American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[Red]

Bernie and Yang only had internet fame. They appeal to the young and the young are more vocal online than the older people. But those older people go out and vote.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Azure

Winning what? Winning the primaries? Or winning against Trump?

Like Sanders, Yang never had a chance of winning the primaries because both of them are not Democrat insiders. Isn't that concerning, considering both are better candidates? Biden is not as strong of a candidate as either when you actually focus on the issues, but Biden has insider status and therefore he gets the pick.

At the end of the day I still feel that a strong candidate would have easily won. Obama won twice. And to me he was as strong candidate. Good speaker, strong on issues, good debater, etc, etc. It didn't matter if you disagreed with his politics, you knew he was a good candidate.

I have to imagine people who actually care more about what the media floats on a daily basis are pretty concerned with what the result will be in November.

Neither of those guys were beating Trump...Biden was miles ahead in the places that will decide the election Vs. Trump.

Debates and issues...oh sweet summer child

[burn_this_city]

Hard to say what would have happened in the general election. The democratic primaries were basically over before Covid 19 took off. If there was no pandemic, it's not a stretch to think Trump would have won another term.

It's impossible to know who could have won given the election is largely a referendum on Trump's handling of the virus.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The majority of democratic voters preferred Biden over Yang in the primaries, that is true.

By a huge margin. Like 600%.

However, in a hypothetical Yang vs Trump matchup, Yang would perform way better than you think he would. During the primaries, Yang was actually a stronger favourite against Trump than Biden was, according to most betting odds. His appeal to disaffected voters in swing states comes from the fact that his Freedom Dividend would have helped ease the pain of those who lost their jobs to automation in recent years.

Do you have a clue about what you're talking about? Betting odds? You do know that betting odds mean nothing. That only votes matter? It only matters if you are able to motivate voters to get to the polls. Again, Yang didn't even win the Asian demographic. He finished third with the people that should have rallied around him the most. Yang wasn't winning anything.

Yang's "freedom dividend" had zero chance of seeing the light of day. ZERO. Republicans saw this as socialism. They saw it as an expansion of government. They say it as an expansion of our national debt. The only way this would have worked is if there were massive tax increase, which Republicans would never have supported. More importantly, this never would have been supported by half the Democrats either. No one is going to sign on to a plan like that as a campaign cornerstone. It would have been suicide at the polls.

Who says Yang wouldn't have brought the party together? Centrist democrats would look at the two choices and, even if they didn't like Yang's proposals, the choice to vote out Trump would be an easy one. Meanwhile, Yang would be stealing a chunk of Republican voters away from Trump, because he offers them something that Biden doesn't.

Yang wouldn't have stolen anything from the Republicans. This is just laughable to suggest as much. For all the reasons above Yang was not going to pull anything of significance from the Republican base.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

In all honesty I don't know for sure about the States, but in Canada there isn't a card you need to vote. There is a voter's card, states your voting location and poll but it isn't required to vote.

Given that ID isn't required, I would imagine you would just need to be registered to vote.

And you don’t even need to (can’t actually) declare your party affiliation in Canada.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Red

Bernie and Yang only had internet fame. They appeal to the young and the young are more vocal online than the older people. But those older people go out and vote.

Same with Warren. She was only popular with Facebook moms and journalists. You may think someone is more popular in your inner circle, but they're really not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

So Yang is better because of betting odds? People didn’t vote for him, that’s your first tell,2nd is you think he’d pull Republicans off Trump? Have you met Trump voters? Their going nowhere,never mind voting for an Asian.

They're*

Yang peeled off over 10% of Trump voters in polls during the primaries. A significant chunk of his support was voters who otherwise weren't interested in voting democrat, or voting at all. A bunch of Trump voters really just wanted someone who wasn't a politician, who would upset the apple cart. People didn't vote for him because he was one of many on the stage, and the "establishment vote" and "non-establishment vote" poles were already taken up. Plus he had literally zero name recognition. It's amazing he got as far as he did, honestly.

Yang was never going to win the nomination, but the theory is that if he had, then everyone would have found out who he was... and who he was was a very effective foil for Trump in terms of his platform and more importantly, his campaign style. That said, given how 2020 has gone, this was not an election cycle for an outsider with bold new ideas to win the nomination. That type of candidate needs relative normalcy so that they can dominate a substantial chunk of the media's attention, and make sure they're in front of eyeballs constantly. Not only is that impossible when there are multiple other major stories taking up everyone's attention, but when it's a pandemic, getting coverage is even harder than usual because you're stuck in your house.

