Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

agip wrote:

That's the most important set of numbers, and the most terrifying to most Dems.

The primary system is failing so far...it is choosing the hard left candidate even though the hard left is a small portion of the Dem party.

Part of this is that primaries attract extremists and part is that the moderate vote is split many ways.

I have no idea how this is going to resolve any better than now...BBerg is going to be on the ballot soon and that will split things yet another way.

Bernie has lost a lot of support from 2016 but since he is essentially the last lefty standing, he wins.

Truly the US has an awful voting scheme.

Sure, the process us awful because your candidate didn't win.

Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.

single wing wrote:

agip wrote:

That's the most important set of numbers, and the most terrifying to most Dems.

The primary system is failing so far...it is choosing the hard left candidate even though the hard left is a small portion of the Dem party.

Part of this is that primaries attract extremists and part is that the moderate vote is split many ways.

I have no idea how this is going to resolve any better than now...BBerg is going to be on the ballot soon and that will split things yet another way.

Bernie has lost a lot of support from 2016 but since he is essentially the last lefty standing, he wins.

Truly the US has an awful voting scheme.

Sure, the process us awful because your candidate didn't win.

Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.

please defend the primary process, with specifics, addressing my criticism of it.

agip wrote:

Truly the US has an awful voting scheme.

This is the voting scheme I think the US should have:

Open primaries. No political parties. Done in rounds.

Entry- Anyone gets on a general ballot with certain qualifications.

Qualifications are: A certain amount of names on a petition. A minimum of 1% national polling on an accepted aggregated poll of polls. Submission of personal taxes and finances for public release.

Feb 2 - All states vote. The top 10 vote getters regardless of party move on.

Apr 2 - All states vote. The top 4 vote getters regardless of party move on.

June 2 - All states vote. The top 2 regardless of party go on the ballot for the November general election.

This pretty much ensures no extreme candidates. It even allows two candidates from the same party in the final or even a third party.

And it guarantees the winner gets at least 50% of the popular vote since only two people make the final.

It still allows for the minority winner to win the majority of the electoral votes.

Strong support for Trump in NH:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQlZe38WoAAIMCe?format=jpg&name=small

#Trumplandslide

KAG2020

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Ciro wrote:

Obviously I want Trump to lose, but I expect him to win so there will be no surprise for me if he wins re-election. I also won’t be miserable as I’m not emotionally or personally invested in any of the candidates in the way you are. I will not spend endless hours, days and weeks trying to annoy people who question my candidate.

You won’t see me defend any of them or pivot my belief system just because a politician does. I’ll leave that to you.

If you expect trump to win reelection- none of libs here will call you stupid, dumb or an idiot, but when I say that, they all attack me relentlessly.

They save their anger for me, too funny.

We call you and Sally stupid, not for your political views, but because you post stuff that is not true, you both write in a way that tells us how stupid you are, and you say stupid things separate from your political views. Your support of Trump makes you a bad person. You are an idiot because your voluminous posting has told us that. Also, a person doesn't have to be angry to call you stupid. A person just has to be observant. That over there is a deciduous tree. Those two folks over there, Rigged and Sally, are stupid people. Just fact.

The article doesn’t address the anti-Semitic crossover between trump & bernie (presumably zero since bernie is a non-practicing Jew), nor the sexist crossover (presumably some HRC voters prefer a woman, opposite for the male candidates).

My point is that dems are a big tent & DNC needs to get it together and formulate a broader platform, which they did not do in 2016.

agip wrote:

single wing wrote:

Sure, the process us awful because your candidate didn't win.

Your lack of self-awareness amazes me.

please defend the primary process, with specifics, addressing my criticism of it.

I have no interest in defending the primary process. Political parties are private organizations and I do not believe they should be allowed to use the machinery of the state to run their nominating process. Political parties, as private organizations, should choose whatever process they want to nominate their candidates, as long as that process doesn't commandeer state resources and legitimacy.

It's cute, though, that you think you provided some comprehensive criticism of the process instead of just whining because the results didn't favor your beloved moderates. I didn't hear you criticize it when H. Clinton won, you were all behind its legitimacy then. You didn't criticize it when you thought it favored Biden. It's just motivated reasoning.

Meanwhile Barr & Trump are cheerleading for Roger Stone like he’s Jesus Christ.

single wing wrote:

agip wrote:

please defend the primary process, with specifics, addressing my criticism of it.

I have no interest in defending the primary process. Political parties are private organizations and I do not believe they should be allowed to use the machinery of the state to run their nominating process. Political parties, as private organizations, should choose whatever process they want to nominate their candidates, as long as that process doesn't commandeer state resources and legitimacy.

It's cute, though, that you think you provided some comprehensive criticism of the process instead of just whining because the results didn't favor your beloved moderates. I didn't hear you criticize it when H. Clinton won, you were all behind its legitimacy then. You didn't criticize it when you thought it favored Biden. It's just motivated reasoning.

ok understood that you prefer to snipe from an anonymous perch somewhere, without getting your hands dirty. But if you ever decide to condescend, to lower yourself to the playing field, I'd be glad to hear your views.

