Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-08-2020, 01:32 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You were the one who brought up his health. Don't blame the rest of us if you chose a poor position to make a stand on.
Poor? Oh yeah, so poor it need not be addressed, at all, ever...lest we lose control of the narrative, and it not seem so poor.

Heart attacks are recoverable. Mental slowing down like joe is doing is a different kind of health issue. And one that Bernie is just not subject to at this time.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Last edited by drad dog; 03-08-2020 at 01:33 PM.
  #52  
Old 03-08-2020, 01:49 PM
Dr. Drake is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Poor? Oh yeah, so poor it need not be addressed, at all, ever...lest we lose control of the narrative, and it not seem so poor.

Heart attacks are recoverable. Mental slowing down like joe is doing is a different kind of health issue. And one that Bernie is just not subject to at this time.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Since you mentioned strokes...

The fact is, BOTH men are in their late 70s. Even if each is perfectly healthy now, and let's say they are for the sake of argument, either one could experience a stroke, heart attack, diagnosis of cancer, or even a fall... any one of the many serious conditions that affect men who are approaching 80 pretty quickly. It's a risk for both, and just arguing that one is looking better now isn't really sensible when we're talking about another 8 months to inauguration. The chances that none of our three men (Biden, Sanders, Trump) experience any serious health challenges in that period is actually pretty low.

We currently have COVID-19 spreading without, it seems to me, any real prayer of containment. I'm not too worried for myself, but if I were their age and my job were to attend large public gatherings, I would be.

In practical terms, that just means I'm going to be a bit more invested in the VP choice than I might in a normal year, though of course my vote will be D regardless.
  #53  
Old 03-08-2020, 02:40 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Poor? Oh yeah, so poor it need not be addressed, at all, ever...lest we lose control of the narrative, and it not seem so poor.

Heart attacks are recoverable. Mental slowing down like joe is doing is a different kind of health issue. And one that Bernie is just not subject to at this time.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.
Not being addressed? We're addressing it right now. We're pointing out how laughable it is.

Sanders had a heart attack. During the campaign. This is a matter of record.

Biden's "senility" is just something people started rumors about a week ago when they realized they weren't going to beat him in a fair fight.
  #54  
Old 03-08-2020, 04:17 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Not being addressed? We're addressing it right now. We're pointing out how laughable it is.

Sanders had a heart attack. During the campaign. This is a matter of record.

Biden's "senility" is just something people started rumors about a week ago when they realized they weren't going to beat him in a fair fight.
"Addressing" is pointing out how laughable something is? OK.

Nobody does not see that joe has lost more than a step. And that bernie has not. In an ordinary world this would be to bernies credit. Are you laughing?

Joe has been lashing out at people for no reason. If it wasn't the election for democracys survival it might be less alarming. How does this mood he's bringing help defeat dt?

Last edited by drad dog; 03-08-2020 at 04:18 PM.
  #55  
Old 03-08-2020, 05:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
About half of the "lashing out" is pretty weak sauce. My god, that "lying dog soldier" one. Everyone in the entire audience had a friendly belly laugh but "Biden loses it on a student!!" is the headline. Then Bernie supporters pretend Biden's getting a pass from the media.
  #56  
Old 03-08-2020, 06:23 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
About half of the "lashing out" is pretty weak sauce. My god, that "lying dog soldier" one. Everyone in the entire audience had a friendly belly laugh but "Biden loses it on a student!!" is the headline. Then Bernie supporters pretend Biden's getting a pass from the media.
He has been visibly and loudly impatient with the process of democracy which he thinks is the process of letting him get elected potus. Who is that way, and why? I am very scared of him up against the orange.

bernie has basically been tom brady on fox news and MTP today. He hits his marks, makes his points, and doesn't leave anything on tha table that I can detect. You and I and everyone else knows joe does not have that in him and his policies wouldn't let him anyway.
  #57  
Old 03-08-2020, 07:37 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Not being addressed? We're addressing it right now. We're pointing out how laughable it is.

