Board 8 > If given the option, which recent US presidential election would you flip?

(+) Yeah! (+)

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Okay, only one who hates him and still thinks that? Although thinking about it it is actually probably mostly his own supporters who "generalize" his detractors in such a way to make him look better.

"Bad hombres" and "grab em by the pussy'. I mean, not sure how much more racist and misogynist you are wanting. Both known things before the 2016 election too.

UltimaterializerX posted...

2004 is literally the only right answer here.

The only time in three decades a Republican won the popular vote.

I voted 2000

Tbf it's more like racism and misogyny are far from the worst things about Trump. Somehow.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Tbf it's more like racism and misogyny are far from the worst things about Trump. Somehow.

Him being a clown is far from the worst thing about Trump. His policies are actively dangerous and effectively hurting people.

That doesn't make sense, LMS hasn't been hurt at all

Ashethan posted...

Him being a clown is far from the worst thing about Trump. His policies are actively dangerous and effectively hurting people.

Oh sorry, I meant clown in the sense of not knowing what he's doing and being gung-ho...wow it's way worse than I thought. Also yeah I haven't lived in America since 2009, so all I remember from Trump's administration is just being amazed at what crazy antic he'd be up to next and then being happy Biden is content to be a "normal" President.

Xeybozn posted...

The deciding factor in 2016 was massive GOP gains in the Rust Belt and rural Midwest. That happened because they felt ignored and wanted a crazy outsider to shake up Washington. The thing is that Sanders also had that energy. I doubt he would have done any better than Hillary in the popular vote, but the regional trends would have make him the favorite to win the Electoral College.

The deciding factor was it being leaked that the DNC was favoring Hillary, who was an already unlikable candidate. After DWS resigned from her chair for the committee, enthusiasm was drained among dems.

Even so, she still might have won if not for a last minute FBI probe.

I can't believe we're debating this again but the actual deciding factor was that red states' votes are counted as more than blue states'.

That's it, you can stop there.

Kenri posted...

I can't believe we're debating this again but the actual deciding factor was that red states' votes are counted as more than blue states'.

That's it, you can stop there.

Yes, if we change the rules to something more appropriate then definitely, thats the deciding factor. Anyways, we are looking at the election as it is, not how it should be.

Just saying that it's insane to say something like "Clinton lost because she's an unlikable candidate" when the actual votes suggest she was more likeable than the other guy. Indicates to me that maybe that wasn't actually the problem.

Kenri posted...

Just saying that it's insane to say something like "Clinton lost because she's an unlikable candidate" when the actual votes suggest she was more likeable than the other guy. Indicates to me that maybe that wasn't actually the problem.

More like able than Trump is a very low bar to clear. A candidate with average like ability would have buried him.

Kenri posted...

Indicates to me that maybe that wasn't actually the problem.

How do you not see the logical fallacy? Being more likeable than one of the absolute least likable people on Earth does not mean you are likable.

Hillary defenders just have no sense of relative performance at all. Biden got more votes and higher voter turnout than anyone in history just by going against Trump. Literally Biden, the most non candidate ever.

So yeah, if Hillary only got a slight edge in popular vote against Trump, it does prove that she sucks ass.

foolm0r0n posted...

Being more likeable than one of the absolute least likable people on Earth does not mean you are likable.

No but if your opponent is less likeable than you are, why would being disliked cause you to lose? If being disliked is actually the difference maker then you would win in this situation.

foolm0r0n posted...

Hillary defenders just have no sense of relative performance at all. Biden got more votes and higher voter turnout than anyone in history just by going against Trump. Literally Biden, the most non candidate ever.

So yeah, if Hillary only got a slight edge in popular vote against Trump, it does prove that she sucks ass.

I dunno what post you're replying to but I am definitely not claiming whatever you think I am.

foolm0r0n posted...

Biden got more votes and higher voter turnout than anyone in history just by going against Trump.

Didn't Trump 2020 get the 2nd-most votes out of any candidate in history? Absolute votes aren't a good metric to use when population naturally increases over time. And Trump has always been a stronger candidate than people want to admit, even back in 2016.

Kenri posted...

No but if your opponent is less likeable than you are, why would being disliked cause you to lose? If being disliked is actually the difference maker then you would win in this situation.

Dude this makes no sense. The only way your logic works is it likability is the ONLY factor in the election.

It's obviously not. It's a small but significant portion of the equation.

