The Tearing Apart of the Democratic Party
GL2 said:
Oh, and a saboteur.
You are now public shaming Bernie. IMHO, real change does not stem from public shaming.
PS Many engage in public shaming as a form of online virtue signaling and also as a defense against being shamed by other virtue signalers.
GL2 said:
And free everything doesn't play in swing states or in the real world.
Unless you are talking farm subsidies, corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich.
GL2 said:
Bernie's a boutique candidate. A Ben & Jerry's delight.
As opposed to Biden who is pork that reached its expiration date long, long ago.
ml1 said:
GL2 said:
Yes, the claim has been made many times. And there's no way to obtain hard evidence. In the same way Comey's stunts reveal no hard evidence and Bros frat house behavior at the convention reveals no hard evidence.
there were follow up surveys of Sanders supporters, and how they voted in '16, just as there were of Clinton supporters and McCain supporters in '08. And the Sanders primary voters came out in higher percentages than Clinton supporters did for Obama.
You can dismiss that information and continue to claim Sanders cost Clinton the election of course. But as in the argument I'm having with someone else here, you'd be rejecting the best available information in favor of uninformed gut. It's what Democrats like to accuse Republicans of -- rejecting knowledge that doesn't correspond with their biases.
What exactly is your criteria in determining what information out there is “best available”?
My wild guess, uninformed gut, pulling it out my a$$ (all my M.O., of course) is that your best available info is the information that best supports your narrative.
Smedley said:
What exactly is your criteria in determining what information out there is “best available”?
My wild guess, uninformed gut, pulling it out my a$$ (all my M.O., of course) is that your best available info is the information that best supports your narrative.
I generally provide links to the information I'm relying on. You don't have to guess, you can go to the sources, read them and decide it they are worthwhile.
You do provide supporting info/data for your assertions - I’ve never said you don’t.
My issue here is that you wave off my support (The crappy electoral record of far left candidates, and the very good electoral record of incumbent presidents running on a strong economy) for believing that trump would beat sanders H2H, as just so much flotsam in the face of your far superior “best available” information of current polls and whatever else. But there’s no basis for declaring your supporting info as “best available” and mine as “uninformed gut” , except for you wanting it to be that way.
Smedley said:
You do provide supporting info/data for your assertions - I’ve never said you don’t.
My issue here is that you wave off my support (The crappy electoral record of far left candidates, and the very good electoral record of incumbent presidents running on a strong economy) for believing that trump would beat sanders H2H, as just so much flotsam in the face of your far superior “best available” information of current polls and whatever else. But there’s no basis for declaring your supporting info as “best available” and mine as “uninformed gut” , except for you wanting it to be that way.
You know, there's not nearly enough data on presidential elections to use it as a basis for declaring your beliefs about what makes a successful candidate.
You're pretending that your beliefs are fact-based, but really, they're not.
Smedley said:
You do provide supporting info/data for your assertions - I’ve never said you don’t.
My issue here is that you wave off my support (The crappy electoral record of far left candidates, and the very good electoral record of incumbent presidents running on a strong economy) for believing that trump would beat sanders H2H, as just so much flotsam in the face of your far superior “best available” information of current polls and whatever else. But there’s no basis for declaring your supporting info as “best available” and mine as “uninformed gut” , except for you wanting it to be that way.
generally speaking, more recent information and information that applies more closely to the specific characteristics at hand is better than older and less directly related. For example I'd put a lot more weight on polling of this year's matchups than generalizations about candidates from the past. I'd also give more weight to recent academic studies of the economy and presidential approval than to quarter century old conventional wisdom (particularly when Trump's approval ratings are strong evidence of that decoupling). But ymmv.
Why are you seemingly arguing against weighing your hypotheses against the latest information available?
Smedley said:
You do provide supporting info/data for your assertions - I’ve never said you don’t.
My issue here is that you wave off my support (The crappy electoral record of far left candidates, and the very good electoral record of incumbent presidents running on a strong economy) for believing that trump would beat sanders H2H, as just so much flotsam in the face of your far superior “best available” information of current polls and whatever else. But there’s no basis for declaring your supporting info as “best available” and mine as “uninformed gut” , except for you wanting it to be that way.