Sanders had a heart attack. During the campaign. This is a matter of record.

Biden's "senility" is just something people started rumors about a week ago when they realized they weren't going to beat him in a fair fight.
As someone who is voting for neither candidate, it does not seem like a good sign for your party to argue over whether the 78 year old candidate who recently had a heart attack or the one showing signs of dementia with a history of brain aneurysms is the one in better health to serve as President of the United States.

I know. "But, Trump did....." However, the person that you will pick to oppose him already has a huge negative WRT ability to serve.

And I fear (well, hope actually) that the response to this will be to pick some slick VP candidate and the theme of the campaign will be, "Yes, I might very well die soon, but if I do, look at this well qualified woman of color from a swing state that will take over!"

Between 2016 and this election you guys seem to have taken a DeLorean back to the 1980s to lose elections that, at least WRT 1988, 2016, and 2020 are very winnable.

Last edited by UltraVires; 03-08-2020 at 07:37 PM.
  #58  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:48 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Being perceived as a moderate is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being elected president. We could quibble over whether this or that candidate is a moderate or not, but what is important is what people perceive.
This is incorrect. Obama was explicitly considered a progressive on his first run, though in practice he functioned as a moderate once in office. Lots of people were quite disappointed when he turned out not to match his campaign image. So if you're claiming that 'being perceived as a moderate' is necessary, at least 50% of the Democratic candidates who've won office serve as counter examples.

Quote:
So you are talking about the last 5 of the Dem candidates doing very, very well and the last one who got spanked was 32 years ago. You are doing something right.
Losing the election is not "doing very, very well" in my book, as it's losing. Winning the election is the important part, coming close to winning still means you lost. I'm specificially talking about winning presidential elections here, not interesting side statistics like winning an irrelevant count or getting 'almost a tie'. If, as people say, the important thing is beating Trump, then looking at people who managed 'almost a tie' or 'lost the main contest, but won an irrelevant statistic' seems counter productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
No offense, but Bernie supporters simply don't effing get it when we talk about electability...Winning elections takes care of a lot of problems. The problem for Bernie Bros is...their guy ain't winning elections.
Bernie currently has 573 delegates to Biden's 664, that looks like he is in fact winning elections at this time. And you're right, I don't get why you'd talk about electability before the primary is done if, as you say here, you consider the more electable candidate is whoever wins the primary. If what you say is true, you should have no opinion on electabiltiy at this point.
  #59  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:52 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
It's kinda hard to tell. Is the OP focused on Democrats only? McCain was safe, but Palin was unsafe - they lost. Romney/Ryan I think were safe - they lost. To the point, after those two losses, the Republicans figured they were running candidates that were too safe, so they went with Trump in 2016 (who won no elections before that one - even less than Sanders). An argument could be made that the Democrats should take a cue and select the unsafe candidate further from center just like the GOP did last time - it worked for them.
I'm only looking at Democrats, specifically in the context of people who claim that Biden is the 'more electable' candidate and that therefore people should support him in the primary and be happy when he wins. Biden looks to me like someone who is going to fall apart once the nastiness starts, and the only thing people seem to really argue for his 'electability' on is that he's not a socialist. Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican media buzzsaw will be foiled by the lack of him fitting one particular descriptor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The idea that Hillary was a “safe” nominee is not the way it actually happened. She was the popular Democratic candidate to be sure, but anyone looking at electing a woman and one with such a polarizing record can hardly be viewed as a “safe” pick.
It's very much the way it happened. These boards were full of people talking about how she was completely safe, and criticizing sites like 538 for posting projections that showed anything more than 'margin of error' chance for Trump. If you're going to ignore the actual history of 2016, expect to repeat it. (Hint: The Democrat failed).

