compared to one of the most beloved presidents. Trump on the other hand got 62,984,828 votes, about 2 million more than Romneys 60,933,504. So in the end Clinton did not lose because she lost voters, Trump won because he convinced voters. In which way he did that is a miracle to me, but he did.

So, people want to tell me, that Clinton - a candidate with certainly a lot of problems and baggage - would have magically gotten more votes than Obama, if not the mean kid Sanders threw a wrench in it? Yeah no, I don't buy that. It is obviously bull to damage Sanders, and it disheartens me that so many people believe that bull.

The thing is that she lost most of the rust states by just a couple thousand votes. Having even just some Bernie supporters following the Bernie or bust motto and abstain from voting is therefore enough to give Trump the advantage - or at least that's what some democrats think and are since hating Bernie for that. Trump won Michigan by less than 11k votes, Pennsylvania by 44k and Wisconsin by 23k. All of those are within one percent and total 46 electoral votes, enough to flip the entire election in favor of Clinton.

I'm not saying that I believe he's the reason that Clinton lost (I don't), just that some believe he's the reason she did, as I explained further down in the previous post. I just wanted to explain why some democrats do think Sanders is he reason that Trump is president now, not Clinton.

Btw, your calculation has one fallacy: The total amount of voters grew by 7M. At the 2016 election, there were a total of 135.7M, while in 2012, there were only 128.7M people who voted. The republicans raised their amount of votes by 2M, most of the rest went to third parties. That means that Clinton lost voters, as otherwise it would have been more balanced (as in ±3M for each candidate and the rest for 3rd parties). In fact, she got about 150k less voters than Obama did in 2012. Not a huge amount, but still some regression on that front, too, despite the rather large increase in total voters.

Bernie isn't responsible for the fact that a large portion of his fans are not actual progressives, but rather just "Bernie or Bust" people who pretend to be progressive. Anyone who even had the remote interest in progressivism would have certainly voted Clinton over Trump since she was clearly far more progressive than he was on not just a policy level, but a wider philosophical level. It's not simply that these "Bernie or Bust" people were not just abstaining from the vote either, they were actively campaigning for others not to vote Democratic in the election; they were indirectly working for the Republicans.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The thing is that she lost most of the rust states by just a couple thousand votes. Having even just some Bernie supporters following the Bernie or bust motto and abstain from voting is therefore enough to give Trump the advantage - or at least that's what some democrats think and are since hating Bernie for that. Trump won Michigan by less than 11k votes, Pennsylvania by 44k and Wisconsin by 23k. All of those are within one percent and total 46 electoral votes, enough to flip the entire election in favor of Clinton.

I'm not saying that I believe he's the reason that Clinton lost (I don't), just that some believe he's the reason she did, as I explained further down in the previous post. I just wanted to explain why some democrats do think Sanders is he reason that Trump is president now, not Clinton.

Btw, your calculation has one fallacy: The total amount of voters grew by 7M. At the 2016 election, there were a total of 135.7M, while in 2012, there were only 128.7M people who voted. The republicans raised their amount of votes by 2M, most of the rest went to third parties. That means that Clinton lost voters, as otherwise it would have been more balanced (as in ±3M for each candidate and the rest for 3rd parties). In fact, she got about 150k less voters than Obama did in 2012. Not a huge amount, but still some regression on that front, too, despite the rather large increase in total voters.

Bernie isn't responsible for the fact that a large portion of his fans are not actual progressives, but rather just "Bernie or Bust" people who pretend to be progressive. Anyone who even had the remote interest in progressivism would have certainly voted Clinton over Trump since she was clearly far more progressive than he was on not just a policy level, but a wider philosophical level. It's not simply that these "Bernie or Bust" people were not just abstaining from the vote either, they were actively campaigning for others not to vote Democratic in the election; they were indirectly working for the Republicans.

You're correct, he isn't responsible especially because that statement isn't true. The "Bernie or bust" people were a small minority of conservatives and moderates who were never going to vote Hillary anyway. An overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters and primary voters or "fans" voted Hillary in the general, as expected. That minority didn't cost Hillary the election, Hillary did. Literally the easiest election ever and she lost.

Here is a link with a breakdown of the voters in retrospect.