+10
These numbers don't speak well of Bernie fans. National Emerson College Poll On ______ Supporters Will Support Any Democratic Nominee In The General Election: Warren 90 Biden 87 Buttigieg 86 Bloomberg 78 Sanders 54 Yang 50 pic.twitter.com/Sx6OGJBTO3
drummerboy said:
You know, there's not nearly enough data on presidential elections to use it as a basis for declaring your beliefs about what makes a successful candidate.
You're pretending that your beliefs are fact-based, but really, they're not.
this is an important point. If we are discussing the "electability" of Biden or Sanders, what exactly is the relevance of how Mondale fared agains Reagan, or Dukakis against Bush? I'd venture that information that's a generation old, against candidates who were not the likes of Donald Trump, isn't nearly as useful as head-to-head matchup polls conducted this month, between Sanders and Trump, and Biden and Trump. Why anyone would reject polls among current-day voters to rely on results from when a very substantial segment of today's electorate wasn't even born yet, I don't know (it couldn't possibly be because it tells a story that fits the person's preconceived notion, could it?).
But regarding my own biases and gut instincts, I'm going against my own bias. Personally, I'n not a Sanders supporter right now, and my gut tells me that a man his age who just had a heart attack, who will be facing a certain amount of anti-Semitism isn't "electable." I'd prefer to see that Warren was the better candidate against Trump, because my gut tells me she's more likable than Sanders. But guess what? I looked at the polling, and Warren isn't more "electable" than Sanders at this moment in time. And I looked at the states where he did very well in the 2016 primaries, and it included states like Michigan that the Dems need. And right now Sanders seems to be doing well in Nevada, another crucial 2020 state. All the available information is telling me something that my gut isn't. And I think the data is more reliable than anyone's gut reaction to the candidates.
ml1 said:
I'd venture that
There we go. Three simple words. Nobody can predict the future, so while we can arm ourselves with facts and data points and research and qualitative assessments, ultimately we’re all venturing when we debate what may or may not happen in the 2020 election.
I venture. You venture. We all venture.
Your information is best available to suit your argument. It is not objectively the best available information.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
You do provide supporting info/data for your assertions - I’ve never said you don’t.
My issue here is that you wave off my support (The crappy electoral record of far left candidates, and the very good electoral record of incumbent presidents running on a strong economy) for believing that trump would beat sanders H2H, as just so much flotsam in the face of your far superior “best available” information of current polls and whatever else. But there’s no basis for declaring your supporting info as “best available” and mine as “uninformed gut” , except for you wanting it to be that way.
You know, there's not nearly enough data on presidential elections to use it as a basis for declaring your beliefs about what makes a successful candidate.
You're pretending that your beliefs are fact-based, but really, they're not.
When might there be enough data on presidential elections? Maybe another 100 years or so?
Smedley said:
There we go. Three simple words. Nobody can predict the future, so while we can arm ourselves with facts and data points and research and qualitative assessments, ultimately we’re all venturing when we debate what may or may not happen in the 2020 election.
I venture. You venture. We all venture.
Your information is best available to suit your argument. It is not objectively the best available information.
you took three words out of context and ignored the entire rationale I gave you for why I think certain information in more useful than other. Why do I bother engaging with you if you're going to ignore the substance of what I'm writing?
I believe I said "help kill us," not turn the election.
Yup, surveys after election. When I was surveyed about last week's football games, I had picked both winners.
What remains, in terms of getting rid of Trump, is finding a way to get swing states to swing our way.
GL2 said:
I believe I said "help kill us," not turn the election.
I didn't realize you meant "kill" literally. In that case, I don't need to argue against that obviously untrue statement.
nohero said:
These numbers don't speak well of Bernie fans.
Seems like the sort of thing people should take into account when contemplating nominating a candidate who openly contemplates choosing a Republican running mate. Perhaps the days when the Democratic Party could take progressive voters for granted have passed?
Klinker said:
nohero said:
These numbers don't speak well of Bernie fans.
Seems like the sort of thing people should take into account when contemplating nominating a candidate who openly contemplates choosing a Republican running mate. Perhaps the days when the Democratic Party could take progressive voters for granted have passed?
Two thoughts:
1. I don't understand how your comment is related to my post, which you quoted.
2. I didn't know that "Biden might nominate a GOP VP" was still a thing.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
There we go. Three simple words. Nobody can predict the future, so while we can arm ourselves with facts and data points and research and qualitative assessments, ultimately we’re all venturing when we debate what may or may not happen in the 2020 election.
