purplerat wrote:

Byron wrote:
Clinton, by contrast, pretended to be someone else, and fooled no-one.

no-one or 68 million. Same diff.

They weren't fooled, they knew exactly what she was: a neoliberal with a genuine belief in identity politics (to the extent compatible with her political ambition).

The people she didn't fool were those in the Rust Belt, who knew that Clinton's a globalist to her core, and however unlikely it was that Trump could follow through on his promise to get their jobs back, a slim chance was better than none.

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

Byron wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Byron wrote:
Clinton, by contrast, pretended to be someone else, and fooled no-one.

no-one or 68 million. Same diff.

They weren't fooled, they knew exactly what she was: a neoliberal with a genuine belief in identity politics (to the extent compatible with her political ambition).

The people she didn't fool were those in the Rust Belt, who knew that Clinton's a globalist to her core, and however unlikely it was that Trump could follow through on his promise to get their jobs back, a slim chance was better than none.

Please provide a citation that that was why those in the Rust Belt did not vote for her?

purplerat wrote:But at the end of the day Bernie may very well have received millions of more votes in the general election, but most would have been from deep blue states and made not a lick of difference. It still would have come down to a handful of rust belt states and the question of whether Sanders could have outperformed Clinton in those states. Maybe he could have. He would have needed to basically run the table in those states and given the primary results in those states it's highly questionable and certainly far from a given.

I know I ask this often, but how do you extrapolate from the primary results in those states to chances in the general?

Does it involve assuming that Clinton's advantage over Sanders amongst Democratic primary voters would have been replicated amongst independent voters?

willhud9 wrote:[...]

Byron wrote:Agree that this is, now, about the Dems dropping their current corporatist agenda. For the reason Lak gives, doubt we'll be feeling the Bern in '20, but Sanders points the way forward. Get serious on repatriating jobs and manufacturing, DNC, or make Trump a two-termer.

A pipe dream and goes to show that you too Byron have no clue how job markets work. Manufacturing is a dying job market. [...]

I know exactly how the current job market works: America (along with the rest of the developed world) must compete with nations that can ruthlessly undercut American workers, regardless of costs and labor laws. Specialized manufacturing can survive in the West, but the basic kind? Fuggedaboutit.

Trump rose 'cause a deliberate policy choice -- the post-WW2 global trade regime driven by the Chicago School's bastardized revival of Gilded Age robber baron capitalism -- is treated as inevitable and irreversible, when it's neither. You're thinking within the current paradigm, where those screwed over by it want to forge a new one.

As they rightly ask, why should they endlessly "retrain" and move about for ever-diminishing returns? Only to have to retrain, and be uprooted again, a few years down the line. This market-driven dislocation isn't sustainable, and destroys communities. The more they're told There Is No Alternative, the more determined they'll be to find one, and vote its advocates into power.

Shrunk wrote:

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

There are three groups of voters. Candidates A is slightly ahead of Candidate B in the first group, Candidate B has a large lead in the (similarly sized) second group, and both do equally poorly in the third group. Who will win? Candidate B, right?

The primaries are run amongst only a subset of the population. If that subset of the population is representative of the general electorate, then any advantage one candidate has in the primaries will be replicated in the general, but it's not guaranteed that the primary electorate WILL be representative of the general electorate. That's an assumption that needs to be tested. And it WAS testied in general election polls that broke down results by party affiliation. Clinton's small lead amongst Democrats was NOT replicated amongst independent voters, where Sanders had a huge advantage.

So the simple answer to your question of how a candidate could lose the primaries but do better in the general is that to do so that candidate would have to poll better amongst those voters who didn't vote in the primaries. It's not rocket science.

It's like saying you can't see how a Canadian political party could lose in Alberta but still win a federal election. That's because the Canadian electorate isn't just Albertsa, just as the US electorate isn't just primary voters.

willhud9 wrote:Please provide a citation that that was why those in the Rust Belt did not vote for her?