Biden turned out to be pretty much the ideal candidate for the moment, at least among those on offer. He doesn't have to do much actual campaigning, which is a benefit given his age and his tendency to say weird things. Plus, he stands for a return to normalcy. "Doesn't this all pretty much suck? Don't you wish it was the way it was before all of this?" is a pretty good starting point for a campaign right now.

[driveway]

"Return to normalcy" was Warren Harding's winning campaign slogan in the election of 1920, in the immediate aftermath of World War 1 and the 1919 flu pandemic.

Harding was accused of malapropism in coining the term 'normalcy,' as opposed to 'normality.' Harding claimed his dictionary contained 'normalcy.'

How refreshing a debate that would be in 2020, instead of whom, exactly, are losers and suckers.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Hard to say what would have happened in the general election. The democratic primaries were basically over before Covid 19 took off. If there was no pandemic, it's not a stretch to think Trump would have won another term.

It's impossible to know who could have won given the election is largely a referendum on Trump's handling of the virus.

Pre-covid our geopolitical research provider was talking about the path to victory being PA, Michigan, Wisconsin and holding Minnesota and the other states Hilary won in 2016. They had Trump's odds at 50/50 despite being the incumbent and having a great economy. Post covid his chances dropped to 35%.

Trump's approval rating has been range bound for awhile. A drop below 42% approval amps up his rhetoric with China. After this weekend the election really ramps up. We've still got the "October surprise" to look forward too.

It looks like Trump could get things back to a coin flip, but that's not really the best place that you want to be as an incumbent.

[#-3]

I've gotta say that the whole it should have been _____, because people would have liked them more, and _____ is no good because some people don't like them. It's a terrible arguement rooted it this fantastical thinking that there is some magical cadidate who can appease every interest.

If Yang was the cadidate, we would be arguing about the rash choice of democrates to take on an unexpereinced minority with socialist tendancies, when they could have had the safe choice Joe Biden, who obviously would have swept the floor with Turmp. And that would have been equally useless as some imagined fantacy counter narrative on the internet.

If you are an American you have a choice in front of you, and there are really only 3 options available:
Donald Trump
Joe Biden
Differing to your neighbors.
Everything else is deflecting from the decision you have to make, and your obvious false equivalencies do little to hide the fact that you are affraid to make an easy decision.

[JohnnyB]

For quite a while now tracking the polls has basically been tracking the shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic. A dead democracy won't have outcomes reflecting the polling anyways. The real outcome in the US hinges on how successfully Trump bursts through the last remaining safeguards protecting America from authoritarianism.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by calgarybornnraised

So Yang is better because of betting odds? People didn’t vote for him, that’s your first tell

He was a better matchup against Trump specifically, due to his appeal to disaffected Republicans. Biden is more appealing among Democratic voters, but only Democratic voters (for the most part anyway) actually vote in Democratic primaries. That's the distinction you don't seem to be making here...

2nd is you think he’d pull Republicans off Trump? Have you met Trump voters? Their going nowhere,never mind voting for an Asian.

Not every Republican voter is the same. Have a look at the Lincoln Project for instance. Also, Trump won in 2016 due to his appeal to people in swing states who lost their jobs in recent years. They were in pain and looking for someone to give them a positive outlook for their future. Yang provides this more so than Biden, and he's also a caring person who doesn't have Trump's fascistic tendencies. Every time Yang speaks about his policies, he talks about the job losses due to automation, and he is mindful of the pain that job losses cause.

Originally Posted by New Era

Do you have a clue about what you're talking about? Betting odds? You do know that betting odds mean nothing. That only votes matter? It only matters if you are able to motivate voters to get to the polls. Again, Yang didn't even win the Asian demographic. He finished third with the people that should have rallied around him the most. Yang wasn't winning anything.

Yang's "freedom dividend" had zero chance of seeing the light of day. ZERO. Republicans saw this as socialism. They saw it as an expansion of government. They say it as an expansion of our national debt. The only way this would have worked is if there were massive tax increase, which Republicans would never have supported. More importantly, this never would have been supported by half the Democrats either. No one is going to sign on to a plan like that as a campaign cornerstone. It would have been suicide at the polls.

Yang wouldn't have stolen anything from the Republicans. This is just laughable to suggest as much. For all the reasons above Yang was not going to pull anything of significance from the Republican base.

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions here, but I was actually paying attention to the lines that bookies were making during the primary. At the time, Yang vs Trump was showing a line that favoured Yang more heavily than Biden was in the Biden vs Trump line. I wish I had taken a screenshot of it at the time.

Well, for starters, there's this: https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/ne...s-andrew-yang/

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

He was a better matchup against Trump specifically, due to his appeal to disaffected Republicans. Biden is more appealing among Democratic voters, but only Democratic voters (for the most part anyway) actually vote in Democratic primaries. That's the distinction you don't seem to be making here...