 

tsogud said:
Jumpin said:

Bernie isn't responsible for the fact that a large portion of his fans are not actual progressives, but rather just "Bernie or Bust" people who pretend to be progressive. Anyone who even had the remote interest in progressivism would have certainly voted Clinton over Trump since she was clearly far more progressive than he was on not just a policy level, but a wider philosophical level. It's not simply that these "Bernie or Bust" people were not just abstaining from the vote either, they were actively campaigning for others not to vote Democratic in the election; they were indirectly working for the Republicans.

You're correct, he isn't responsible especially because that statement isn't true. The "Bernie or bust" people were a small minority of conservatives and moderates who were never going to vote Hillary anyway. An overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters and primary voters or "fans" voted Hillary in the general, as expected. That minority didn't cost Hillary the election, Hillary did. Literally the easiest election ever and she lost.

Here is a link with a breakdown of the voters in retrospect.

Actually, it looks like nearly 26% of Bernie primary voters belonged to that group, about 12% of them voted Trump. That leaves 14%, or 84,000 of the 600K Bernie primary supporters in Michigan, 79,800 in Wisconson, 102,500 in Pennsylvania, which would have been enough to give Clinton a very comfortable lead, rather than a narrow loss in each of those states. This would have given Clinton a majority victory. Even a much smaller percentage than that 14% would have been enough.

But the bigger problem was the massive social media campaign against Hillary Clinton launched by the Bernie or Bust movement. It was a relentless conspiracy theory based attack which positioned itself from the left, calling themselves progressives and leftists. Otherwise, no way in hell Hillary Clinton should have otherwise lost, even the headcount of those involved in the movement who DIDN'T vote Trump would have been enough for a Hillary Clinton win. This doesn't even get into the numbers that were swayed by the relentless attacks (I was getting hit by it up to dozens of times per day on Social Media, even progressive news sites had jumped on board)... and I am not even in the same hemisphere as the US. I can only imagine how intense it was within the US.

Anyway, there's a problem with US democracy in that people are voting very heavily based on personality and not at all on issues or policy positions. The result of it all was the US voting in one of the clearest examples of a demagogue in the history of western civilization.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
tsogud said:

You're correct, he isn't responsible especially because that statement isn't true. The "Bernie or bust" people were a small minority of conservatives and moderates who were never going to vote Hillary anyway. An overwhelming majority of Bernie supporters and primary voters or "fans" voted Hillary in the general, as expected. That minority didn't cost Hillary the election, Hillary did. Literally the easiest election ever and she lost.

Here is a link with a breakdown of the voters in retrospect.

Actually, it looks like nearly 26% of Bernie primary voters belonged to that group, about 12% of them voted Trump. That leaves 14%, or 84,000 of the 600K Bernie primary supporters in Michigan, 79,800 in Wisconson, 102,500 in Pennsylvania, which would have been enough to give Clinton a very comfortable lead, rather than a narrow loss in each of those states. This would have given Clinton a majority victory. Even a much smaller percentage than that 14% would have been enough.

But the bigger problem was the massive social media campaign against Hillary Clinton launched by the Bernie or Bust movement. It was a relentless conspiracy theory based attack which positioned itself from the left, calling themselves progressives and leftists. Otherwise, no way in hell Hillary Clinton should have otherwise lost, even the headcount of those involved in the movement who DIDN'T vote Trump would have been enough for a Hillary Clinton win. This doesn't even get into the numbers that were swayed by the relentless attacks (I was getting hit by it up to dozens of times per day on Social Media, even progressive news sites had jumped on board)... and I am not even in the same hemisphere as the US. I can only imagine how intense it was within the US.

Anyway, there's a problem with US democracy in that people are voting very heavily based on personality and not at all on issues or policy positions. The result of it all was the US voting in one of the clearest examples of a demagogue in the history of western civilization.

No, it was less. Did you read the link?

There was definite DNC bias against Bernie that was legitimately criticized by progressives but they weren't the "Bernie or bust" people. The #NeverHillary people were overwhelmingly self-identified as conservative and moderate. A minority of those disgruntled "Bernie or bust" people described themselves as liberal and very liberal, so it was not a large portion that were progressive as you stated. Hillary lost because she ran a bad campaign, no candidate is owed voters. It's up to the candidate to persuade the electorate, she did a bad job and this wasn't the first time.