I venture. You venture. We all venture.
Your information is best available to suit your argument. It is not objectively the best available information.
you took three words out of context and ignored the entire rationale I gave you for why I think certain information in more useful than other. Why do I bother engaging with you if you're going to ignore the substance of what I'm writing?
How is it out of context? The full sentence was
"I'd venture that information that's a generation old, against candidates who were not the likes of Donald Trump, isn't nearly as useful as head-to-head matchup polls conducted this month, between Sanders and Trump, and Biden and Trump."
As far as the substance of what youve been saying - I acknowledge this time *may* be different, and the current snapshot as per the polls may well foretell a general election result that would buck the long-term trends that I have been citing. I just think certain big-picture stuff is hardwired into the electorate and that will win out in the end.
i can disagree with your opinion without trashing your opinion as pure guesswork, uninformed gut or pulled out of derriere. Such disparagement comes across as unnecessarily haughty, in my opinion.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
I'd venture that
There we go. Three simple words. Nobody can predict the future, so while we can arm ourselves with facts and data points and research and qualitative assessments, ultimately we’re all venturing when we debate what may or may not happen in the 2020 election.
I venture. You venture. We all venture.
Your information is best available to suit your argument. It is not objectively the best available information.
+10
nohero said:
2. I didn't know that "Biden might nominate a GOP VP" was still a thing.
Has he changed his position?
Smedley said:
How is it out of context? The full sentence was
"I'd venture that information that's a generation old, against candidates who were not the likes of Donald Trump, isn't nearly as useful as head-to-head matchup polls conducted this month, between Sanders and Trump, and Biden and Trump."
As far as the substance of what youve been saying - I acknowledge this time *may* be different, and the current snapshot as per the polls may well foretell a general election result that would buck the long-term trends that I have been citing. I just think certain big-picture stuff is hardwired into the electorate and that will win out in the end.
i can disagree with your opinion without trashing your opinion as pure guesswork, uninformed gut or pulled out of derriere. Such disparagement comes across as unnecessarily haughty, in my opinion.
objectively, some opinions are better supported than others. you've been vague about what you're basing your opinions on, and I've been more specific, including links so people can look at my supporting materials if they choose. Instead of feeling like you've been "trashed," why not provide more information and your rationale? I've been pretty transparent with my thinking, and what it's based on, which would allow you or anyone else to take it apart if it's a weak argument. If you've got a good argument, based on good evidence it will hold up. If you don't it won't.
nohero said:
Oh, please.
???? Are you unaware of his statement about this?
CNN: Joe Biden says he would consider a Republican for his running mate
Klinker said:
nohero said:
Oh, please.
???? Are you unaware of his statement about this?
CNN: Joe Biden says he would consider a Republican for his running mate
Yes, I'm also aware it was beaten to death and overblown, when you read it in context. I referred to it a couple of days ago on this thread as a stupid issue. Continuing to ask about it is a clown question.
nohero said:
Klinker said:
nohero said:
Oh, please.
???? Are you unaware of his statement about this?
CNN: Joe Biden says he would consider a Republican for his running mate
Yes, I'm also aware it was beaten to death and overblown, when you read it in context. I referred to it a couple of days ago on this thread as a stupid issue. Continuing to ask about it is a clown question.
Consider the source...Unadulterated hatred of anything Biden !
Talking about considering a "Republican" as a running mate is like talking about considering a Whig or a Federalist.
There is no Republican Party. There are Trumpists and there are ideological conservatives who used to be Republicans.
When Biden's statement about considering a republican running mate came up on here before I posted that I didn't think Mike Bloomberg was interested in the second spot. Bloomberg is what used to be considered a Rockefeller Republican but the Party of Gingrich and Delay did a good job of getting rid of those people and Trump finished the job.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Consider the source...Unadulterated hatred of anything Biden !
CNN?
there were follow up surveys of Sanders supporters, and how they voted in '16, just as there were of Clinton supporters and McCain supporters in '08. And the Sanders primary voters came out in higher percentages than Clinton supporters did for Obama.
You can dismiss that information and continue to claim Sanders cost Clinton the election of course. But as in the argument I'm having with someone else here, you'd be rejecting the best available information in favor of uninformed gut. It's what Democrats like to accuse Republicans of -- rejecting knowledge that doesn't correspond with their biases.