2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Belz...]

The point is Obama is talking about behaviour he sees on social media whereby people try to take others down for not being "woke".

Is there any evidence he sees talk about taxing churches, announcing pronouns, and saying felons should be able to vote is the same kind of behaviour?

I'm not saying there is. I'm saying that it's good advice generally.

Christ, I didn't think that was a controversial idea.

 

[Belz...]

You continue to say this, with no evidence at all.

Wait, what is it that I continue to say? I asked you a question.

Was that hyperbole or not?

Again, if it's going to be such a massive turnoff for Harris, why is Bill Maher the only figure to bring it up?

How about you address the substance of his point, not its popularity?

He certainly seems to be, if he's going to put it alongside actual policy proposals.

I'm asking you whether he DID say it, not whether you can interpret it as such if you squint really hard.

He's a white moderate

What does skin colour have to do with it. You didn't answer my question.

Then what is it?

That some things might drive people away _more_ than they might bring them in. This isn't complicated stuff.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, they almost blew it with Trump.
There would have been no such disparity had they run Kasich. But they did not need the broader appeal he would have brought.

I tend to think that 2016 was an outlier.

 

[Belz...]

What point are people trying to make by constantly reminding us that Hillary won the popular vote?

That people who say she was unelectable and unpopular are wrong. The EC doesn't change that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As long as we have the EC unelectable and unpopular are often not going to be the same thing.

 

[Belz...]

As long as we have the EC unelectable and unpopular are often not going to be the same thing.

Maybe but given how close things were it's clear she was electable. And at the very least she was more popular than Trump, even given all the smear jobs the GOP had done on her.

 

[Distracted1]

Maybe but given how close things were it's clear she was electable. And at the very least she was more popular than Trump, even given all the smear jobs the GOP had done on her.

She was not very electable at all. The only reason she was even close to winning was that Trump, also, was very unelectable. A large portion of the Republican field that year would have beaten her resoundingly.

 

[Belz...]

She was not very electable at all. The only reason she was even close to winning was that Trump, also, was very unelectable. A large portion of the Republican field that year would have beaten her resoundingly.

Well, there's no way to know how she would've fared against a more liked candidate, but the point is that in the context of the actual election she participated in, she came pretty close to winning. That's "electable".

 

[Distracted1]

Well, there's no way to know how she would've fared against a more liked candidate, but the point is that in the context of the actual election she participated in, she came pretty close to winning. That's "electable".

Why was everyone so shocked by Trumps victory? I believe it is because it was pretty unbelievable that he could have had a shot at winning against anyone.

The only reason Trump won was that his opponent was even more "unelectable" than he.

I was calling her unelectable from the beginning of her campaign. I take as evidence that I was correct her loss to someone widely believed to be an absolute sleaze bag.


more simply put: being able to almost defeat the most clearly unqualified candidate to ever have a major Party's nomination is not evidence of "electability".

 

[Belz...]

Why was everyone so shocked by Trumps victory? I believe it is because it was pretty unbelievable that he could have had a shot at winning against anyone.

The only reason Trump won was that his opponent was even more "unelectable" than he.

But failing to get elected doesn't mean you're unelectable. If she barely managed to get 10 votes in the EC I'd understand the argument. But she lost really by a small margin in a small number of states. That's not "unelectable".

This is the same type of flawed logic that has people saying the polls were "wrong" in 2016. They weren't wrong. People just don't understand numbers.

I was calling her unelectable from the beginning of her campaign. I take as evidence that I was correct her loss to someone widely believed to be an absolute sleaze bag.

Sorry, but that's silly. I'd be like saying that a god exists under the mountain, and then feeling vincated that the mountain god exists when the volcano erupts.

 

[theprestige]

While "basket of deplorables" was an infelicitous phrasing, Clinton had a point. The original formulation was something like, there are three "baskets" of voters on the right: Those who will vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, the literal "deplorables", and moderate/swing voters who can actually be reached by a Democratic candidate.

The voters on the left fall into similar buckets. It's no secret that the densely-populated coastal urban centers are full of people who reliably vote for anyone with a "D" after their name. The question is, was Hillary electable in those areas because of Hillary, or because of the "D"?

Both ways, she's electable, but the nature of that electability has to be understood and accounted for. Being electable in New York and San Francisco because of the "D", but being unelectable elsewhere may be a more meaningful definition of "unelectable". The Democratic candidates for 2020 will need to think carefully about this, and about whether garnering millions of redundant votes in states they were going to win anyway because of the "D", is the kind of electability they want to base their campaign strategy on. At the end of the day, the only electability that matters is the electability that actually matters. A Democrat being electable in New York doesn't actually matter.

