The GoP?

[hobbsyoyo]

Here's an article that NPR ran showing about 12% of Bernie voters from the primaries ended up voting for Trump in the general. I actually knew a guy that did that but he's not a liberal and I didn't think the number of defections was that high so I discounted it as a big possibility. There are some graphs that break down how Bernie primary voters voted in the general, which includes a bar for non-voters, but to be honest the graphs aren't formatted in a way that I can make sense of them. But it seems reasonable that if the number of Bernie-to-Trump voters was that high, probably a higher share just didn't vote since there were probably more leftists in his voting block than alt-republican voters.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

This article suggests that non-voters tended to be more likely to have been registered Democrats than Republicans and also younger than old, both points which lend some credence to the notion that the more progressive wing was less motivated to turn out in 2016 and did so in bigger numbers relative to the total pie of voters.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

The data isn't super clear-cut and I've already copped to the fact that my argument is mostly based on anecdote. But what little data there is does seem to lend at least some credence to my hypothesis.

 

[Patine]

Here's an article that NPR ran showing about 12% of Bernie voters from the primaries ended up voting for Trump in the general. I actually knew a guy that did that but he's not a liberal and I didn't think the number of defections was that high so I discounted it as a big possibility. There are some graphs that break down how Bernie primary voters voted in the general, which includes a bar for non-voters, but to be honest the graphs aren't formatted in a way that I can make sense of them. But it seems reasonable that if the number of Bernie-to-Trump voters was that high, probably a higher share just didn't vote since there were probably more leftists in his voting block than alt-republican voters.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/5458...voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

This article suggests that non-voters tended to be more likely to have been registered Democrats than Republicans and also younger than old, both points which lend some credence to the notion that the more progressive wing was less motivated to turn out in 2016 and did so in bigger numbers relative to the total pie of voters.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

The data isn't super clear-cut and I've already copped to the fact that my argument is mostly based on anecdote. But what little data there is does seem to lend at least some credence to my hypothesis.

Such a sad state of affairs of Sanders supporters voting for Trump. Another example of the corrupt, rigged Duopoly cheating votes and elections against. If Americans truly want to "Make America Great Again," and restore their liberty, prosperity, and government of the people, by the people, and for people, two things have to go in their entirety - the Republican Party of the United States and the Democratic Party of the United States. These are the two biggest things holding your nation down and pushing it's decline as a civilization.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To be fair to Bernie and leftists, I don't think the crossover voters were truly leftists/progressives themselves and instead wanted a transformational candidate of one stripe or the other above all other considerations.

 

[Patine]

To be fair to Bernie and leftists, I don't think the crossover voters were truly leftists/progressives themselves and instead wanted a transformational candidate of one stripe or the other above all other considerations.

I had no idea that "Die Linke" was a contender of a party in the United States. But all of this of a substantial, unified, and solid political bloc that's always called "the Left" but doesn't seem to appear on any American ballots makes me think there's a distortion of information at some point along the line.

 

[Zardnaar]

To be fair to Bernie and leftists, I don't think the crossover voters were truly leftists/progressives themselves and instead wanted a transformational candidate of one stripe or the other above all other considerations.

This and Trump didn't campaign like a normal Republican. Alot of his speeches were using left wing ideas.

He was full of crap, but Bernie and Trump were the anti establishment candidates.

Only 40 000 people have to change their minds in 3 states and he is goneburger.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

20 millionaires in the Senate changing their minds would be the end of him as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

20 millionaires in the Senate changing their minds would be the end of him as well.

True but I doubt it.

 

[Lexicus]

The data isn't super clear-cut and I've already copped to the fact that my argument is mostly based on anecdote. But what little data there is does seem to lend at least some credence to my hypothesis.