As for 2016, it was clear that the process did work. the preferred candidate got the most votes, the preferred candidate's views represented the party's voters well.

So far it is not working this year, by those standards.

Bernie is a suicide pact.

Gallup:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More than nine in 10 Americans say they would vote for a presidential candidate nominated by their party who happened to be black, Catholic, Hispanic, Jewish or a woman. Such willingness drops to eight in 10 for candidates who are evangelical Christians or are gays or lesbians. Between six and seven in 10 would vote for someone who is under 40 years of age, over 70, a Muslim or an atheist.

Just one group tested -- socialists -- receives majority opposition. Less than half of Americans, 45%, say they would vote for a socialist for president, while 53% say they would not.

jesseriley wrote:

The article doesn’t address the anti-Semitic crossover between trump & bernie (presumably zero since bernie is a non-practicing Jew), nor the sexist crossover (presumably some HRC voters prefer a woman, opposite for the male candidates).

My point is that dems are a big tent & DNC needs to get it together and formulate a broader platform, which they did not do in 2016.

You are right that the article does not investigate every possible reason somebody switched their vote between the primary and general.

It does show that the level of "Bernie Bros" that switched was not at all unusual and was in line with the amount of switching that we commonly see and that the "Bernie Bros are all Bernie or Bust" narrative is false. That is why I posted it.

Of course if the Dems want to win they would do best to appeal to as many voters as possible (and have a candidate who appeals to as many voters as possible).

agip wrote:

As for 2016, it was clear that the process did work. the preferred candidate got the most votes, the preferred candidate's views represented the party's voters well.

So far it is not working this year, by those standards.

This is a tautology. The preferred candidate always gets the most votes. There is no other way to measure the preferred candidate.

In other words, it is nonsense.

single wing wrote:

agip wrote:

As for 2016, it was clear that the process did work. the preferred candidate got the most votes, the preferred candidate's views represented the party's voters well.

So far it is not working this year, by those standards.

This is a tautology. The preferred candidate always gets the most votes. There is no other way to measure the preferred candidate.

In other words, it is nonsense.

ok. Point is that the candidate who won (HRC) represented the largest ideological blocks of voters in the Dem Party, she was not aided by a split vote, etc.

It was a clean primary. Centrism vs. leftism, and centrism won, resoundingly. The process worked.

Agree, “bernie or bust” isn’t real.

Meanwhile “trump or bust” is destroying us.

agip wrote:

single wing wrote:

This is a tautology. The preferred candidate always gets the most votes. There is no other way to measure the preferred candidate.

In other words, it is nonsense.

ok. Point is that the candidate who won (HRC) represented the largest ideological blocks of voters in the Dem Party, she was not aided by a split vote, etc.

It was a clean primary. Centrism vs. leftism, and centrism won, resoundingly. The process worked.

OK. Again, this is just motivated reasoning towards a particular outcome, not a process critique.

Are you arguing that only two candidates should be allowed to run? Or that the DNC should devise ideological lanes and only allow one candidate per lane?

The most popular candidate is going to win this year as well. It is a guarantee. It may end up being a "centrist" or it may be a progressive.

I think you've argued before that people don't vote on policy positions (which I largely, though not completely, agree with) so it is inconsistent for you to be arguing here that the process only works if the preferred policies (your preferred policies) win.

By somebody other than HRC you mean they voted for Trump. What’s more compelling are the ones who didn’t vote at all.

87% of Biden supporters will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

53% of Sanders supporters will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

But maybe four years isn’t enough for the Bernie or bust crowd to catch on. I’d wager most of them don’t have family or friends impacted by DACA or the Muslim travel ban. Do the right thing, be pragmatic if necessary.

agip wrote:

single wing wrote:

This is a tautology. The preferred candidate always gets the most votes. There is no other way to measure the preferred candidate.

In other words, it is nonsense.

ok. Point is that the candidate who won (HRC) represented the largest ideological blocks of voters in the Dem Party, she was not aided by a split vote, etc.

It was a clean primary. Centrism vs. leftism, and centrism won, resoundingly. The process worked.

Tulsi disagrees.

Wikileaks disagrees.

Pocahontas disagrees.

Crazy Bernie disagrees.

It was rigged.....for Hillary.

single wing wrote:

agip wrote:

As for 2016, it was clear that the process did work. the preferred candidate got the most votes, the preferred candidate's views represented the party's voters well.

So far it is not working this year, by those standards.

This is a tautology. The preferred candidate always gets the most votes. There is no other way to measure the preferred candidate.

In other words, it is nonsense.

This isn't necessarily true and it's a problem with pluralities. It also depends on how you define "preferred."

See also : the electoral college

jesseriley wrote:

Agree, “bernie or bust” isn’t real.

Meanwhile “trump or bust” is destroying us.

It is real, only 53% of Bernie backers will vote to whoever the Dems nominate against Trump.

From talking with you I bet you’ll get out and vote if Sanders is on the ballot but won’t bother for another candidate because Arkansas is solidly red anyway.