Protectionism was Trump's over-riding message (from immigration to tariffs), and it can by inferred from a country-by-country analysis of the Rust Belt. Prediction's also a neat way to test a hypothesis: I predicted that Trump would win by flipping the Rust Belt (bar Pennsylvania, where I screwed up the numbers), and lo, he did.

Shrunk wrote:

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

Slanted audience. Many primaries were closed contests, and even open primaries were overseen by a machine to which Sanders was an outsider. In closed primaries especially, a selective electorate has little bearing on the general. If, for whatever tripped-out reason, Clinton had entered the GOP race, she'd have lost every primary by a landslide -- but we wouldn't say that's ruled her out of the general, would we?

Yep, there's no guarantee that subsets of a population will be representative. Saying that:

Shrunk wrote:The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

makes as much sense as saying that you can't see how Clinton could have lost amongst under35's in the primaries, but still won the nomination. When Shrunk says he can't see how a candidate could perform differently amongst two different electorates, all I take from that is that he can't see it, because it's plainly possible, and indeed so common as to be utterly unremarkable.

It's becoming more and more possible that the election was swayed by Russian action.

Honestly the damage that was done to Clinton, it's not surprising she's still not recovered rofl. Is it really surprising to anyone?

willhud9 wrote:

crank wrote:

Byron wrote:Yup, behind her, Clinton dragged a flotilla of garbage scows from which her opponents could shovel dirt at their leisure. This was wholly predictable, which is why, despite waiting on that crystal ball, I predicted the general result back in 2015, including Trump wheeling out the women who accused Slick Willy of all manner of violent felonies.

What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew). However much dirt the alt-right and their GOP enablers threw, it had to stick, or it'd rebound on them, further stinking up their own campaign.

And while they're throwing it, Sanders could've rebutted at length with the embarrassment of riches Trump gave him, a pot of gold that Clinton couldn't dip into without inviting comparison with her own record. Sanders could've still lost, sure, but unlike Clinton, he had a chance.

He had a chance. I sure as hell would never say Bernie would have won, how many are saying that outright? I don't think Hillary had no chance, only that Bernie most likely had a better one. The GOP attack machine is quite capable, it helps that they feel no constraints like taste, class, truth, etc. And then, Bernie was quite good at protecting himself and giving back, as you say. The whole tenor of the campaign would have been drastically different, and trying to form counterfactuals never results in anything real in the best of circumstances short of the trite, like if I had turned off spell-check, my posts would appear far more idiotic. That these same BS arguments keep popping up is crazy, as is Dims thinking they'll do better next time if they push the same agenda even harder.

What agenda? That the economy is getting better? It was. That civil rights were being extended to more people? It was. LGBTQ people saw the greatest strives in American history these past 4 years and the issue was being brought to attention in regards to police brutality and BLM.

The people who voted for Trump instead of Clinton in the places that matter i.e. the Rust Belt fell into the agenda that manufacturing jobs could be brought back to the USA.

The reality is it is cheaper to manufacture goods across the US border. Manufacturers realize this and know that it makes their products cheaper. Textile companies realize making their clothes outside of the US and US labor laws means they can sell their pair of jeans for $19.99 vs $35.99. The vast majority of Americans want cheaper, affordable consumer goods. Well they can't get cheaper goods if it costs more to make then to sell. But even all of that considering, it takes fewer people to run an assembly line than it did 10-20 years ago. It takes fewer people to run a manufacturing plant than it did 10-20 years ago. Cost effective technologies have made it easier to assemble parts and manufactured goods so that means less people needed. Welcome to the manufacturing "crisis."

You list a bunch of social issues, yes, the Dims are on the right side there, but then you say the economy is getting better, that's v v v true for the elite, but how true is it for most folks? And you want to tout Hillary wrt to BLM? Really? Hillary backed TTP, er, did before she realized how bad that went and changed her stance, but few believed she changed her mind, or expected her to actually oppose it if elected.

