OFFICIAL Biden thread, since it looks like he's getting in

[begooode]

3 hours ago, oldschool said:

you can ignore wg53 on politics. he's just another angry millennial who doesn't understand the electorate. Biden doesn't excite anyone but he appeals to the moderates in swing state like no other candidate. I actually think Sanders would lose to Trump. There are too many dumb rednecks who would bow to an all out assault on Sanders being a socialist; I worry about Warren falling prey to the same right wing fake news blitz. Biden is immune to to such tactics for better or worse. His weakness is excitability and whether the lack of it will overtake his electability argument. 

I think a lot of the dems and independents in swing states hate Trump, too, and will turnout. so the electability argument is too diluted.

 

That said, I worry most about Bernie, because he literally has socialist on his name and he, not warren is probably the most divisive. But I could be wrong. Regarding republican tactics, they’re locked and loaded to discredit Jesus if they had to. Plus they have a base who feed mightily off of the agitation. They will be there in full force and faux outrage. We have to ensure the Dem + independents are ready match their fury.

Edited August 24, 2019 by begooode

[begooode]

16 minutes ago, oldschool said:

its called human psychology. We prefer things that are comfortable and that holds more true the less intelligent one is. Look it up.  

I’m familiar with the concept, but I think it’s weakly applied here. Look up “name recognition effect” for a premature poll and I think you’ll have a better answer.

[IsntLifeFunny]

23 hours ago, begooode said:

 

I really dont don’t care what happened to you in 2016 and how awesome your call was and how well you handled the Trump presidency. And this bullshit expert fallacy you’re trying to project now doesn’t give you attack dog InstaCred. Get over yourself. 

 

You haven’t grasped or believed anything I’ve posted, so I’d feel it a waste of my time to answer your questions. My same suggestion from yesterday holds — read the research yourself and draw your own conclusions. She apparently is active on Twitter, so knock yourself out. I don’t think her hyper partisan model was even active back then, but again, do your own research. 

I don’t think that’s Rogue’s line at all. He’s usually better at explaining his position than this, but I think his passion on the subject has left him lacking some clarity.

 

I read the original study you posted and agree with it. Independents are no longer the true barometer; how well the party can get out the vote has become more important. It makes a lot of sense when you think about how partisan everything has become. 

 

Where I do agree with Rogue is the point that Dems cannot take this type of information and use it to become complacent: IE not volunteer, promote, and donate. 

 

This is entirely different than 2016. Clinton was an awful candidate with an historically terrible slogan. Still, I see the point in saying any statistical analysis, while worthwhile, means little when many of the same studies showed Clinton winning with a 95% probability. 

 

One of the problems I constantly see with the Democrats/Liberals is exactly the same thing taking place here. Dems will argue logic into minutiae while Republicans are lock stock and two smoking barrels. 

[Starkiller]

I don't think you are going to need to worry about Democratic complacency in 2020...

[IsntLifeFunny]

@Rogue

 

Just because Trump beat the odds does not mean the odds don’t exist. It also doesn’t mean when the odds are beat that they become worthless. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

5 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

I don't think you are going to need to worry about Democratic complacency in 2020...

Nope. The problem is the fact the entire election hinges on basically four states. The rest of them are likely glued in (maybe not, but probably). I don’t see Dems not turning out, but I could see a situation where not enough turn out in the key swing states. 

[begooode]

12 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

This is entirely different than 2016. Clinton was an awful candidate with an historically terrible slogan. Still, I see the point in saying any statistical analysis, while worthwhile, means little when many of the same studies showed Clinton winning with a 95% probability. 

This is not true, and in this generalization is where people can purposefully dismiss helpful insight. 

[Rogue]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

@Rogue

 

Just because Trump beat the odds does not mean the odds don’t exist. It also doesn’t mean when the odds are beat that they become worthless. 

Why test the odds again by over confidence in victory?  Wouldn't the odds increase by making every voter know that Trump can win without their vote? 

[begooode]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Nope. The problem is the fact the entire election hinges on basically four states. The rest of them are likely glued in (maybe not, but probably). I don’t see Dems not turning out, but I could see a situation where not enough turn out in the key swing states. 

Only if Trump resigns, imo.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, begooode said:

This is not true, and in this generalization is where people can purposefully dismiss helpful insight. 

I mean similar in nature, not in terms of the science. The point stands on its own. Just because this model predicted seats flipping does not mean it is correct on a presidential election where the popular vote doesn’t count. 

 

There’s no need to argue semantics with me. Like I said, I agree with the study, its basis, and its conclusion. 

[Rogue]

18 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I don’t think that’s Rogue’s line at all. He’s usually better at explaining his position than this, but I think his passion on the subject has left him lacking some clarity.

 

I read the original study you posted and agree with it. Independents are no longer the true barometer; how well the party can get out the vote has become more important. It makes a lot of sense when you think about how partisan everything has become. 

 

Where I do agree with Rogue is the point that Dems cannot take this type of information and use it to become complacent: IE not volunteer, promote, and donate. 

 

This is entirely different than 2016. Clinton was an awful candidate with an historically terrible slogan. Still, I see the point in saying any statistical analysis, while worthwhile, means little when many of the same studies showed Clinton winning with a 95% probability. 

 

One of the problems I constantly see with the Democrats/Liberals is exactly the same thing taking place here. Dems will argue logic into minutiae while Republicans are lock stock and two smoking barrels. 

Yeah, I was a little lit, but dismayed that we've got people with over a year left before the election confident in victory.  They don't even know who the candidate is.  

 

There cannot be a single potential voter think their vote won't matter.  

[IsntLifeFunny]

2 minutes ago, begooode said:

Only if Trump resigns, imo.

Exactly. The point being made is that politics is an incomplete science. The fear being presented by Rogue is one done with genuine concern and not one of condescension. Lighten up. We are all on the same team when it comes to the point of getting rid of this motherfucker. 

[begooode]

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I mean similar in nature, not in terms of the science. The point stands on its own. Just because this model predicted seats flipping does not mean it is correct on a presidential election where the popular vote doesn’t count. 

 

There’s no need to argue semantics with me. Like I said, I agree with the study, its basis, and its conclusion. 

No ones arguing semantics.  But if you agree with it, you shouldn’t minimize it.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Just now, begooode said:

No ones arguing semantics.  But if you agree with it, you shouldn’t minimize it.

The semantics is the fact that political science is not science. They don’t work the same way. I’ve said, and will say again, I read the study you posted and agree with it. It is not diminishing the study to say it is an inexact science. Democrats need to pull together under a candidate and take this seriously. I’m not sure how that could even be argued with. 

[Rogue]

3 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I mean similar in nature, not in terms of the science. The point stands on its own. Just because this model predicted seats flipping does not mean it is correct on a presidential election where the popular vote doesn’t count. 

 

There’s no need to argue semantics with me. Like I said, I agree with the study, its basis, and its conclusion. 

I'd be perfectly happy if her assessment is correct.  I don't even doubt it.  I just don't want a single voter feeling they don't have to because it's in the bag.   

 

I've not read her address that in anything I've seen from her.  So there's a "node" missing.