 

[Distracted1]

But failing to get elected doesn't mean you're unelectable. If she barely managed to get 10 votes in the EC I'd understand the argument. But she lost really by a small margin in a small number of states. That's not "unelectable".

This is the same type of flawed logic that has people saying the polls were "wrong" in 2016. They weren't wrong. People just don't understand numbers.



Sorry, but that's silly. I'd be like saying that a god exists under the mountain, and then feeling vincated that the mountain god exists when the volcano erupts.

Trump was looked at at first as a joke, because he was so clearly, blatantly, unfit for the office of POTUS.
This was a legitimate take, and even generated a faction of his own party that felt the need to acknowledge that publicly ( never-trumpers ).
Losing to him would have been difficult for any candidate to do- yet HRC managed to do it. That is a pretty clear example of being "unelectable". At least in the context of that election.

I will concede, if you wish, that "unelectable" in the context of this discussion does not mean: "incapable of ever getting elected to any office at any time".
If that is closer to your definition of unelectable, then HRC was obviously "electable".

 

[Belz...]

I will concede, if you wish, that "unelectable" in the context of this discussion does not mean: "incapable of ever getting elected to any office at any time".
If that is closer to your definition of unelectable, then HRC was obviously "electable".

No need for snark. I mean that, at the time of the 2016 election, she was electable to the office of POTUS. She just didn't get it, but to say she was unelectable implies she had no shot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Maher's claim is that Harris is obsessed with pronouns.

Wait, did he claim this?. ...

Maher has issues with women. I have heard him make resentful remarks that it annoys him women expect him to pick up the tab when he dates them. There was clear disdain in the comment.

And he verbalized an attraction to Anne Coulter for her "honesty and speaking her mind". I found that to be hypocritical given his particular political comedy. But given the comment was paired with the comment about women wanting him to pay for the date, he was saying he finds women to be phony.

From my POV I pictured him wanting to date women who were very attractive but who didn't find him physically attractive. If that's who you try to date, no wonder you think women want you for your money. He seems like someone who has been turned down a lot and he resents it.

 

[Belz...]

Maher has issues with women. (snip)

I've been watching his show for years and I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you're reading way too much into it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, they almost blew it with Trump.
There would have been no such disparity had they run Kasich. But they did not need the broader appeal he would have brought.

You don't know that. It's doubtful Kasich would have had an army of Russian trolls and bots flooding social media with dishonest propaganda about Clinton.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
What point are people trying to make by constantly reminding us that Hillary won the popular vote? And? So? I'm tired of hearing about how Hillary Clinton won in the hypothetical world where we run the elections on a popular vote.

"Hillary was popular with more people... in a way that literally didn't matter." doesn't strike me as anywhere near having a point.

,,,,

It matters when the constant drumbeat from the other side claims Clinton was the most hated woman in the country. That is false on multiple levels.

If people quit repeating the brainwashed position Clinton was unpopular, the rest of us would quit providing evidence that is false.

One argument is she lost the election.
One argument is she was an unpopular candidate.

Those are not equal. She was popular and she lost. Trump cheated. Apparently those on the right prefer to believe their side fairly won and represents the will of the people. The truth is they represent the minority.

 

[Distracted1]

It matters when the constant drumbeat from the other side claims Clinton was the most hated woman in the country. That is false on multiple levels.

If people quit repeating the brainwashed position Clinton was unpopular, the rest of us would quit providing evidence that is false.

One argument is she lost the election.
One argument is she was an unpopular candidate.

Those are not equal. She was popular and she lost. Trump cheated. Apparently those on the right prefer to believe their side fairly won and represents the will of the people. The truth is they represent the minority.

You think she was popular? Really?
I disagree. She managed to get fewer votes than would have been garnered by "generic Democratic candidate 'x' " IMO.

She only came close to winning because her opponent was stunningly unpopular as well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She was not very electable at all. The only reason she was even close to winning was that Trump, also, was very unelectable. A large portion of the Republican field that year would have beaten her resoundingly.

I imagine from the POV of Clinton haters it seems people agree with them. The truth is, the majority of people in this country don't agree with them.

Claiming Trump was such a bad candidate, how do you explain him winning the GOP primary?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why was everyone so shocked by Trumps victory? I believe it is because it was pretty unbelievable that he could have had a shot at winning against anyone.

The only reason Trump won was that his opponent was even more "unelectable" than he.

Does that include all those GOP primary candidates?

I was calling her unelectable from the beginning of her campaign.....

Of course you were.