Any stats for this? Genuinely curious.

[Ped]

Trump's base has stayed pretty consistent despite the awful person he is and continues to be. I have a hard time seeing 10 percent of people who would or might vote for Trump, vote for Yang.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

This is why I'm asking you. Your coverage in most of the elections in regards to polling has always been interesting. I never paid much attention in 2016; in fact I remember logging in later in the evening and seeing that Trump had won and was completely shocked. Big reason that I never paid attention was because I actually thought Clinton had it in the bag, and spent too much time listening to what media said.

Seems the bigger issue is like you said the interpretation of the polls. And how the media covers the election in general.



https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...story-of-2016/

Since we are on the subject (or, I suppose, WERE on the subject a few hours ago... I’m slow) there were two new polls of Wisconsin released yesterday, one from GOP-affiliated pollster Rasmussen Reports and one from Morning Consult.

Both showed a similar picture: Biden ahead by single digits but polling over 50%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

These are pretty similar to where others have had the race—so
nothing too surprising. The vote intention numbers track very closely with the Approve/Disapprove numbers for the President, which is consistent with this being a “referendum” election rather than a “choice” election.

The other notable thing is that these are the 5th and 6th polls of Wisconsin voters. In 2016 there were only 4. We know there will be at least one more: I believe Marquette University will be releasing another in September. That will be an interesting one as in August MU had Biden ahead by just 5, and polling under 50 (49-44) with 6% still undecided.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

He was a better matchup against Trump specifically, due to his appeal to disaffected Republicans. Biden is more appealing among Democratic voters, but only Democratic voters (for the most part anyway) actually vote in Democratic primaries. That's the distinction you don't seem to be making here...

Not every Republican voter is the same. Have a look at the Lincoln Project for instance. Also, Trump won in 2016 due to his appeal to people in swing states who lost their jobs in recent years. They were in pain and looking for someone to give them a positive outlook for their future. Yang provides this more so than Biden, and he's also a caring person who doesn't have Trump's fascistic tendencies. Every time Yang speaks about his policies, he talks about the job losses due to automation, and he is mindful of the pain that job losses cause.

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions here, but I was actually paying attention to the lines that bookies were making during the primary. At the time, Yang vs Trump was showing a line that favoured Yang more heavily than Biden was in the Biden vs Trump line. I wish I had taken a screenshot of it at the time.

Well, for starters, there's this: https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/ne...s-andrew-yang/

As unfair as it may be I think the idea that a Chinese candidate could beat Trump when fear of China's accendency is what is galvinising most of this nativist idiocy and a return to politics as usual is the main wish of those opposed to Trump, not taking a chance on another non politician with no experience of Washington or Government.

I think the idea Yang is a serious candidate this cycle is absurd, if he wants to pay his political dues, maybe spend some time in the senate then run fair enough

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

He was a better matchup against Trump specifically, due to his appeal to disaffected Republicans. Biden is more appealing among Democratic voters, but only Democratic voters (for the most part anyway) actually vote in Democratic primaries. That's the distinction you don't seem to be making here...

Do you understand what you are saying? You have admitted that Biden is the farthest right of all the Democratic candidates but are suggesting a farther left candidate had the greatest chance to siphon off votes from disaffected Republicans. That doesn't make any sense. Biden represents their ideological leanings more accurately than any of the other Democrat candidates. He is trusted because he has the body of work to lean on and establish a pattern of behavior. To conservative voters this is really important. You're going to have to provide proof that Yang had support from Republicans, and they would have voted for him in the general, because your argument makes no sense at all.

And just so you understand something, people registering from the other party to participate in primary votes is a practice meant to increase support for weaker candidates and generate discord during the primary process. This is why primaries are closed, to prevent such interference.

Not every Republican voter is the same. Have a look at the Lincoln Project for instance. Also, Trump won in 2016 due to his appeal to people in swing states who lost their jobs in recent years. They were in pain and looking for someone to give them a positive outlook for their future. Yang provides this more so than Biden, and he's also a caring person who doesn't have Trump's fascistic tendencies. Every time Yang speaks about his policies, he talks about the job losses due to automation, and he is mindful of the pain that job losses cause.

And what exactly was Yang's response to this issue? What was his policy issue? To give people a monthly check. That doesn't solve the problem. That isn't a policy position. Policy positions actually try and answer the question and solve the underlying problem. Dude, this conversation is way beyond your grasp on politics, governance, and the American form of government.

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions here, but I was actually paying attention to the lines that bookies were making during the primary. At the time, Yang vs Trump was showing a line that favoured Yang more heavily than Biden was in the Biden vs Trump line. I wish I had taken a screenshot of it at the time.

