You’re right, there are confounding factors. But these are useful indicators directionally and when we extrapolate them across large populations, they can be predictive. It was a good indicator for Obama that he overperformed Kerry in IL in 04 and a good sign for AOC that she crushed Kamala in NY
kamala got 47.8% of the vote in north carolina but josh stein got 54.9% for governor of north carolina! this means josh stein should run for president! i am a fucking buffoon!
There is no point in arguing with people about this. These people will tell you over and over that Bernie sanders-like candidates would trounce everyone even though they never do and basically every dem that wins in tough districts is a centrist dem and not Bernie like
I think you’re right. It’s sad because I want the same policies they do, but I get nothing but personal attacks for pointing out that most voters don’t agree with us.
Agreed. Dems should try and advance universal health care bc it’s a good thing to do, but the idea that it’s a slam dunk winner electorally couldn’t be further from the truth
there's no point in takling with people about this. These people will tell you over and over that hillary like candidates will win this time and then eat shit
Look inward for what? We haven’t had the chance to have any real impact. You keep running your head into the wall against an eighty year old buffoon and then turn around and say it’s never your fault
Harris got no votes in Vermont in the only election in which she ran against Sanders, the 2020 primary, because she had to drop out before primaries started due to being immensely unpopular
I think it’s because there were other appealing candidates running against sanders, while the only person running against Harris is deeply unpopular in Vermont.
How dumb to you have to be to think a 1% difference means anything in comparing politicians who weren’t competing against each other?
A lot of political scientists think it’s useful, but I’m open to the suggestion that is just a dumb profession.
I also think the rightward tilt of the electorate elsewhere is relevant. He won with 70%+ in VT in 2012 and 67% in 2018. This all points to declining popularity to me.
Why do you think cherry picking through non comparable election results is more useful data than the many polls suggesting Sanders would have beaten Trump?
I think he’s hurt his credibility a lot in the past four years stumping for Biden and waffling between opposing or supporting the genocide in Gaza. But also no one thought the senate race would be close, whereas people were (rightfully) concerned about Trump winning.
kamala wasn't running against bernie. when she did she was so unpopular she didn't even make it far enough to challenge him in his own state, which he easily won
To put it simply, it seems clear to me that in Vermont:
• Bernie would have got more votes than Harris against Trump
• Harris would have gotten fewer votes than Bernie against Gerald Malloy (Bernie's opponent).
Also, because there's no polling about these random hypotheticals, my opinion is based on:
their popularity in the 2020 primary, campaigning skills, home turf, their relative popularity (against trump or otherwise)
All of which makes it seem extremely clear
I guess. Of the people who voted (the only thing that actually matters despite what people say on socials), more of them voted for Kamala than for Bernie.
AOC crushed Kamala in NY. This is evidence we should pay attention to!
our governor (phil scott) is a republican. he is also to the left of the current day democratic national party on a ton of things. as a result, he regularly has an approval rating in like the 80s.
you don't know anything about vermont politics. so maybe stop trying to use any of it as a dunk?
Vermont had democrat Steve Barry run as an Independent, he got 2.2% pretty obvious spoiler effect. But more importantly long tenured Senators like Sanders basically don’t even bother to campaign I wouldn’t get too in the weeds about a 1.1 difference
Comments
it's getting embarrassing watching you still pushing this same line of thought over and over and failing each time
please just listen to people for a bit
How dumb to you have to be to think a 1% difference means anything in comparing politicians who weren’t competing against each other?
I also think the rightward tilt of the electorate elsewhere is relevant. He won with 70%+ in VT in 2012 and 67% in 2018. This all points to declining popularity to me.
The latter is irrelevant if we are trying to extrapolate nationally. Walter Mondale beat Reagan in MN in 1984 and was otherwise obliterated.
• Bernie would have got more votes than Harris against Trump
• Harris would have gotten fewer votes than Bernie against Gerald Malloy (Bernie's opponent).
Also, because there's no polling about these random hypotheticals, my opinion is based on:
their popularity in the 2020 primary, campaigning skills, home turf, their relative popularity (against trump or otherwise)
All of which makes it seem extremely clear
AOC crushed Kamala in NY. This is evidence we should pay attention to!
we just also have non-shitstain candidates that run from all parties (including republican, a lot of the time)
do you feel like it's winning hearts and minds or something? or do you just crave centrism and need it to be more popular than it is
you don't know anything about vermont politics. so maybe stop trying to use any of it as a dunk?
Bernie lost the Dem nomination twice. It’s time to move on.