I don't want to argue this anymore, that Hillary was a corporate and TPP shill, a war monger, hard-core law&order type, an Israel enabler and supplier, and a host of other non-liberal, untenable positions isn't a question, the evidence is plain, as is the baggage carried as seen by a shitload of the dims and Independents. If the Dims don't change their direction, they're fucked, their only hope is from the Orange One, who can fuck up so bad that the Dims will win by the usual back and forth sloshing of the American electorate, but sent to record levels of slosh because Trump, so anyone with a pulse could win.

OlivierK wrote:

purplerat wrote:But at the end of the day Bernie may very well have received millions of more votes in the general election, but most would have been from deep blue states and made not a lick of difference. It still would have come down to a handful of rust belt states and the question of whether Sanders could have outperformed Clinton in those states. Maybe he could have. He would have needed to basically run the table in those states and given the primary results in those states it's highly questionable and certainly far from a given.

I know I ask this often, but how do you extrapolate from the primary results in those states to chances in the general?

Does it involve assuming that Clinton's advantage over Sanders amongst Democratic primary voters would have been replicated amongst independent voters?

Some of those primaries were open primaries. And even those that weren't, left-leaning votes tend to be registered democrats which sways the pool to the left.

All the talk about how great Bernie was amongst Independents and those who couldn't vote in close primaries/caucuses yet in reality the states he did best in were those most restricted. And lets face it, had he won all the primaries in those rust belt states you'd be pointing to that as evidence that he would have done better than Clinton there.

Byron wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

Slanted audience. Many primaries were closed contests, and even open primaries were overseen by a machine to which Sanders was an outsider. In closed primaries especially, a selective electorate has little bearing on the general. If, for whatever tripped-out reason, Clinton had entered the GOP race, she'd have lost every primary by a landslide -- but we wouldn't say that's ruled her out of the general, would we?

Except Sanders did his best in closed primaries and caucuses. Clinton had her largest victories in open primaries.

This has been pointed out repeatedly yet some seem to think repeating this myth will make it true. I'd blame such behaviour on Trumps influence but this one has been going on longer than he's been in charge.

purplerat wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

purplerat wrote:But at the end of the day Bernie may very well have received millions of more votes in the general election, but most would have been from deep blue states and made not a lick of difference. It still would have come down to a handful of rust belt states and the question of whether Sanders could have outperformed Clinton in those states. Maybe he could have. He would have needed to basically run the table in those states and given the primary results in those states it's highly questionable and certainly far from a given.

I know I ask this often, but how do you extrapolate from the primary results in those states to chances in the general?

Does it involve assuming that Clinton's advantage over Sanders amongst Democratic primary voters would have been replicated amongst independent voters?

Some of those primaries were open primaries. And even those that weren't, left-leaning votes tend to be registered democrats which sways the pool to the left.

All the talk about how great Bernie was amongst Independents and those who couldn't vote in close primaries/caucuses yet in reality the states he did best in were those most restricted. And lets face it, had he won all the primaries in those rust belt states you'd be pointing to that as evidence that he would have done better than Clinton there.

If I ever do that, you can pull me up on it, and if I ever did that during the campaign you can quote me, and I'll apologize for it. I'm a mathematician by training, and this is such an elementary logical error that it grates on me. Given that it's a bit of pet hate, I doubt you'll find me falling into that trap.

Edit - made another point but realised I'd misread your post.

OlivierK wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

There are three groups of voters. Candidates A is slightly ahead of Candidate B in the first group, Candidate B has a large lead in the (similarly sized) second group, and both do equally poorly in the third group. Who will win? Candidate B, right?

The primaries are run amongst only a subset of the population. If that subset of the population is representative of the general electorate, then any advantage one candidate has in the primaries will be replicated in the general, but it's not guaranteed that the primary electorate WILL be representative of the general electorate. That's an assumption that needs to be tested. And it WAS testied in general election polls that broke down results by party affiliation. Clinton's small lead amongst Democrats was NOT replicated amongst independent voters, where Sanders had a huge advantage.

So the simple answer to your question of how a candidate could lose the primaries but do better in the general is that to do so that candidate would have to poll better amongst those voters who didn't vote in the primaries. It's not rocket science.

