You tell me what you think you learned, because from my perspective, it's literally impossible to point to any one reason why a candidate lost by less than 100k votes in a national election given the countless variables at play.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
You tell me what you think you learned, because from my perspective, it's literally impossible to point to any one reason why a candidate lost by less than 100k votes in a national election given the countless variables at play.
I think "we" learn absolutely nothing from centrist losses and leftist ones always lead to "they need to capitulate more to the powers that be"
It's pretty easy to learn a lesson when there's 3 million points of data that explain it. Much harder from <100,000
I said nothing about "capitulating to the power that be" (whoever that is). Like I said, the policies are popular, the issue is the candidate. If you can't unify around a "Democratic establishment" candidate with the exact same policies as Bernie in the future, that's on you.
Working from within is essentially the nicer way of saying this, unless you think "working from within" means that you never have to contend with the donor class and their flunkies within the party that have a vested interest in stopping leftist policy.
Warren was the candidate who tried to do exactly what youre talking about and she was an abject disaster this race. She came in 3rd in her own home state and never even finished 2nd.
Exactly.
Because she was everybody's 2nd or 3rd choice and not enough people's first. Biden was sitting on top of the moderate wing that liked Warren, Sanders was sitting on top of the progressive wing that liked her.
Well we learned that people voted for Bernie out of the hate that they had for Hillary, especially since there was nobody else.
Hillary was not going to get voters out for her.
The last big controversy right before the election that they were going to open the case about the emails again ended it.
Shows that Trump is not unstoppable and that Bernie is starting to see the real amount of support in states if he wasn't against Hillary.
And yet those voters who are not the donor class, who would benefit the most from progressive policies, mostly voted for Biden. If that doesn't tell you that "revolution" is a losing strategy, I don't know what I can say to convince you.
Sexism.
Progressives unified behind Bernie.
Warren was the best candidate this primary. Had Bernie not run, she would've stood a good chance of winning the primary imo.
Are we calling the plurality of primary voting progressives sexist now? What about the moderates she should be able to win over by working from the inside?
Honestly I think you underestimate how many would have went for Castro and others, hell Marianne might still be here if Bernie wasn't.
Yes, and no one wanted a candidate talking about unity or compromise. Which is why she was everyone's 2nd or 3rd choice. Dems wants to continue coalescing around their moderate party darlings to win the primary battle while losing the general war because it means things stay the same. I think what can be said is a true progressive candidate is going to have incredible difficulty in winning the democratic primary, while the moderate candidates that win aren't going to win general elections.
the best candidate was the one who didnt even manage to get better than 3rd? Ok... I think were done talking about learning lessons here.
Don't put words in my mouth. Sexism/misogyny is a major issue that continues to this day in our country, particularly when it comes to national politics.
If Warren was a man she could've walked away with the nomination. A future Obama-like candidate with Bernie's policies would bulldoze a future primary.
that you shouldn't nominate the runner up from the last primary
The problem with this line of reasoning is it assumes Bernie is the best progressives can do.
He's not. His campaign made a ton of mistakes that could have been addressed but were not.
And Biden's gonna win in November.
Um where did I say that? Or that he didn't make mistakes and couldn't have done better?
And you all said the same thing in 2016. You don't know that.
User Banned (1 week): ignoring the modpost in regards to hostility
Not gonna mince words: This is a real braindead reading of an election that came down to <100,000 votes across three states (and would be so even ignoring Comey's interference two weeks before election day).
This is ironic given the topic at hand is about learning lessons lol.
We all said Biden will win in November 2016?
I'll totally agree with you that anyone who made that statement was clearly wrong.
Crazy seeing a mod constantly just shit posting like this in politics threads. You know what I meant.
Let's hope he does, but saying "He's going to win in November" is just pointless and over confident right now. He's got 8 months to survive politically and who the fuck knows what kind of country we're even looking at by then with how volatile 2020 continues to across the board.
Like holy shit, this is counting your chickens before the mother hen was even born. One step at a time, JFC.
I mean, if you want to say baseless shit that flies in the face of evidence to the contrary (we have the House because a whole bunch of moderates, not progressives, won in 2018, in areas Clinton lost in 2016) there's nothing I can do to stop you.
This seems incredibly cynical, obviously sexism is a factor but your analysis has some real horribly pessimistic implications for those that subscribe to electability politics.
I said she lost, which is factual tho? And we were talking about the general for the WH, which has what to do with midterms? Moderates have been holding the L since the turn of the 21st century trying to win the WH.
For like maybe a decade at best until eco-fascism starts fucking us over lol.
Or actually do the work instread of bitching and moaning about everything being against you when you continously fail for the exact same reasons?
Nah. That'd be too much like right.
It's less ridiculous than declaring he will lose. At least we have some data that points to his probable victory.
But sure, the future is not set.
I'm just lost as to how its baseless. DId I miss where a moderate won the WH since 2000, that campigned as a moderate? If by baseless you mean every single moderate candidate running on a moderate platform lost and proves my point as meaning baseless than sure, its baseless.
I made the comment because some important health official on that stage just said "embrace the system", "we need these public-privates partnerships". idk why I needed to post a 10 step plan to electing socialists.
Obama absolutely ran as a moderate.
I know, I worked on his campaign.
Yes hope and change is the apothesis of the liberal moderates lol. Obama did not run as a moderate. And frankly, I don't believe you. Nor is it really relevant.
If Biden loses in November the electorate really needs to consider their ideas of "electability". At that point you have to change the primary process in ways that gets you successful general election candidates.
and there are only 3 other races in this sample
2 of which the moderate won the popular vote
I don't think its a mistake or that they don't know. Its precisely that they know. And that they'd rather lose with their guy than the possibility of winning with a progressive attacking so much of what they stand for.
Why did he dismantle all of his grassroots organization after he won?
He didn't, it became Organizing for America and was operated out of the DNC HQ in DC.
You have a sample size of three. Moreover, y'all consider Obama a centrist and he ran on continuing his own policies in 2012. Hell, he ran on a platform arguanly to the right of Clinton's in 2008 and his platforms in 2008 and 2012 were definitely to the right of Clinton's 2016 platform.
That aside, I reiterate, you have a sample size of 3.
You didn't need to post one. I posted one. To you, in fact. You never did reply, though.
I agree. The Democratic Party is an incrementalist party at its core and they will choose a loss rather than a win in those kinds of scenarios, because it's less disruptive to the party leadership and donors.
ugh cause this isn't the thread for that. it's massively OT!
edit: Oh shit. this is the thread for that. I thought this was the press conference thread. 🤦♂️
He didn't run on a centrist campaign tho. He ran on hope and change, and pushing healthcare which was nowhere near a moderate position.
I understand my sample size isn't huge. But its better than having nothing accounting for the last 20 years to try and argue your point about the nation's climate for choosing presidents.
The people of each state are voting, can somebody explain how you guys want to discredit that ??
The people are voting on who they want to take on Trump, I just don't understand how the majority of of people can vote on a person yet you think someone that keeps losing will win versus Trump.
*shrug* Being cynical about it doesn't make it any less true. The double-standard exists, and pretending it doesn't won't make it go away.
- Status