My point about Biden is to show you how absurd the idea is that Hillary was a great candidate with no alternatives. Biden was an alternative who could and did destroy Trump. Bernie could've been too

KamikazePotato posted...

And Trump has always been a stronger candidate than people want to admit, even back in 2016.

Trump is super strong, but def not likable

KamikazePotato posted...

Didn't Trump 2020 get the 2nd-most votes out of any candidate in history? Absolute votes aren't a good metric to use when population naturally increases over time. And Trump has always been a stronger candidate than people want to admit, even back in 2016.

Yes. And Trump 2016 got the most votes of any Republican in history and only trailed Hillary and Obama (both) on the all-time list. (At the time, of course)

1. Biden 2020 - 81m
2. Trump 2020 - 74m
3. Obama 2008 - 69m
4. Obama 2012 - 66m.
5. Hillary 2016 - 66m (66,000ish votes behind Obama 2012)
6. Trump 2016 - 63m

foolm0r0n posted...

Dude this makes no sense. The only way your logic works is it likability is the ONLY factor in the election.

If you're gonna argue it's the deciding factor then yeah, it kinda is the only factor (that matters)! That's what deciding factor means!

foolm0r0n posted...

My point about Biden is to show you how absurd the idea is that Hillary was a great candidate with no alternatives.

Okay? I never claimed anything close to this so go ahead and show me how absurd it is, I guess. "Look, look! An absurd statement!"

Also, re: turnout rate. 2016 was up from 2012 (54.8% to 53.8%, voting age only) and if you control for the segment of the population barred from voting (felons, non-citizens, etc.) the increase goes up (59.2% to 58.0%)

2020 is second on the all-time list by % going back to 1936 but still trails 1960. (JFK > Nixon)

Obviously if you go by absolute raw votes it basically becomes a list of elections in order by recency because population growth and 2016 had the highest raw turnout ever at the time, beating 2008 (one of the rare cases where an earlier year edged out the next one) by over 5 million votes.

Kenri posted...

If you're gonna argue it's the deciding factor then yeah, it kinda is the only factor (that matters)! That's what deciding factor means!

No it doesn't lol......

If you lose by 1% then every factor greater than 1% is a deciding factor

foolm0r0n posted...

If you lose by 1% then every factor greater than 1% is a deciding factor

i need you to realize that this does not contradict what i'm saying (and in fact supports it)

the guy wasn't even saying that unlikeability was *the* deciding factor, just that it was a factor

Bloodychess posted...

The deciding factor was it being leaked that the DNC was favoring Hillary, who was an already unlikable candidate.

honestly the dnc being a deciding factor strikes me as crazy even controlling for the fact that the election was so close that basically any factor you can think of was probably a "deciding" one

foolm0r0n posted...

Dude this makes no sense. The only way your logic works is it likability is the ONLY factor in the election.

It's obviously not. It's a small but significant portion of the equation.

My point about Biden is to show you how absurd the idea is that Hillary was a great candidate with no alternatives. Biden was an alternative who could and did destroy Trump. Bernie could've been too

Given how small the margin was in 2016, and given how many Hillary-specific factors--unrelated to her bad campaigning--were potentially at play during the endgame of the 2016 election; and then given that Biden went on to win in 2020 against the same opponent Hillary lost to in 2016...I can understand (and agree with) the idea that Biden would have won the 2016 election against Trump. He has all of Hillary's positives, and none of the same drawbacks.

What I do not understand is the level of confidence that Bernie would have won in 2016. It's possible, sure. But so many factors make it seem like he would've lost harder than Hillary would have. If you want to call Hillary unlikable...then Bernie couldn't beat an unlikable candidate in a 1v1 situation. So I really don't GET the argument being made in his favor.

Seginustemple posted...

the guy wasn't even saying that unlikeability was *the* deciding factor, just that it was a factor

i mean it was literally phrased as "the deciding factor" but yes, granted

so is the argument here that trump was more likeable? or that it's actually bad to be slightly less unlikable than your opponent?

2020's vote total was a sign of society inescapably seeing a hero/asshole daily depending on who you ask and society inescapably recognizing the crisis of a pandemic which was affecting previously-normal daily behaviors. It was much more than just Biden > Hillary -- you just could not ignore there was an election in a much bigger way than usual.