It's like saying you can't see how a Canadian political party could lose in Alberta but still win a federal election. That's because the Canadian electorate isn't just Albertsa, just as the US electorate isn't just primary voters.

That's not what I was asking. I know that he could have won. I'm questioning those who say he would have. That he lost handily among the subpopulation of voters who would be most likely to support a progressive candidate is an argument against that.

Article on the perils of interpreting "independent" voters to literally. As it turned out, the prognostication of the article turned out to be erroneous. But it remains only assumption that Sanders would have done better among "true" independents.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sa ... ependents/

No Democrat would have won. The Russians would have seen to that.

OlivierK wrote:

purplerat wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

purplerat wrote:But at the end of the day Bernie may very well have received millions of more votes in the general election, but most would have been from deep blue states and made not a lick of difference. It still would have come down to a handful of rust belt states and the question of whether Sanders could have outperformed Clinton in those states. Maybe he could have. He would have needed to basically run the table in those states and given the primary results in those states it's highly questionable and certainly far from a given.

I know I ask this often, but how do you extrapolate from the primary results in those states to chances in the general?

Does it involve assuming that Clinton's advantage over Sanders amongst Democratic primary voters would have been replicated amongst independent voters?

Some of those primaries were open primaries. And even those that weren't, left-leaning votes tend to be registered democrats which sways the pool to the left.

All the talk about how great Bernie was amongst Independents and those who couldn't vote in close primaries/caucuses yet in reality the states he did best in were those most restricted. And lets face it, had he won all the primaries in those rust belt states you'd be pointing to that as evidence that he would have done better than Clinton there.

If I ever do that, you can pull me up on it, and if I ever did that during the campaign you can quote me, and I'll apologize for it. I'm a mathematician by training, and this is such an elementary logical error that it grates on me. Given that it's a bit of pet hate, I doubt you'll find me falling into that trap.

Edit - made another point but realised I'd misread your post.

Fair enough, I do believe you personally wouldn't have said that. But others would. In fact they do when it's not even true. Simply look at the repeated claim that Sanders was hurt by contests which were too exclusive to party insiders and did better when races were open to independents. That's not even true and yet people keep on citing it in support of the idea that he would have done significantly better in the general election (in terms of actually winning).

I do apologize for lumping you into that group. I do recall that I found all or most of your comments on the topic during the election very insightful even when I may have disagreed with them so it was unfair of me to direct that comment at "you".

So are you fellas regurgitating the previous debates about Sanders or is there anything new and exciting for which I should read this thread?

Just another re-hash job.

purplerat wrote:

Byron wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Byron wrote:What of Sanders? The worst I've been able to find is that, when riled, he's a cranky SOB in Burlington (which everyone already knew), he voted for that crime bill, and he's described himself as a socialist (which, again, everyone knew).

The worst is that he lost the primaries. I still don't see the logic by which he could lose those, but would have won the general election.

Slanted audience. Many primaries were closed contests, and even open primaries were overseen by a machine to which Sanders was an outsider. In closed primaries especially, a selective electorate has little bearing on the general. If, for whatever tripped-out reason, Clinton had entered the GOP race, she'd have lost every primary by a landslide -- but we wouldn't say that's ruled her out of the general, would we?

Except Sanders did his best in closed primaries and caucuses. Clinton had her largest victories in open primaries.

This has been pointed out repeatedly yet some seem to think repeating this myth will make it true. I'd blame such behaviour on Trumps influence but this one has been going on longer than he's been in charge.

You have to consider where and when he won/lost also. There was also the issue of which states had same day registrations, vs. those with a 6month prior expectation. Simplistic explanations are obfuscations. They prevent nuanced discussions. Don't forget voter purges also. They affected Sanders in the primary just as crosscheck affected Clinton in the general. The issue is complicated. It's hard to argue that Trump would have beat sanders in NY or California, and Sanders message re: working people in the rust belt would have allowed people to not have to hold their nose at trumps racism. Sanders in Florida would have been my biggest question mark.