Belz...
Fiend God
If that's what it means, we already have a phrase for that: "they lost."
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
- Status
If that's what it means, we already have a phrase for that: "they lost."
Distracted1
Philosopher
In Michigan (as an example)
0.3 percent: That was Donald Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, according to tentative results posted on the Michigan Secretary of State website. The website showed Trump with 2,277,914 votes, or 47.6 percent of the total, and Hillary Clinton with 2,264,807, or 47.33 percent.
65 percent: Registered voters who cast a ballot. That compares to 64 percent in 2012. A total of 4.9 million voters participated in the election, compared to 4.8 million four years ago.
87,810: Number of voters this election who cast a ballot but did not cast a vote for president. That compares to 49,840 undervotes for president in 2012.
5 percent: Proportion of voters who opted for a third-party candidate in this election, compared to 1 percent in 2012.
Pasted from here: https://www.mlive.com/politics/2016/11/michigans_presidential_electio.html
The third-party votes, and "blank" POTUS votes say a lot IMO
I would like to see the same Republican voters who went Libertarian in 2016 do it again in 2020. And the ones who voted, but left the POTUS box blank because they could not pull the lever for Trump to do that again as well.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I agree, but some people want to create a quality called "unelectability" that can be applied to people as a characteristic. Which changes over time, as Nixon demonstrated.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
In reality, it means something more like, "we could nominate this candidate, but they're not going to be able to win in the general election because [reasons]."
Or sometimes in hindsight, "wow, it turns out that [candidate] was a lot less electable than we assumed."
Or with foresight, "let's try to nominate someone who seems likely to win the general election, as best as we can gauge electability."
I'm hoping to see some discussion on that third point, once Belz is done bobbing this portion of the thread.
Or sometimes in hindsight, "wow, it turns out that [candidate] was a lot less electable than we assumed."
Or with foresight, "let's try to nominate someone who seems likely to win the general election, as best as we can gauge electability."
I'm hoping to see some discussion on that third point, once Belz is done bobbing this portion of the thread.
Belz...
Fiend God
Wait, I'm Bobbing the thread? I'm not the one using a personalised definition of the word in order to avoid agreeing with the obvious.
And I take exception to that. I _DO_ have an opinion on the issue.
Distracted1
Philosopher
Suppose you and I are friends IRL, and I say to you "the Celtics can't beat the Sixers tonight" and you reply "They most certainly can! ".
The game is played, and the Sixers win 99-98.
Next time we talk, you insist that you were correct because your evidence that the Celtics almost won (IOW-lost), somehow trumps my evidence that The Celtics actually did lose.
Thats what this discussion feels like.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Would you say being compared to that other poster is...undelectable?
Belz...
Fiend God
Gods, I'd agree to that! I'd even say it also makes me unelectable.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Here's an interesting twist on the primaries:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-a-problem-for-prez-candidates-in-senate.html
Basically, if impeachment goes to a trial in the Senate, the Senators will have to be in session six days a week, until the trial is done. This would effectively take the Democratic candidates who are Senators off the campaign trail during that period. Candidates like Biden, on the other hand, would have the campaign coverage all to themselves. This could have an effect on the relative electability of the various candidates.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-a-problem-for-prez-candidates-in-senate.html
Basically, if impeachment goes to a trial in the Senate, the Senators will have to be in session six days a week, until the trial is done. This would effectively take the Democratic candidates who are Senators off the campaign trail during that period. Candidates like Biden, on the other hand, would have the campaign coverage all to themselves. This could have an effect on the relative electability of the various candidates.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Ha! Having more attention is a distinct minus when it comes to Biden. Shall we start placing bets on whether he'll say something mildly racist first, or proceed straight to the kinda-creepy touching? Maybe he'll manage both simultaneously!
I'm still "skeptical" that campaigning is nearly as much of a huge deal as the candidates like to pretend it is.
Again I'm still of the mindset that we could right now just have a surprise election where the only two choices are "Donald Trump" and "Unnamed Democratic Candidate to be named at a later date" and the results would be within 5% of the eventual 2020 election.
Again I'm still of the mindset that we could right now just have a surprise election where the only two choices are "Donald Trump" and "Unnamed Democratic Candidate to be named at a later date" and the results would be within 5% of the eventual 2020 election.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Heck, leaving the office empty for four years might be a more popular choice.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Heh. Good point. Maybe Warren will actually benefit from being locked into an impeachment trial for a few weeks during the campaign.
Another possibility is that the Senate votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment, and there's no trial. Wouldn't it be weird of some of the candidates voted to dismiss, so they could stay on the campaign trail instead?
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
If Donald Trump can do the the job, then probably any Acting President could do the job.
CNN: November, 2020.
"And in an amazing upset that has political experts baffled the overwhelming winner of the Presidential Election is write in candidate 'Yeah know we're just gonna try not having a President right now, okay? I think we as a country just need some time to... like find ourselves. It's not you, it's us.'"
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
My point is that not having anyone do the job may be preferable to having someone who's bad at the job. Haven't you ever worked somewhere where the boss left and a replacement hasn't been found and everything actually gets on better without one?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Such a candidate would be... undetectable.
Sorry, it's Friday and I've had waaaay too much caffeine.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I have not actually worked in such a place. But there are things that need doing, that only someone with Presidential authority can do. Sign bills into law, for example.
Though, that may be a bad example, since I'd probably okay with no new laws being passed for four years. We'd need to lock in a four-year budget first, though.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe the reality is that President Trump is... ineluctable.
In a degree of seriousness I do wonder (I said "wonder" I'm not suggesting or demanding that the Dems adopt this as their campaign strategy) if a... inert candidate is what some people are hoping for. Not Trump again, not another Trump, not the Anti-Trump who's gonna do everything Trump didn't do, not a horrible President, not a wonderful President just... a nice vanilla whitebread beige Volvo station wagon of a President. A "dinner at franchise sit down restaurant" President. A "The TV Edit of a pretty good movie, but you're bored and it has been a while since you watched it" President.
I do honestly wonder if there is a degree of "Can we just have a no-drama President? Just someone to just... like maintain for a few years?" or something like that somewhere in the cultural psyche?
I do honestly wonder if there is a degree of "Can we just have a no-drama President? Just someone to just... like maintain for a few years?" or something like that somewhere in the cultural psyche?
Last edited:
- Status