Quote:
And, despite that, she won the popular vote handily,
As I will keep repeating, what matters is about winning the general election, not holding rallies in California to prop up popular vote count or otherwise 'winning' irrelevant statistics.
  #60  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:54 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I think it's true in this election because Hillary lost quite a number of states by very small margins, so if you can get someone like Hillary but without her baggage, and combine it with 4 years of Trump being Trump, the chances of swinging those votes is quite high.
Biden is someone with most of Hillary's baggage plus his own. He has the same bad voting and policy history as her most issues (Iraq War, Crime Bill, Patriot Act, DOMA, trade agreements, etc.). He has some worse votes on a few issues (Supported a constitutional amendment to repeal Roe v Wade in 1981, opposes marijuana legalization now). He is in tune with the same big money and has a lot of the same background. Some of his best lines of attacks on Trump will be turned right back on him - Hunter Biden has his unsanitary-looking stuff in the Ukraine, and I expect to hear that name brought up every single time he talks about Trump's corruption. Trump doesn't need to 'swing' any votes to himself, he just needs to drag Biden into the mud with him and turn people away from voting entirely.

Sanders and the candidates who were in the primary have been treating him with kid gloves (with good reason - going low in the primaries just tends to drag your whole side down). Trump and the GOP hate machine is very obviously not planning to, and I expect them to shred him like they brought chainsaws to a touch football game. This idea that a guy who creepily fondles children on camera and who can't handle a voter asking him a legitimate question about political news involving his son is going to come out from GOP attacks smelling like a rose is downright scary.
  #61  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:13 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Another point worth mentioning is that Trump is an INCREDIBLY divisive and unpopular president. So all that is needed to beat him (the theory goes) is someone who isn't going to scare away the people in the middle. Someone who every one of the 60% of Americans who don't like Trump will be willing to, if not excited to, vote for. Which is presumably someone calm and boring.
No it's not. You need to motivate people to actually get out and vote for your candidate, as 2016 showed quite clearly. Having people 'not opposed to voting for your candidate' simply doesn't win elections. Also, I don't expect Biden to be calm and boring when the pressure is actually on, he's already shown difficulty handling really mild stress like respectful questions about the Hunter Biden 'scandal'. Once the Right Wing Machine is in full force, I fully expect to see him looking scared and ineffectually mad. Trump is not going to try to rise above the fray, trump is going to try to drag whoever wins the primary into the mud with him since his base will love it and other people will probably be turned off by it.

And there are people who are not willing to vote for Biden who also will not vote for Trump under any circumstance. People who care a lot about people who supported Iraq war, or the '94 Crime bill, or DOMA, people who care a lot about the 1% funneling more wealth to themselves, and a host of others are not going to vote for Biden at all, if they even do vote.

And the idea that people who aren't voting are the 'middle' who could get behind someone like Biden instead of an 'edge' who would only get behind a candidate who's not a darling of the establishment is wildly unproven. People talk like it's a given that there is some moderate middle, but the evidence for it is lacking.

Last edited by Pantastic; 03-08-2020 at 09:13 PM.
  #62  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:27 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
This is incorrect. Obama was explicitly considered a progressive on his first run, though in practice he functioned as a moderate once in office. Lots of people were quite disappointed when he turned out not to match his campaign image. So if you're claiming that 'being perceived as a moderate' is necessary, at least 50% of the Democratic candidates who've won office serve as counter examples.



Losing the election is not "doing very, very well" in my book, as it's losing. Winning the election is the important part, coming close to winning still means you lost. I'm specificially talking about winning presidential elections here, not interesting side statistics like winning an irrelevant count or getting 'almost a tie'. If, as people say, the important thing is beating Trump, then looking at people who managed 'almost a tie' or 'lost the main contest, but won an irrelevant statistic' seems counter productive.
1) Obama wasn't perceived as a radical. He ticked off the usual Dem talking points, e.g. make the rich pay their fair share, expand the health care system to cover uninsured (note, not UHC), pro-choice, etc. Nothing radical there. Moderate in the sense that he is not revolutionary.

2) There are different kinds of losing. If you lose Mondale style, then it is time for a complete rebuild. If you win the popular vote, but lose the EC by a handful of votes, then it is time for re-tweaking.

If you lose the World Series in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 7 on an error, that is not the same losing as going 40-122 and finishing the worst in history. The two call for different strategies next time.

For some, the nail biting loss that Hillary suffered in 2016 somehow proves that the Dems need to go with a full on socialist! That would be like the owner of the Game 7 losing team firing all of his players, his manager, and his GM, and relocating the franchise to another city, burning down the stadium in his wake and salting the earth so that no baseball could ever be played there again.

Last edited by UltraVires; 03-08-2020 at 09:28 PM.
  #63  
Old 03-09-2020, 08:20 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,276
It's kinda inherent in the concept. If the candidate is 'safe', that means they are the one that is most likely to win. The opposite is the risky candidate, which means there's a greater risk they will lose.

Now, if you want to ask why "safe" means "middle of the road," the answer is just that this is where the presumed swing voters are. Swing voters are those in the swing states, since the rest largely don't matter. It's presumed that, if they can't make up their mind which way to vote, then it must be because they are in the middle and see positives on both sides. Better to be the one who goes towards the middle.

People try to pull out Trump as proof this is wrong, but they seem to forget that he actually pulled in some liberal ideas. He talked about a federal work program, rebuilding our infrastructure. He was not against certain forms of welfare, like social security and medicaid. He ran as if he wasn't anti-LGBT. That may not seem like a lot, but Clinton was seen as not at all trying to win anyone in the middle, not campaigning for the white working class at all. Trump used immigration to try and appeal to those people.

Of couirse, Sanders doesn't completely avoid the middle. He's got that appeal against "identity politics," for example. He is trying for the white working class. But it still seems that more moderates support Biden. Sanders always ran saying that he needed to get more people voting to make up for his lack of moderate support. But, from South Carolina and Super Tuesday on, it seems that Biden is the one liked by more moderates.

I mean, Sanders's actual numbers were lower than 2016, suggesting that the problem was more how the moderate Dems were divided than increased support. And he and Warren didn't make nice in the same way, which I consider as much a strategic blunder as defending Castro again, when his goal should have been to distance his "socialism" from communism.

The guy with lower numbers both in the primaries and among people in the general is "risky," while the one with higher numbers in both is "safe."
  #64  
Old 03-09-2020, 09:43 AM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No it's not. You need to motivate people to actually get out and vote for your candidate, as 2016 showed quite clearly.
One of my pet peeves about recent political discussion is people pointing to the 2016 loss and trying to claim it has any big overarching take-home lesson for the dems. The lesson of 2016 (to the extent that there is one) is that if you have a ton of things all go against you at once (admittedly, many of them self-inflicted) and make some absolutely terrible campaigning decisions (such as basically ignoring all the states that turn out to be crucial) and also run a candidate who has spent 20 years being the subject of the most virulent hate campaign in American history plus most of the populace assumes you're going to win and it's a foregone conclusion and why bother voting; then you can barely barely barely lose.

So, come back again, don't do any of those stupid things, and you should win easily.

Or in other words, UltraVires's baseball analogy.
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #65  
Old 03-09-2020, 10:48 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's very much the way it happened. These boards were full of people talking about how she was completely safe, and criticizing sites like 538 for posting projections that showed anything more than 'margin of error' chance for Trump. If you're going to ignore the actual history of 2016, expect to repeat it. (Hint: The Democrat failed).
I don't know your posting history, so I don't know if your theory of this thread is that you're in the tank for Bernie and will grasp at any argument to criticize Dems who have lost elections, but it sure seems like your definition of "safe" is so malleable that it is meaningless.

You think the definition of "safe" is having the supporters of a candidate believe that the candidate will win? Well, that's every Democratic candidate in history.

Or is it that you think the definition of "safe" has to do with the Democratic electorate choosing a candidate with a minimum of baggage? If that's the case -- and I think that's a common interpretation of "safe" in this context -- then nominating the first woman to be a party nominee while she is under criminal investigation by the FBI is NOT FUCKING SAFE by any measure of those terms.