Last edited by tsogud - on 14 September 2019

 

Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The thing is that she lost most of the rust states by just a couple thousand votes. Having even just some Bernie supporters following the Bernie or bust motto and abstain from voting is therefore enough to give Trump the advantage - or at least that's what some democrats think and are since hating Bernie for that. Trump won Michigan by less than 11k votes, Pennsylvania by 44k and Wisconsin by 23k. All of those are within one percent and total 46 electoral votes, enough to flip the entire election in favor of Clinton.

I'm not saying that I believe he's the reason that Clinton lost (I don't), just that some believe he's the reason she did, as I explained further down in the previous post. I just wanted to explain why some democrats do think Sanders is he reason that Trump is president now, not Clinton.

Btw, your calculation has one fallacy: The total amount of voters grew by 7M. At the 2016 election, there were a total of 135.7M, while in 2012, there were only 128.7M people who voted. The republicans raised their amount of votes by 2M, most of the rest went to third parties. That means that Clinton lost voters, as otherwise it would have been more balanced (as in ±3M for each candidate and the rest for 3rd parties). In fact, she got about 150k less voters than Obama did in 2012. Not a huge amount, but still some regression on that front, too, despite the rather large increase in total voters.

Bernie isn't responsible for the fact that a large portion of his fans are not actual progressives, but rather just "Bernie or Bust" people who pretend to be progressive. Anyone who even had the remote interest in progressivism would have certainly voted Clinton over Trump since she was clearly far more progressive than he was on not just a policy level, but a wider philosophical level. It's not simply that these "Bernie or Bust" people were not just abstaining from the vote either, they were actively campaigning for others not to vote Democratic in the election; they were indirectly working for the Republicans.

Yeah, I know that too. I was just pointing out how these people potentially cost Clinton the election since the rust belt state were so damn close she would have won them with just a couple more votes and why some hate Bernie in return because of those jerks.



HylianSwordsman said:
morenoingrato said:

Maybe it will actually be shocking to you that there are people who believe in Biden, and centrists in general, and support those ideas and see that as a path forward. It's not being afraid of supporting ideas from the left, but rejecting them as harmful and dangerous.

I support anyone who isn't Tulsi Gabbard before Trump, even Sanders.

I'm not shocked, I just don't think there are many of you. I agree with you on Gabbard though. I don't trust her. I absolutely will vote for Biden if it comes down to it, but if by some miracle it came down to Trump and Gabbard, it'd be fucking hard. I'd probably still vote for her just because any Dem president would be easier to get good things done than with Trump, but man, I'd be worried for the future, because either way you have a president that cozies up to dictators in the name of "peace".

I agree. I think we should all be agreed that at least out of the three leading Democratic candidates, the only ones polling in double-digits -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren -- whatever our misgivings about any one of those candidates, we would all nonetheless vote for the winner of the Democratic nomination come next November. Can we all here agree on that much?



Jaicee said:
HylianSwordsman said:

I'm not shocked, I just don't think there are many of you. I agree with you on Gabbard though. I don't trust her. I absolutely will vote for Biden if it comes down to it, but if by some miracle it came down to Trump and Gabbard, it'd be fucking hard. I'd probably still vote for her just because any Dem president would be easier to get good things done than with Trump, but man, I'd be worried for the future, because either way you have a president that cozies up to dictators in the name of "peace".

I agree. I think we should all be agreed that at least out of the three leading Democratic candidates, the only ones polling in double-digits -- Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren -- whatever our misgivings about any one of those candidates, we would all nonetheless vote for the winner of the Democratic nomination come next November. Can we all here agree on that much?

Agreed. I'll bite the bullet and vote for Biden like I voted for Hillary if it came down to it. Any Democrat is better than crusty old 45.



 

Hiku said:

Make sure you have the record player on at night, kids.

Most people's problem vis-a-vis that quotation from Biden was that they have kids, but no record player. Mine is that I have a record player and no kids.

(There. Another invaluable thread contribution added!)



538 had together with Ipsos some polling about the impact of the third debate:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-september-poll/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-third-democratic-debate-in-7-charts/

EDIT: Notable in my opinion is, that Castro got a lot more unfavorable (O'Rourke and Warren on the other hand gained a lot favorability). Bidens electability is seen a bit less secure. Overall it seems Warren is the biggest winner of the debate.

Last edited by Mnementh - on 15 September 2019

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter