Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Why do you vote for a winner instead of a candidate's platform?
You actually mean this question???

Frankly, rhetorical posturing noted, the differences between the platforms of ANY of them are not so huge, and between Bloomberg's and Biden's platforms nearly non-existent. My sense on platforms is like my answer about which is the best car seat (the best carseat is the one that is used every time): the best platform of the bunch is the winner's one, because that is the one that might actually do some good.
  #102  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:17 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Trump doesn't debate, he screams, interrupts and lies.
And looms. We should support the tallest candidate.
  #103  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:43 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
The debates really aren't about the candidates' policies. They're about the candidates flexing on each other.
They also don't seem to matter all that much during the general election.

Quote:
That presidential debates can be “game changers” is a belief almost universally held by political pundits and strategists. Political scientists, however, aren’t so sure. Indeed, scholars who have looked most carefully at the data have found that, when it comes to shifting enough votes to decide the outcome of the election, presidential debates have rarely, if ever, mattered.

The small or nonexistent movement in voters’ preferences is evident when comparing the polls before and after each debate or during the debate season as a whole. Political lore often glosses over or even ignores the polling data. Even those who do pay attention to polls often fail to separate real changes from random blips due to sampling error. A more careful study by political scientist James Stimson finds little evidence of game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000. Stimson writes, “There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” At best, debates provide a “nudge” in very close elections like 1960,1980, or 2000.
The effects general election debates are so small that skill in them probably shouldn't be much more than a tie breaker in deciding who is better against Trump.

Maybe I should have spoilered that to not ruin the media fed drama come debate season.
  #104  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:46 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 7,008
turnp has mesmerized the press, the opposition and his own party. The candidate who is furthest from this sway, and who can respond to anything he says by exposing his deficits, is bernie. This is an election about "authoritarianism" and it matters that bernie is far less subject to the ridicule of a fascist than any of the other dems. He is above the idea that all candidates are the same, which always will be a fascist plank.

You can't emphasize the differences between dems and rebups as well with people that are not Bernie.

I'm sure Amy is working up a good debate tactic to use. Do you think it will work?
  #105  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:54 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
The effects general election debates are so small that skill in them probably shouldn't be much more than a tie breaker in deciding who is better against Trump.
If they have ANY effect, no matter how small, they're important.
  #106  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:55 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I'm sure Amy is working up a good debate tactic to use. Do you think it will work?
No. She has no idea how to debate. Talking about how her grandparents worked in a mine and having Liz Warren back her up does not constitute an effective strategy. She cannot stand up to any tough questions and she loses her composure easily. Her campaign is going to be over soon anyway.
  #107  
Old 03-01-2020, 04:06 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It does look like Pete could only win with whites, but why didn't Biden get earlier wins? Why would white Dems in a southern state like Biden more so than white Dems in other states?
Pete had time to work the state in IA and NH. His ground game is incredible. When he's able to get his message out, people are intrigued. Unfortunately, he doesn't have time to do that in every state, and doesn't have Bloomberg's money to buy air time.
  #108  
Old 03-01-2020, 04:17 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
They also don't seem to matter all that much during the general election.



The effects general election debates are so small that skill in them probably shouldn't be much more than a tie breaker in deciding who is better against Trump.

Maybe I should have spoilered that to not ruin the media fed drama come debate season.
1980 was a close election? It was a 489-49 beatdown. Reagan's debate performance has been largely credited for his runaway performance in that election.

I agree that the debates generally don't do more than nudge a couple of points each way because candidates usually are on point but with Trump v. Bernie I think that this general rule goes out the window.
  #109  
Old 03-01-2020, 05:01 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1980 was a close election? It was a 489-49 beatdown. Reagan's debate performance has been largely credited for his runaway performance in that election.

I agree that the debates generally don't do more than nudge a couple of points each way because candidates usually are on point but with Trump v. Bernie I think that this general rule goes out the window.
At the time many people did not expect 1980 to be a GOP blowout -- mid-October there were some polls placing Carter as much as +8 as opposed to his final -10; and in 10 or so states Ron's margin was relatively tight (helped by overall low turnout), so the Electoral Vote numbers could have been much closer. But yes, looking back it clearly was nowhere as close a contest as contemporaneously expected.

And for sure anything Trump/Sanders would mean throwing away "the book", though I'd have expected everyone to have done so back on Nov. 9 2016.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 03-01-2020 at 05:03 PM.
  #110  
Old 03-01-2020, 06:59 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
And looms. We should support the tallest candidate.

This is actually a legit criterion. I was into Beto and Inslee early on, but Biden's pretty tall too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You actually mean this question???

I had a similar reaction, but I do know a number of people who think this way. It would be great if this were actually how it worked in the real world. It wouldn't really matter who could raise money, because no one would need ads. They could put up their proposals as PDFs, voters could browse them, then choose the one they preferred. But that is so far from the real world as it actually exists. We are choosing a gladiator to go into the arena to defeat the current champ in a battle of PR image.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #111  
Old 03-01-2020, 07:11 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
At the time many people did not expect 1980 to be a GOP blowout -- mid-October there were some polls placing Carter as much as +8 as opposed to his final -10; and in 10 or so states Ron's margin was relatively tight (helped by overall low turnout), so the Electoral Vote numbers could have been much closer. But yes, looking back it clearly was nowhere as close a contest as contemporaneously expected.

And for sure anything Trump/Sanders would mean throwing away "the book", though I'd have expected everyone to have done so back on Nov. 9 2016.
Right, but I was responding to the study that says (paraphrasing) that debates are meaningless except in close elections. If we modify "close elections" to mean elections that we thought would be close but ended up not being close, possibly because of debate performances, then the study can be summarized as debates don't matter unless they matter.

And yes, the book was thrown away on 11/9/16. Whatever new book that has started to be written since then can likewise be thrown away when you not only still have Trump, but throw a socialist into the mix.
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 02:53 AM.

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