Yep, people may delude themselves into thinking that such issues don't matter, but come on -- Hillary Clinton is even more divisive than Bernie Sanders, as proven by polls. Cite, cite.

Seriously, I'd like you to form a coherent explanation of why nominating the less popular politician is more "safe" than nominating a comparatively more popular politician.
  #66  
Old 03-09-2020, 11:34 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Biden is someone with most of Hillary's baggage plus his own.
I'm not sure you realize what Hillary's baggage was. This is someone who a good portion of the country believes kills people when they are about to get exposed. I mean someone literally thought she started a pedophile ring in the bottom of a pizza place and brought a gun to said pizza place.

It's all based on bullshit, of course, but this sort of Hillary kills people who get in her way thing has been part of her baggage since Whitewater. And then leads a good deal of other folks to think well her killing folks is wrong, but she obviously must have been doing something shady in all these Whitewater/Bengazi/email scandals (even though nothing is found in any of them).
  #67  
Old 03-09-2020, 12:25 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,365
Honestly, as much as the lies hurt her, I think what hurt her the most was her husband’s philandering - for whatever reason, people would rather vote for a cheater than a cuckold.
  #68  
Old 03-09-2020, 12:51 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Not being addressed? We're addressing it right now. We're pointing out how laughable it is.

Sanders had a heart attack. During the campaign. This is a matter of record.

Biden's "senility" is just something people started rumors about a week ago when they realized they weren't going to beat him in a fair fight.
Sorry, but that’s absurd. Bernie has a mild heart attack. He was out of hospital and back on the campaign trail in two days. It doesn’t seemed to have slowed him down one bit.

Biden’s performances in recent months have been worrying. This isn’t a rumour. It’s not a rumour that
  • He challenged an 80 year old marine to a press-up contest.
  • He called a young woman a “Lying dog-faced pony soldier” (can you even imagine if “toxic” Bernie Sanders had said that to a woman? Fuck me...) for daring to ask him a tough question at a town hall.
  • He told a crowd he was running for the Senate.
  • He told a crowd in Iowa to vote for somebody else (85% of them did).
  • He forgot Obama’s name.
  • He tried quoting the Declaration of Independence - specifically the ”We holds these truths to be self-evident” line which every seven year old in the country knows - and forgot how it went.
  • He said the re-election of Donald Trump was inevitable.

And that’s just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head. My parents are Joe Biden’s age. They’re infinitely more cogent than he is. You know who else is infinitely more cogent than he is? Joe Biden himself, circa 2012. I dare you to go watch his debate with Paul Ryan in 2012 and then tell me with a straight face that Joe’s the same man he was then.

The guy has real problems, and you don’t need to be a neurologist to see them. I’m much more worried about Biden’s mental state than I am about Bernie’s minor heart scare.
  #69  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:28 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,895
And yet, Bernie's so enfeebled politically that he can't beat someone enfeebled mentally. Sad!
  #70  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:45 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And yet, Bernie's so enfeebled politically that he can't beat someone enfeebled mentally. Sad!
Your snark is weak and off-point. The Primary race has a long way left to run. Biden’s still pretty damn far from getting a lock on the nomination so it’s a little early to be getting cocky.

Besides, many of the people currently supporting Biden only do so because they think he’s more “electable” than Sanders. As the campaign progresses, and as the evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline grows from strong to undeniable, how well do you think that argument will hold up?
  #71  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
As the campaign progresses? It's going to be over in 8 days functionally. You're hoping for some serious gaffe density.
  #72  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:58 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Your snark is weak and off-point. The Primary race has a long way left to run. Biden’s still pretty damn far from getting a lock on the nomination so it’s a little early to be getting cocky.

Besides, many of the people currently supporting Biden only do so because they think he’s more “electable” than Sanders. As the campaign progresses, and as the evidence of Biden’s cognitive decline grows from strong to undeniable, how well do you think that argument will hold up?
I can't rule out that any of these three geezers won't make it to November, so I'm not in the business of making any predictions about any one of their health.