I'll grant that before Donald announced his candidacy, Hillary was the least popular general election candidate to exist yet. However, swapping Hillary out for Biden probably isn't a 16,000,000-vote difference among Democrats against a common opponent. Likewise, switching out Hillary for Biden wouldn't normally gain 11,000,000 more votes for Donald.

Judging Donald as arguably the world's most written-about person and surviving the pandemic. That's mostly why 2020 had uniquely high vote totals.

clearly trump was more likable in the states needed to win, idk why hillary fans are still trying to catch a w for the popular vote

Seginustemple posted...

clearly trump was more likable in the states needed to win, idk why hillary fans are still trying to catch a w for the popular vote

Exceptionally weird post. Ignoring the fact that very few people here are actual Hillary fans - the popular vote is worth mentioning, repeatedly, again because it's a prime example of the tyranny of the minority that the US currently lives under. It isn't an issue that should be forgotten.

Inviso posted...

If you want to call Hillary unlikable...then Bernie couldn't beat an unlikable candidate in a 1v1 situation. So I really don't GET the argument being made in his favor.

You keep going back to this, but votes in the primaries literally don't tell you anything about how the candidate will perform in the general.

That's ignoring all the biased coverage and fuckery in the campaigns, lol.

I just think arguments about her 'likability' should be interpreted in the context of how the system actually works and not how it should work

Seginustemple posted...

clearly trump was more likable in the states needed to win, idk why hillary fans are still trying to catch a w for the popular vote

wow, this sounds a lot like:

Kenri posted...

the actual deciding factor was that red states' votes are counted as more than blue states'.

did you figure that out the day of the election?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You keep going back to this, but votes in the primaries literally don't tell you anything about how the candidate will perform in the general.

That's ignoring all the biased coverage and fuckery in the campaigns, lol.

Again. What is your evidence in Bernie's favor? Whenever this argument comes up, it always feels like "Bernie would've won because I think he would have." You can say the primaries and the general election are different, and I won't disagree with that...but those are the ONLY data points we have. Bernie couldn't outdraw a candidate that is constantly touted as extremely unlikable (or in the case of 2020, a candidate that wasn't inspiring anyone), so what makes you think that, assuming Bernie goes into the general election as the nominee, he is suddenly in a much stronger position to beat Trump than Hillary? I want to know what facts and evidence you have to support your gut feeling on this matter.

Seginustemple posted...

I just think arguments about her 'likability' should be interpreted in the context of how the system actually works and not how it should work

Very curious where your line is on this. If the rules were "the democrat must win all 50 states or the presidency will default to the republican" would you still refuse to recognize the actual problem, or is that too far?

Popular vote is good enough for every state with their in-state elections. I wish it was good enough for the nation, but nope -- gotta have a middle-man thumbing the scale for emptier states.

Just frustrating, especially when looking at the poll here. Seeing the two options with the popular vote winner losing the electoral vote clearly winning has NOT inspired me with confidence that the electoral college works right.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You keep going back to this, but votes in the primaries literally don't tell you anything about how the candidate will perform in the general.

That's ignoring all the biased coverage and fuckery in the campaigns, lol.

Yeah this is like using an ordinary poll of the day to predict contest results, come on lol.

Almost like America's institutions of democracy are badly outdated! While at the same time seeming so fundamental to the country's identity they're impossible to update. Gah.

Also when I likened Trump to a clown earlier I had The Joker in mind, not actual clowns. Sorry. Anyway yeah let's elect Lex Luthor president.

Right the notion some people somehow still need disabused of is the idea that Trump isnt an exceptionally popular republican, he just comes with a massive anti vote as well.

I think theres a big overcorrection for this on Trump. He failed to match Romneys share of the vote twice as well as either W. Bush vote share. However, at the same time he is not some chump either.

Inviso posted...

If you want to call Hillary unlikable...then Bernie couldn't beat an unlikable candidate in a 1v1 situation.

This is again the same fallacy of Ed and Kenri.

You're pointing out that:
(Hillary + Full support of Democrats) > (Bernie - Full opposition of Democrats)

Which is obviously true. But to get the conclusion that Hillary > Bernie is willfully ignorant. For that to be true, you're implicitly asserting that the Democrats were NOT giving huge support to Hillary and opposition to Bernie. That's the absurd part of the argument.