Well, for starters, there's this: https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/ne...s-andrew-yang/

I'm making assumptions? You're using betting odds to backup your point, when betting odds have nothing to do with voting or the American system of government. That's making an assumption. How about looking at actual votes cast and polling preferences? Again, Yang didn't even carry the Asian vote, one demographic where he should have been strongest.

Betting odds are useless in predicting outcomes. Betting odds are nothing more than the reflection of people putting bets down against a possible outcome. For crying out loud, it even states in that article you posted that Biden was the candidate that Trump feared the most, meaning that;s the guy he didn't want to face.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

As unfair as it may be I think the idea that a Chinese candidate could beat Trump when fear of China's accendency is what is galvinising most of this nativist idiocy and a return to politics as usual is the main wish of those opposed to Trump, not taking a chance on another non politician with no experience of Washington or Government.

I think the idea Yang is a serious candidate this cycle is absurd, if he wants to pay his political dues, maybe spend some time in the senate then run fair enough

Pretty sure Yang's parents were Taiwanese, not Chinese (he himself is from New York), but it's certainly a fair point about the effect of COVID on the likelihood of people voting for a candidate like him in this cycle. That said, suggesting that Yang increase his electability by becoming a regular politician is missing the point spectacularly. If you wanted to develop him as a political prospect for the democrats in the future (and they should really be doing more of this), he'd be working for the White House in some capacity related to automation and technology regulation - which, of course, was his central policy issue, for anyone who had actually paid attention in the primaries. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where he ends up, although he may just prefer to go the media route.

In any event though, the Democrats have a succession plan in terms of the presidency now. The ideal scenario is 8 years of Joe followed by 8 years of Harris. Even if Joe only serves one term, they have their "guy", so to speak, for 12 years, if all goes to plan. If either of them loses an election in that period then all bets are off and we're back to the free-for-all we had this cycle, but until it sinks, the ship has sailed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, no, he is the former Vice President. Name recognition alone has him beating almost all the other candidates. And once they dropped out and endorsed him after Bernie won the first few primaries, and the majority of their supporters flocked to him, it was pretty much a done deal.

I do think it's clearly right that within the Democratic party, the Biden/Obama "wing" isn't so much a wing as it is the core of the party. Sanders's supporters make up a significant minority, but it's still a clear minority.

Being the best candidate to win the democratic primary, of course, doesn't mean you're the best candidate to win the general election. First of all, a relatively small, politically savvy subsection of the population votes in those primaries. The majority of the country isn't paying all that much attention in the early stages. Second, the people you're trying to get to vote for you are all democrats, and it helps to be a party insider in that regard. It's not unlike the leadership conventions up here - Erin O'Toole couldn't win the CPC leadership without making the kinds of noises that CPC party insiders like to hear about being a "true blue conservative". Now that he's got it, he'll pivot back towards the center. In fact, that process started the moment he got the job.

Azure does miss one thing, though, and that's that while Biden is clearly an establishment figure, he has a strong base of support among working class people, which, as a populist, is also one of Sanders' key strengths. He doesn't come across as fake or practiced, people tend to find him genuine. He also has a lot of appeal among black voters, particularly in the eastern part of the country, which is how he murdered Sanders in South Carolina, the first "big delegate" state and the last primary before Super Tuesday. So even if you believe that Sanders and Yang would have been good "general election" candidates (and I certainly see the rationale for that), you should be admitting that Biden is a pretty good one too, for many of the same reasons as Sanders in particular.

I agree for the most part. Biden is a good candidate in many of the areas that Obama won. I just don't believe he is strong enough of a candidate to beat Trump with everything going on.

There is a changing narrative in the US right now and I think a lot of people are blind to it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The majority of democratic voters preferred Biden over Yang in the primaries, that is true.

However, in a hypothetical Yang vs Trump matchup, Yang would perform way better than you think he would. During the primaries, Yang was actually a stronger favourite against Trump than Biden was, according to most betting odds. His appeal to disaffected voters in swing states comes from the fact that his Freedom Dividend would have helped ease the pain of those who lost their jobs to automation in recent years.

Who says Yang wouldn't have brought the party together? Centrist democrats would look at the two choices and, even if they didn't like Yang's proposals, the choice to vote out Trump would be an easy one. Meanwhile, Yang would be stealing a chunk of Republican voters away from Trump, because he offers them something that Biden doesn't.

Well in that regard Biden is considered a centrist as well. Moreso than Yang I think.

Its hilarious how people are getting so worked up over the fact that we would dare suggest that someone with fresh ideas and new perspective would have made a good candidate, or even had a chance of winning. Lanny is a great example of what is wrong with US politics and how the media and voters approach the election.

There is literally zero room for anything outside of the norm.