And yet, the mood of the Democratic electorate is "anyone but Bernie" at this moment. If Biden collapses, Bernie isn't going to pick up any support.

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-09-2020 at 01:59 PM.
  #73  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:16 AM
duality72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
He has been visibly and loudly impatient with the process of democracy which he thinks is the process of letting him get elected potus.
Was this comment supposed to be directed at Biden or Sanders?
  #74  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:59 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by duality72 View Post
Was this comment supposed to be directed at Biden or Sanders?
Sanders never speaks without intent and content. Joe does that all the time. He's a wind up doll to do this, because that is the way he understands the democratic process of running for potus, deriving form the 1950s basically. If it was 1992 and he was in his 40s or 50s it might be believable.
  #75  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:35 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't know your posting history, so I don't know if your theory of this thread is that you're in the tank for Bernie and will grasp at any argument to criticize Dems who have lost elections, but it sure seems like your definition of "safe" is so malleable that it is meaningless.
Pointing out that Hillary LOST the election is not 'grasping at any argument', it's stating basic fact. She was in fact hailed as the safer candidate than Sanders at the time. You want to claim now that she's 'more divisive', but that wasn't the claim back when she and Sanders were competing in the primaries. My definition of 'safe' is that people refer to him as the 'safe' candidate. I'm not the one claiming that Biden is the safe choice, I said before that I expect him to get eviscerated once the Republicans get their hate machine into gear.

Quote:
Seriously, I'd like you to form a coherent explanation of why nominating the less popular politician...
What exactly do you mean by 'less popular'? Sanders had more delegates than Biden until super Tuesday, and plenty of polls showed (and still show) him getting more votes running against Trump than Biden. Like I pointed out last time I posted, if your argument for 'more popular' is who wins the primary, then you can't use 'the more popular candidate' as an argument for who to support in the primary because the more popular candidate hasn't happened yet.
  #76  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:39 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I'm not sure you realize what Hillary's baggage was. This is someone who a good portion of the country believes kills people when they are about to get exposed. I mean someone literally thought she started a pedophile ring in the bottom of a pizza place and brought a gun to said pizza place.
Is there any evidence that the people who believed she started a pedophile ring are people who would actually vote for Biden? I don't think that it really counts as 'baggage' that people who would not vote for any establishment Democrat think worse of her than they do other Democrats, it's an irrelevant statistic. And conversely, if I accept that this particular baggage is really so absurdly severe, why was she considered the safe alternative to Bernie back in 2016? People looking for safety should have dropped her like a hot potato.

Quote:
It's all based on bullshit, of course, but this sort of Hillary kills people who get in her way thing has been part of her baggage since Whitewater. And then leads a good deal of other folks to think well her killing folks is wrong, but she obviously must have been doing something shady in all these Whitewater/Bengazi/email scandals (even though nothing is found in any of them).
If you don't expect the Republicans to come up with a plethora of scandals for whoever the Democratic nominee is, boy are you in for a surprise once primaries are over. Biden is not going to be able to mention Trump's corruption without Fox News broadcasting a plethora of corruption 'scandals' from his years being a politician.
  #77  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:41 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's kinda inherent in the concept. If the candidate is 'safe', that means they are the one that is most likely to win. The opposite is the risky candidate, which means there's a greater risk they will lose.
No, this is not true at all. It is the case that someone saying that a candidate is 'safe' *believes* the candidate is the one more likely to win, but it's not a matter of objective fact. And I have seen people repeatedly claim that Biden is the 'safe' candidate when polls showed that other candidates were more likely to win in the general election than he was, so it's clear that the belief isn't based on facts and evidence, but on something else and note...

Quote:
The guy with lower numbers both in the primaries and among people in the general is "risky," while the one with higher numbers in both is "safe."
People claimed that Biden was the safe choice when his numbers in the primaries and among people in the general were lower, so what you're saying here is clearly incorrect. These arguments all appear to be completely circular.