The problem with this argument is that a higher proportion (~25%) of Hillary Clinton's voters went for McCain in 2008. Obama won that election by a lot; but had he lost, somehow I doubt we'd have been hearing about crusty old moderates ruining everything by refusing to vote for a transformative candidate promising big things. Like I've said before: if the Democrats nominate a centrist candidate and the left doesn't turn out, it's the left's fault, but if we nominate a leftish candidate and the moderates don't turn out it's also the left's fault.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well I guess we'll have to finally nominate a real leftist and see what happens.

 

[Lexicus]

Well I guess we'll have to finally nominate a real leftist and see what happens.

I'm still guessing Biden's gonna win. If nothing changes his support among black voters in the southern states will get him the nomination, especially if the rest of the country is split e.g. between Warren and Sanders.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We're still a long way out and it is too soon to really call it. I think Warren is going to come out on top and I sort of expect her to pick Buttigieg as her running mate if she does.

 

[Lexicus]

We're still a long way out and it is too soon to really call it. I think Warren is going to come out on top and I sort of expect her to pick Buttigieg as her running mate if she does.

Ugh, I hope not. That would be a strong signal that @innonimatu was correct and she will end up another Clinton.

 

[innonimatu]

Ugh, I hope not. That would be a strong signal that @innonimatu was correct and she will end up another Clinton.

If you don't end up with the real Clinton...

 

[Broken_Erika]

Ugh, I hope not. That would be a strong signal that @innonimatu was correct and she will end up another Clinton.

If you don't end up with the real Clinton...

After winning the presidency, Warren takes off her mask revealing that she is Hillary in disguise. Then most democrats in the senate and house also take off their masks revealing that the entire party has been taken over by an army of Hillary Clones!

 

[innonimatu]

Not that bad

But I won't exclude the DNC saying that they have too many contenders and trying to push Clinton as some kind of "unity candidate". And that would be no laughing matter for american politics!

 

[Lexicus]

But I won't exclude the DNC saying that they have too many contenders and trying to push Clinton as some kind of "unity candidate". And that would be no laughing matter for american politics!

@Sommerswerd thinks that their trying this and failing would be the best thing that could possibly happen for the Democrats.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Sommerswerd thinks that their trying this and failing would be the best thing that could possibly happen for the Democrats.

I still think so. In fact, given how the Democratic primary has gone so far, I am even more convinced that Hillary entering the primary and losing would give a powerful enthusiasm boost to whoever emerged as the primary winner. Even Joe Biden would achieve folk-hero like status if he were to fend off another Hillary coronation... to say nothing of how EPIC it would be for Sanders or Warren to do so, in terms of interest and excitement for the Democratic primary. Bernie or whoever would become an instant rock-star on Obama-esque level if they were to defeat Hillary.

I mean I think its too late at this point logistically, but the Democrats desperately need something to turn one of these candidates into a 66 million vote candidate. Remember that Hillary got 65.8 million votes and lost. Only Obama has topped that number. So the Democrats literally need someone who motivates Obama level turnout to win... and I just don't see that with any of the current candidates.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We're still a long way out and it is too soon to really call it. I think Warren is going to come out on top and I sort of expect her to pick Buttigieg as her running mate if she does.

That's the mistake that Hillary made. If Warren (or Bernie) wins, they should to pick someone inspirational not someone "safe" to draw in moderates. In fact, since Bootyjudge is gay, he would arguably be even weaker in this regard because he's too moderate to inspire the liberal voters and too gay to inspire the moderates.

Also @Lexicus , I know you disagree, but I get the feeling that Warren is more likely to be a flaming liberal who is pretending to be moderate to increase her perceived "electability", who will go hard left once in office, than a seekwet moderate in liberal's clothing.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's rough to have to compare candidates in the light of Obama's campaigns. He was unstoppable all the way through the general well before the primary was truly underway. Cycle 12 years and there's going to be a lot of people up to 34ish who have really warped ideas of how this usually goes.

 

[Ferocitus]

Bernie's only chance is if he doesn't even so much as sneeze for the next 13 months.
Or if his supporters can pull off a Weekend at Bernie's like stunt.