Especially since if you remember in 2016, the Democrats literally supported Trump more than Bernie. Trump was seen as a saboteur to the Republican party, and of course he was a friend of the Clintons who supported the Democrats for decades with millions of dollars. It was a decent strategy. Only later, way later and way too late, did they realize that he could actually beat Hillary soundly and how they Fd up.

So you have to imagine Bernie with the full support of the Democrats. It's a totally different equation to evaluate. It's also entirely a dream because I don't think the Democrats could ever give him full support, due to protest from their donors. But in the magical universe where it is possible, it's easy to see how he could beat Trump among the working class.

Kenri posted...

Very curious where your line is on this. If the rules were "the democrat must win all 50 states or the presidency will default to the republican" would you still refuse to recognize the actual problem, or is that too far?

If those were the rules and Hillary came out on the debate stage in blackface and killed an orphan child with her bare hands, would you still call her a great candidate who only lost because the rules were unfair?

Did she get more votes than her opponent in your scenario?

Or to put it another way, if her opponent wore blackface and killed 2 orphans, would you say orphan killing is why she lost?

Inviso posted...

Bernie couldn't outdraw a candidate that is constantly touted as extremely unlikable (or in the case of 2020, a candidate that wasn't inspiring anyone), so what makes you think that, assuming Bernie goes into the general election as the nominee, he is suddenly in a much stronger position to beat Trump than Hillary? I want to know what facts and evidence you have to support your gut feeling on this matter.

My "gut feeling" is that Hillary had 20 points more unfavourability and extremely narrow appeal.

I can't find more closer-dated polls, but we all know and talked about this back in 2016 so this should illustrate the point:

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/bernie-sanders-favorability-february-2016#republican-identification

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/hillary-clinton-favorability-october-2016#republican-identification

Bernie won upsets in the primaries in Wisconsin and Michigan on the backs of independent voters, and he won 70% of the independent voters in Pennsylvania.

If he won those states that Hillary flubbed, he would be President.

There are your "facts and evidence".

You can argue he was in a weaker position than Hillary if you believe more hardcore Hillary stans were going to vote for Trump than Bernie gained in Independents, but then you are validating the position of the Bernie voters who said Democrats and the DNC don't want their votes.

Kenri posted...

Very curious where your line is on this. If the rules were "the democrat must win all 50 states or the presidency will default to the republican" would you still refuse to recognize the actual problem, or is that too far?

Well I certainly wouldn't try to nominate Hillary Clinton in that scenario

The fact that you're still concerned about nominating "the right candidate" in that scenario tells me pretty much all I need to know!

Kenri posted...

Or to put it another way, if her opponent wore blackface and killed 2 orphans, would you say orphan killing is why she lost?

Of course, assuming we knew that orphan killing results in fewer votes.

This is another good example of your absurdity. You're saying that as long as the opponent kills 2+ orphans, then Hillary is totally absolved of any fault for killing 1 orphan. Like, what? Can't we just accept that killing any # of orphans hurts her chances?

Trump killed 2 Orphans
Hillary killed 1
Bernie killed 0

Bernie wins the "I like candidates who don't kill Orphans" vote where Hillary did not because the people who really wanted no Orphan murders abstained or voted independent. They're not interested in "lesser of two evils" votes.

Also Orphan murdering is probably a bigger factor in the results than Electoral College flaws

(which are slightly blown out of proportion-- the system is broken but not ridiculously so you're not flipping blowout losses with it)

Also hot take I don't think popular vote should actually win and the Electoral College system is better than a purely popular vote approach. Because every state is different and needs to have its issues represented rather than California and New York and Texas just godstomping vote results because more people live there. For an extreme example let's say in a hypothetical world let's say Japan was part of Hawaii-- do you think a far island country (state I suppose in the hypothetical) should control around 30% of the results when culturally and in terms of concerns it's completely different than most of the mainland US?

That being said the system is not perfect. Nebraska and Maine have a better system that splits the votes a bit based on districts (which Trump still beats Hillary under if the whole country uses it, albeit by less) though that isn't perfect either due to gerrymandering concerns.

Each state getting 2 votes for senators and population based representatives is definitely better than just raw popular vote though in the sense of helping the smaller states have a voice. Most people who whine about Electoral College probably don't even understand how it works and just know it can flip popular vote results and whine because of it.

And of course the irony of it all is Hillary arguably lost the election by trying to game the very Electoral College her supporters are all up in a huff about by mostly ignoring states she assumed she had a commanding lead in.