Quote:
Now, if you want to ask why "safe" means "middle of the road," the answer is just that this is where the presumed swing voters are. Swing voters are those in the swing states, since the rest largely don't matter. It's presumed that, if they can't make up their mind which way to vote, then it must be because they are in the middle and see positives on both sides. Better to be the one who goes towards the middle.
So it is all just pure presumption without actual data supporting it? I've never seen actual support for this idea that there are moderates sitting around contemplating whether to vote for D or R, and it certainly doesn't match what I've seen in the real world. What I have seen (especially now that Trump is the face of Republicans) is a lot of people who absolutely won't vote for one candidate but might vote for the other, that the 'swing' is not between D and R but between 'one of D and R' and 'None of the above', with people either voting 3rd party or sitting out the election. The fact that more people did not vote than voted for either major party candidate seems to get overlooked a lot.
  #78  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:45 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Obama wasn't perceived as a radical. He ticked off the usual Dem talking points, e.g. make the rich pay their fair share, expand the health care system to cover uninsured (note, not UHC), pro-choice, etc. Nothing radical there. Moderate in the sense that he is not revolutionary.
I didn't say "radical" or "revolutionary", I said progressive. The only candidates that I can think of really qualify as 'revolutionary' are the various Republicans that talk about 'second amendment solutions' to losing an election. Obama was definitely not considered a 'moderate' during his initial run, and during his second term (where he was considered moderate) he managed a lower electoral and popular vote total.
  #79  
Old 03-10-2020, 04:22 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Is there any evidence that the people who believed she started a pedophile ring are people who would actually vote for Biden? I don't think that it really counts as 'baggage' that people who would not vote for any establishment Democrat think worse of her than they do other Democrats, it's an irrelevant statistic. And conversely, if I accept that this particular baggage is really so absurdly severe, why was she considered the safe alternative to Bernie back in 2016? People looking for safety should have dropped her like a hot potato.
There are plenty of folks who hearing the barrage of things surmised something must have been wrong. An analysis of the polling indicated that after the Comey announcement the week before the election the polls dramatically dropped for Clinton and late deciders went Trump by a far higher percentage than those who decided before the Comey letter.

And I think I mentioned earlier, I think the whole "safe" candidate thing is completely nonsense and mostly determined in hindsight.
  #80  
Old 03-10-2020, 04:56 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
I'm not sure you realize what Hillary's baggage was. This is someone who a good portion of the country believes kills people when they are about to get exposed. I mean someone literally thought she started a pedophile ring in the bottom of a pizza place and brought a gun to said pizza place.

It's all based on bullshit, of course, but this sort of Hillary kills people who get in her way thing has been part of her baggage since Whitewater. And then leads a good deal of other folks to think well her killing folks is wrong, but she obviously must have been doing something shady in all these Whitewater/Bengazi/email scandals (even though nothing is found in any of them).
Nobody except the far uninformed right wing believes that Hillary killed people or was running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop. That's a strawman. Those rumors didn't cost her any votes.

One of her biggest pieces of baggage that didn't get a whole lot of airtime was the nepotism angle. If she hadn't married Bill, she would be Hillary Rodham, retired lawyer from Arkansas. Does that qualify her to be President?

Plus the nepotism angle. If she had been elected that would mean that we only had one president in 32 or 36 years not named Bush or Clinton. Surely the talent pool of qualified people to be president has expanded beyond those two families.

And the Whitewater/Bengazi/email situations, while nothing criminal has been proven about any of them WRT Hillary, they call into question her judgment as a leader.

But even with all of his, her baggage was nothing like Bernie's who wants socialism. Bernie would have lost big.

She was a "safe" candidate who almost won. Take away any of that baggage and she wins. So why do some Dems think the answer for 2020 is to go a complete 180 away from someone like Hillary?

The country is a center to center-right country. You cannot win by being far left or far right. As far as Bernie supporters being unhappy with Biden, he is farther left on almost every position than Obama was. Why the hate?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017